best way is to not run it at all .... 

There is no way of measuring, defining, or achieving "fully optimised" status versus the design limits of the game, the limits of humans who made the game, the technical limits of computers playing the game, and the limits of programming languages which turned the game into something the computer can understand. This has turned into a funny discussion. "Fully optimised" is a slogan and is only a goal. "Fully optimised" means that players don't believe that it plays like garbage (which is a pretty low measure). "Great" becomes defined as "not terrible" which cheapens the value of both extremes. Really, "fully optimised" means that they don't know of any unfixed shortcomings, mistakes, or shortcuts taken during the developement of the game. They can't prove that it is fully optimised and no one who doesn't have and understand the source code could disprove that it is fully optimised.

Similarly, "high FPS" is ambiguous. Apparently, according to the article, NVIDIA is defining "high FPS" as 60 FPS average; which many computer gamers would define as the minimum FPS necessary to be satisfied.

I think that the game plays well. For me, its performance used to be pretty bad. I'm happy with its performance in its current state. I think that its performance is not terrible. Therefore, I would not disagree if they told me that it is fully optimised.