As the title suggests, this is something that's been on my mind recently. Are there any rates/proportions relevant to how mat_viewportscale values impact fps? What's the difference in fps boost from 1.0 to 0.75 to 0.5? Is the fps boost significant, or negligible?
mat_viewportscale - does it really increase fps?
posted in
Q/A Help
As the title suggests, this is something that's been on my mind recently. Are there any rates/proportions relevant to how mat_viewportscale values impact fps? What's the difference in fps boost from 1.0 to 0.75 to 0.5? Is the fps boost significant, or negligible?
It's about the same as changing your resolution; that is to say, some people will see benefits and some people won't. Mat_viewportscale has the advantage of rendering HUD elements at full-resolution, but it is slightly blurrier than actually running at a lower resolution.
I personally have very poor performance all-around, and the resolution doesn't affect my framerate benchmarks in TF2. However, running at lower resolutions does feel smoother, and seems to cause less overheating.
It's about the same as changing your resolution; that is to say, some people will see benefits and some people won't. Mat_viewportscale has the advantage of rendering HUD elements at full-resolution, but it is slightly blurrier than actually running at a lower resolution.
I personally have very poor performance all-around, and the resolution doesn't affect my framerate benchmarks in TF2. However, running at lower resolutions does feel smoother, and seems to cause less overheating.
I personally have very poor performance all-around, and the resolution doesn't affect my framerate benchmarks in TF2. However, running at lower resolutions does feel smoother, and seems to cause less overheating.
Most people seemed to have no luck with this cvar. In terms of resolution the only main thing seems to change things is aspect ratio and not the resolution itself. Usually the lower the FOV the higher the fps with same aspect ratios across low to high resolutions of the same category pretty much giving the same results performance wise
Most people seemed to have no luck with this cvar. In terms of resolution the only main thing seems to change things is aspect ratio and not the resolution itself. Usually the lower the FOV the higher the fps with same aspect ratios across low to high resolutions of the same category pretty much giving the same results performance wise
it will increase fps when your gpu is the bottleneck. this is almost never the case because tf2 eats cpus
it will increase fps when your gpu is the bottleneck. this is almost never the case because tf2 eats cpus
billwit will increase fps when your gpu is the bottleneck. this is almost never the case because tf2 eats cpus
Players with integrated GPUs ex. "Intel HD 4000" usually can see substantial improvements to framerate by using lower resolutions or port scaling. Players with dedicated GPUs will rarely see such bottlenecks.
Still though why would someone who's never posted before feel the need to sign in to say this on a thread that hasn't seen a post in 2+ years?
boxxyfor me it seems to make fps fluctuate less
[quote=billw]it will increase fps when your gpu is the bottleneck. this is almost never the case because tf2 eats cpus[/quote]
Players with integrated GPUs ex. "Intel HD 4000" usually can see substantial improvements to framerate by using lower resolutions or port scaling. Players with dedicated GPUs will rarely see such bottlenecks.
Still though why would someone who's never posted before feel the need to sign in to say this on a thread that hasn't seen a post in 2+ years?
[quote=boxxy]for me it seems to make fps fluctuate less[/quote]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU[/youtube]
Players with integrated GPUs ex. "Intel HD 4000" usually can see substantial improvements to framerate by using lower resolutions or port scaling. Players with dedicated GPUs will rarely see such bottlenecks.
Still though why would someone who's never posted before feel the need to sign in to say this on a thread that hasn't seen a post in 2+ years?
[quote=boxxy]for me it seems to make fps fluctuate less[/quote]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU[/youtube]
Mines at 0.75 and it seems to have a slight effect on fps. Also disable spectre protection for an additional 20fps
Mines at 0.75 and it seems to have a slight effect on fps. Also disable spectre protection for an additional 20fps
On an NVIDIA optimus system using Windows 7 with default driver settings i've seen FPS increases with lower mat_viewportscale values. But once you use NVIDIA profile inspector and change shim rendering mode to "SHIM_RENDERING_OPTIONS_ENABLE_DWM_ASYNC_PRESENT" i no longer see this behaviour and avg framerates are increased by a lot.
But I still see FPS scaling with lower resolutions, with avg FPS increasing by about 15 at lower resolutions. Probably because I have slow memory.
On an NVIDIA optimus system using Windows 7 with default driver settings i've seen FPS increases with lower mat_viewportscale values. But once you use NVIDIA profile inspector and change shim rendering mode to "SHIM_RENDERING_OPTIONS_ENABLE_DWM_ASYNC_PRESENT" i no longer see this behaviour and avg framerates are increased by a lot.
But I still see FPS scaling with lower resolutions, with avg FPS increasing by about 15 at lower resolutions. Probably because I have slow memory.
But I still see FPS scaling with lower resolutions, with avg FPS increasing by about 15 at lower resolutions. Probably because I have slow memory.
FakeOn an NVIDIA optimus system using Windows 7 with default driver settings i've seen FPS increases with lower mat_viewportscale values. But once you use NVIDIA profile inspector and change shim rendering mode to "SHIM_RENDERING_OPTIONS_ENABLE_DWM_ASYNC_PRESENT" i no longer see this behaviour and avg framerates are increased by a lot.
But I still see FPS scaling with lower resolutions, with avg FPS increasing by about 15 at lower resolutions. Probably because I have slow memory.
probably mostly from narrower aspect ratios and thus FOVs
1440x1080 (4:3) should result in a higher framerate than 1280x720 (16:9) because FOV is ~16 degrees less.
Now if you're getting better frames via viewportscaling I'll be surprised and assumed you probably have something configured wrong or a really bad gpu. For example a i5-4690k at 4.5GHz with a AMD R9 380 doesn't become GPU bottlenecked until I try forcing Antialiasing MSAA at either the 32x or 64x step with the default resolution of 1920x1080 which at 32x would equate to a resolution of 15360 x 8640
[quote=Fake]On an NVIDIA optimus system using Windows 7 with default driver settings i've seen FPS increases with lower mat_viewportscale values. But once you use NVIDIA profile inspector and change shim rendering mode to "SHIM_RENDERING_OPTIONS_ENABLE_DWM_ASYNC_PRESENT" i no longer see this behaviour and avg framerates are increased by a lot.
But I still see FPS scaling with lower resolutions, with avg FPS increasing by about 15 at lower resolutions. Probably because I have slow memory.[/quote]
probably mostly from narrower aspect ratios and thus FOVs
1440x1080 (4:3) should result in a higher framerate than 1280x720 (16:9) because FOV is ~16 degrees less.
Now if you're getting better frames via viewportscaling I'll be surprised and assumed you probably have something configured wrong or a really bad gpu. For example a i5-4690k at 4.5GHz with a AMD R9 380 doesn't become GPU bottlenecked until I try forcing Antialiasing MSAA at either the 32x or 64x step with the default resolution of 1920x1080 which at 32x would equate to a resolution of 15360 x 8640
But I still see FPS scaling with lower resolutions, with avg FPS increasing by about 15 at lower resolutions. Probably because I have slow memory.[/quote]
probably mostly from narrower aspect ratios and thus FOVs
1440x1080 (4:3) should result in a higher framerate than 1280x720 (16:9) because FOV is ~16 degrees less.
Now if you're getting better frames via viewportscaling I'll be surprised and assumed you probably have something configured wrong or a really bad gpu. For example a i5-4690k at 4.5GHz with a AMD R9 380 doesn't become GPU bottlenecked until I try forcing Antialiasing MSAA at either the 32x or 64x step with the default resolution of 1920x1080 which at 32x would equate to a resolution of 15360 x 8640
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.