Image: NVIDIA

Last week, it came to light that some games were capped on GeForce NOW’s Priority tier. NVIDIA has confirmed that this is intentional because they “do not run well enough at 60 FPS on the GPUs used by Priority members.” The games still stream at 60 FPS.

For our Priority Members, the maximum frames rendered per second is generally set to 60, or higher, for most of the 1,100+ games we’ve onboarded so far. There are some exceptions that we determined do not run well enough at 60 FPS on the GPUs used by Priority members. So the default OPS for these specific graphics-intensive games cannot be overridden. This is to ensure all Priority members are running a consistent, high-quality experience. However, we do continue to stream these games at 60 FPS. 

The GeForce NOW subscription page does not list this detail, only stating up to 1080p at 60 FPS for Priority members. The RTX 3080 option costs twice as much but offers up to 1440p at 120 FPS.

Image: NVIDIA

NVIDIA has shared a list of capped games and when they were added to the service. Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy is absent from the list despite being one of the games that users had reported on. Despite the game using NVIDIA DLSS 2.0, which could improve frame rates, users say it is limited to 50 FPS in the game’s menu and cannot be changed. GPU-intensive games such as Cyberpunk 2077 are limited to an even lower 45 FPS.

GameOPSDate added
Dauntless55 FPSJan 2020
Immortals Fenyx Rising48 FPSNovember 2020
Cyberpunk 207745 FPSDecember 2020
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey45 FPSDecember 2020
Jurassic World Evolution50 FPSFebruary 2021
Dyson Sphere Program50 FPSFebruary 2021
Valheim50 FPSFebruary 2021
Path of Exile50 FPSMarch 2021
Outriders55 FPSMarch 2021
Kenshi50 FPSMay 2021
Biomutant50 FPSMay 2021
Dying Light50 FPSJune 2021

Source: NVIDIA (via VideoCardz)

Don’t Miss Out on More FPS Review Content!

Our weekly newsletter includes a recap of our reviews and a run down of the most popular tech news that we published.

Peter Brosdahl

As a child of the 70’s I was part of the many who became enthralled by the video arcade invasion of the 1980’s. Saving money from various odd jobs I purchased my first computer from a friend of my...

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

  1. I can understand this: nVidia wants the games to look good, since they own the platform if they run poorly or inconsistently they will get blamed for it. So they set the games to where they can run consistently.

    Unfortunately, their architecture, at least the way they have it set up, doesn’t seem to be able to run every game at a consistent 60+. And they don’t want to readily admit that as i makes RTX look bad. A home PC running a 3080 might be able to, but these aren’t home PCs, this is a data center, probably highly virtualized with distributed assets, and it isn’t going to run exactly the same as a home PC.

    I really wonder how many players GFN has on it at any given time. This is only a big deal because we have nothing else to bitch about; and for some reason we are giving nVidia a pass on cutting production to keep prices high and product scarce when supply isn’t anywhere close to saturated. This GFN streaming issue isn’t anywhere near as big a deal as that obvious market manipulation is.

    (I also believe AMD has some responsibility there, they never were able to get production up, which is what nVidia is exploiting).

  2. [QUOTE=”Brian_B, post: 43859, member: 96″]
    (I also believe AMD has some responsibility there, they never were able to get production up, which is what nVidia is exploiting).
    [/QUOTE]
    Which is kind of strange because I have an AMD card because I was able to get one more easily than I could an Nvidia card.

  3. [QUOTE=”Grimlakin, post: 43863, member: 215″]
    Which is kind of strange because I have an AMD card because I was able to get one more easily than I could an Nvidia card.
    [/QUOTE]
    Yeah and I would say, generally, AMD cards have had better stock, but usually at much steeper markups than nVidia for some reason, which makes them really bad buys and to them not selling and sitting on the shelf, giving the illusion of production capacity.

    I’m not saying you got a bad deal, or that they are all bad deals – but when you find AMD in stock, generally, it’s not a good buy. For example, I had the opportunity to buy a 6700… for $1150. More than double the MSRP for a mid-tier card.

  4. I can head over to microcenter right now and buy the following:

    6900XT: 1499
    6800XT: 1299
    6800: 1169
    6700XT: 799
    6600XT: 579
    GTX 1660: 479
    GTX 1050ti: 279
    —lots of low end stuff below a 1050ti I won’t bother to list—-

    Stock seems pretty decent on the AMD line, and not MSRP but not crazy expensive either. I would prefer the cards be priced as above and actually be able to drive over and get one than to the Nvidia vaporware situation.

    As for places beyond Microcenter, I can’t really say. I haven’t been messing with newegg in months, as the shuffle ended up basically ended up being bundled crap that you might have a chance at, or powerball odds of getting just a stand alone card.

  5. [QUOTE=”Brian_B, post: 43865, member: 96″]
    Yeah and I would say, generally, AMD cards have had better stock, but usually at much steeper markups than nVidia for some reason, which makes them really bad buys and to them not selling and sitting on the shelf, giving the illusion of production capacity.

    I’m not saying you got a bad deal, or that they are all bad deals – but when you find AMD in stock, generally, it’s not a good buy. For example, I had the opportunity to buy a 6700… for $1150. More than double the MSRP for a mid-tier card.
    [/QUOTE]
    Oh yea I got mine before pricing went bonkers. Mine was 900 after taxes and shipping and such. And not even in a bundle.

Leave a comment