So basically this is lowering excess FPS to lessen the load on the CPU if I understand this properly. Having 100 FPS is too much ,then you bring it closer to 60 and you have less of a CPU bottleneck.
My question is how can you do this, other than raising Resolution? What about capping your frames? Or does that not work? Excess frames are still rendered in the “background”. Or is this not the case? What else can be done to lower excess frames? Raising graphics settings should be another.
If you don’t have a high refresh monitor, V-sync would be an option.
I believe you can also set the fps with the steam “Launch Options” in the “Properties” menu of whatever game you choose by entering the following command and replacing the ** with whatever number you are shooting for.
–set /Config/CONFIG/maxFpsValue **
I had to do this in the past when games would cap my 75hz monitor to 60 with VSync. That was a couple years ago now so it’s possible they changed it to something else.
Capping the FPS without v-sync is an option and it works to reduce the load on the CPU. Also, if the option is available, you can use the in-game scaler to increase the render resolution without changing the monitor resolution.
Unoptimized games that heavily load a single thread will still be common nowadays (especially on Unreal Engine 4) so you want to leave single core turbos as high as possible. That’s unavoidable at any resolution if the render thread is a single thread.
With Freesync, you can set your Freesync cap with CRU so you can limit the Freesync range to ease some of the CPU stress, but remember the single threaded nature of most games.
I keep a ‘vastly underclocked’ preset in afterburner for playing older games.
Why pump out 300fps when you are on a 60fps panel.
in most games atleast you just check mark the V-sync. that would do it.
basically the way it work is the more frames you show the more CPU you use, the higher resolution you you show the lower FPS, and thus lower cpu utilization, but higher gpu.
So telling your game to hinder itself to %30 or %60 or what ever it is these days, your cpu does’nt have to so many calculations, since there is lower fps.
Problem is, i’ll be buying a 144Hz monitor. 
I really don’t wanna start thread after thread… but sheesh. What was with Gamersnexus saying the 9600K is bad for Far Cry 5. Because single threads? So 8700K would be better?
) you can cap the FPS at whatever you like. with chill you can even cap it lower when there is no user input.It’s often a matter of perspective. Many Reviewers will compare to “the best” tool for the job. So yeah, the 9600K might be “worse” in that single scenario than a 8700K. But that’s irrelevant if you’re coming from an i3 or Bulldozer…
Determin first how specific your usecase is (if all you do is play Far Cry 5, then you can plan acordingly) and if you want “the best” for that usecase, or “good enough” but cheaper.
FInally, a lot of the benchmark results aren’t relevant in the real world, as they run in clean environments. A 4 core intel chip might rip on games, but that could quickly end as soon as you open a twitch stream or Youtube Video on the side.
It’s also sometimes a case of comparing what you can get for the money, taking into account 1 and 0.1% lows.
The 9600k, whilst getting higher max and average frame rate on a lot of stuff also suffers (as do many low core count CPUs these days) from horrific 1% lows when something goes off in the background.
And i don’t know about you, but i get far more annoyed when the frame rate drops to 10-20 fps for a second or less than i do when it drops from say 100 to 90, or just maxes out at 90 instead of 120 (but remains more stable).
This trend will only continue as newer APIs and game engines can make use of more threads, and there is more background shit going on, on newer PCs.
Why would you wanna lower FPS? Laptop (smaller cooler)?
Because the CPU can’t keep up with the GPU
One thing I liked about the Titanfall 1 game is they would tell you “This setting effects CPU” or “This setting effects GPU”
Also games are so different, my kids A10-7870K with a GTX 1060:
CSGO the cpu is maxed out and the GPU works at 70%, by knocking down a few settings I could fix that easily
DOOM 2016 the GPU is maxed out and the cpu stays much cooler
WAHHAHA! Saw a video of Pentium 4 running Doom with adequate graphics. The GPU is fine. But CPU is enough for about 40 or so FPS. Still impressive. Q6600? Doesn’t break a sweat. What a fantastic job they did with the engine. Holy shit. Rock steady 60FPS. A Phenom II is probably the same scenario. I think even something like a Phenom 9850 would play Doom no problem whatsoever.
Yeah, Doom 2016 is really quite something. That game has no problem running on complete potato hardware as long as the GPU isn’t a museum piece. Classic id quality!
… For some reason now I wanna try out Unreal Tournament 2015 on linux. 
What the emulator devs have done with the original Doom (importing the game to virtually any console or device with a graphics processor), is going to happen with Doom 2016 later on down the road. I won’t be surprise if we see Doom 2016 running on a smartphone in the next-gen console cycle.
It’s on switch, so it’s almost there already.
The new ROG phone should be a good candidate for a port.
The impressive thing about Doom 2016 IMHO is that if you have to drop details to low, its barely noticeable at the frame rate Doom plays at.
Sure, still frames you can tell a lot easier, but the lower detail levels do a damn good job of keeping the important stuff and still looking good.
Not like the bad old says where turning details to low would cut draw distance, remove textures, etc. until it was barely recognisable