Performance Issues? GTX 1070

I would just remind you that movies (film) still runs at 24 fps and it is a pretty awesome simulation of real movement.

Video runs at 30fps (or something like 29.9)

So... why do you need 60 again?

Does it make the thoroughly smooth movement look smoother?

That aside, I run a similar rig, but I'm not overclocked.

Mine is i7 3.3Ghz with 1070.

I run around 45 fps, I think, and that is at the top for 1080 (crazy, I think).

It might have something to do with the overclock.

I've heard rumors AShes doesn't like overclock.

If I had to guess I'd probably point to the RAM. This game really likes high bandwidth RAM.

My brother was doing some testing on Ashes as he bought a R9 Fury recently and wanted to compare results to his old card. He has DDR4 3000Mhz RAM. He did his benches but then noticed his RAM was only running at 2133Mhz so after setting it back to 3000Mhz he did the benches again. The difference was about 3-7 FPS I believe, depending on the type of batches. That is a very significant boost just from a RAM speed increase, a lot of games wouldn't show that. The difference over your 1600Mhz RAM will be that much greater.

I think DX12 might be more RAM sensitive too? I know that in dx12 exclusive mGPU mode Ashes is very RAM intense, needing 16GB of RAM. There was also a discussion between a few 2xGTX1080 users on the Steam forum a while back where they found the RAM bandwidth made a huge difference, like, at least double what my brother got. A Dev even came on in that thread and said the game loves high bandwidth RAM.

Anyway, that's my guess

If you have 4 RAM slots and 2 RAM sticks then make sure the RAM sticks are not side by side. They should be in slots 1 and 3, or 2 and 4, to take advantage of Dual Channel configuration, which is faster.

You could also try overclocking your RAM temporarily to see if that made a difference. 

Thank you for the information!  I ordered 2400Mhz RAM today, hoping that will help.  My current RAM BSODs when I try to overclock from even 1600 to 1800.  So I think my RAM is not a good contender for OC'ing.  I'm pretty sure I have them in dual channel configuration, but I will triple check when I get home.  

Thank you so much!  

For gaming, 30+ is playable.  Below that, the framerate is too jumpy for me to enjoy.  My monitor's refresh rate is 60Hz, so obtaining 60 FPS makes the experience much more fluid and enjoyable.  

The 24 FPS thing is a trick that 120/240Hz TV's use to blend photos together and refresh the screen in a way that makes the picture look very realistic due to the fact that films are captured at 24 FPS.  This idea is great for movies, but doesn't translate to gaming performance.  

Try to not overclock anything and try it again.

Okay, verdict is in and the results seem to indicate that I'm an idiot.

I didn't have my RAM in the dual channel slots. After moving a single RAM stick one slot over for the dual channel config, my FPS in Ashes bounced up to 60 FPS with the "Extreme" graphics settings. D'oh.

Let us know how the new ram goes when it arrives. Curious to find out now

Excellent. Tbh you might want to cancel that faster RAM now...I'd feel bad if you spent that money and it didn't make a difference now. In the example I gave for my brother I should have pointed out he was testing at 4K resolution (and I'd guess the people with 2x1080s were too), so it is possible the extra bandwidth makes more of a difference the higher the resolution. Certainly if your card now performs in Ashes to a similar level that others with the same card achieve then the faster RAM is likely not necessary.

Makes me wonder how many other people have their RAM in wrong as its not the first time I've come across it (hence I thought of it) and it is an easy mistake to make.

Sigh. What you're describing doesn't seem very relevant.

The same essential principles have been used for a REALLY long time to create the impression of very fluid movement.

The same tricks we use today were used in Victorian era toys, magic lanterns, flip books, and early animation.

Movies and TV -- same again.

And videogames -- same again.

It has little to do with technology and everything to do with how our bodies respond to sequences of images being flashed before us at 1/24th of a second or 1/30th of a second. 

At the end of the day, we can't process that fast, and we end up "interpreting" the sequence as movement.  

If I recall from my film school days, the two key principles are "persistence of vision" (physiological) and the "phi phenomena" (psychological). 

Seriously.

24fps should be smooth as silk.

In many cases, this is literally what you see when you pay $15 to go to the movies -- and I doubt you EVER complain that it is jaggy.

30fps (60 fields) is exactly what people watched for years on TV -- and I'm pretty sure still do -- and I've NEVER heard anyone complain broadcasts are/were jaggy.

No clue why games would be any different. 

They are operating on the same animation principles. 

If you ever work in Adobe Flash, you should see what I mean.

As long as you aren't shifting an object by 20,000 pixels every 24th of a second -- and nothing in ashes moves remotely that fast, as far as I know -- the movement should be pretty fluid. 

In my experience, 18-20 fps is where it starts to break down.

Higher than that, and you should be looking at something that appears pretty damn fluid.  

Unless you're superhuman. 

I just don't get the fps fetish. Makes zero sense to me. 

How do you get more fluid than the perfect illusion of continuous real world movement?!

I don't understand!!!

But glad that OP now runs at 70fps, I guess???

(Certainly a good thing to know that dual channel is now working, at any rate. This DOES make a difference.  )

[edit]

[edit]

[edit]

NOTE: Sorry about above posts. For some reason, it seems like my Mac is bugging out. When I click edit, it is adding duplicate posts. And I can't delete them.

I suspect the OP might be thinking much the same about your contribution to this thread. The very first sentence in your initial reply started to derail the thread onto what appears to be an area of strong opinion to yourself but irrelevant to the OP

His system was under performing, it is natural to want the best performance after spending a considerable sum of money. And it was well worth investigating as it is the very best kind of solutions, it is free, easy to implement, and not only did it significantly improve performance in Ashes but will likely improve performance in other games and his whole system in general.

Fair point, but I did try to address his concerns too.

Pointed at overclock issue, which I have read about in several places.

Also pointed at my own specs as point of comparison.

True, apologies if my response was too strong.

Unless it is throttling, unlikely in a desktop, overclocking will possibly cause the game to freeze or crash etc. but I don't believe it will worsen performance.