We have the best graphics settings and cards for PUBG
PCgamer recently wrote an awesome article on how to get the best PUBG settings to optimize the game for you. We have the synopsis for your quick review.
Here is the Feature Checklist for PUBG graphics settings.
Here is the benchmark test done with multiple different graphics cards. This is on medium graphics settings.
The urban settings in Battlegrounds have far more polygons and other objects to render, resulting in much lower framerates—out in the grassy countryside, performance can be up to 50 percent higher. Now on Ultra Graphics settings for PUBG.
Also PUBG at Ultra on settings 2560×1440.
Here is the benchmark for Mobile graphics cards.
Fine tuning performance
The following numbers are not from running complete benchmarks on a bunch of different cards, but were gathered using a single GTX 1080 GPU running at 1440p, and noting the average framerate. I specifically selected a location where performance was lower, then started checking each setting.
The global preset is the easiest place to start tuning performance. Ultra quality gave a baseline score of 65 fps. Dropping to high improved performance to 81 fps, medium was 92 fps, low was 105 fps, and very low was 107 fps. CPU performance is still a factor even on the very low setting, so most systems won’t be able to get much above the 100-130 fps range (depending on the area of the game world, naturally).
There’s currently a 144 fps framerate cap in effect, which the devs have said they plan to remove in the future (it used to be 120 fps). Getting to 144 fps in my experience is difficult, as even at very low settings Battlegrounds tends to be CPU limited to around 120-130 fps during my testing.
If you’re hoping to tweak the individual settings to better tune performance, I did some quick checking of how much each setting affects framerates using the ultra preset as the baseline. I then dropped each setting down to the minimum (very low) to see how much it helped.
Screen Scale: The range is 70-120, and this represents undersampling/oversampling of the image. It’s like tweaking your resolution by small amounts, but I mostly recommend leaving this at the default 100 setting.
Anti-Aliasing: Surprisingly not a major factor, but this is because Unreal Engine requires the use of post-processing techniques to do AA. If you want better AA, you could set screen scale to 120 to get a moderate form of super-sampling. Going from ultra quality AA to very low quality AA only improved performance by 3 percent.
Post-Processing: A generic label for a whole bunch of stuff that can be done after rendering is complete, this is a moderate impact on performance—going from ultra to very low improved framerates by 10 percent.
Shadows: No surprises here, this is the most demanding individual setting (outside of resolution). This setting affects ambient occlusion and other forms of shadow rendering, and going from ultra to very low improved performance by just over 20 percent.
Texture: Only a minor impact on performance, provided you have enough VRAM. Dropping from ultra to very low increased framerates by 8 percent.
Effects: This setting relates to things like explosions, among other elements. It might have a more noticeable impact on performance with explosions going off (eg, in a red zone), but for the test scene dropping to very low only improved performance by 1 percent.
Foliage: Given all the trees and grass, you might expect this to have a larger impact on performance, but I only measured a 1 percent (1 fps) difference after setting it to very low.
View Distance: This has a much greater impact on CPU performance than on graphics performance, so if your CPU is up to snuff you can safely set it to ultra. On a Core i7 system, dropping to very low only made a 1 percent difference in framerates.
Motion Blur: There’s a reason this is off by default, right? Spotting enemies while moving around is more difficult with motion blur enabled. But if you like the effect, turning it on has almost no impact on performance, maybe 1-2 percent.