Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

bad fps issues

Tags:
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 17, 2014 5:05:44 PM

specs
GPU: sapphire r9 290(stock)
CPU: intel i5-4670k 3.4 ghz (stock)
mobo: msi z97 gaming 7
psu; corsair hx 1000
i am running crysis 3 on max settings 1080p with AA8x
i get 15-25fps ??? is this normal??

More about : bad fps issues

August 17, 2014 7:17:47 PM

BJJ_warrior said:
specs
GPU: sapphire r9 290(stock)
CPU: intel i5-4670k 3.4 ghz (stock)
mobo: msi z97 gaming 7
psu; corsair hx 1000
i am running crysis 3 on max settings 1080p with AA8x
i get 15-25fps ??? is this normal??


Resolution?
m
0
l

Best solution

August 17, 2014 8:09:08 PM

Not sure if you're getting normal performance considering the copious amounts of AA, but you absolutely do not need 8xAA. It's a ridiculous performance hit for practically no gain. I'm convinced the only reason 8x is still in the options is because it reacts differently to different resolutions.

For example 8xAA at 720p reduces jaggies and hits performance by slightly more than 4xAA at 1080p.
2xAA at 2560x1440 reduces jaggies and decreases performance by slightly less than 4xAA at 1080p.

8XAA at 1080p or above is quite simply a ridiculous performance hit with negligible gains. Drop that to 4x at most at 1080p, or 2x at 1440p or above.

For reference, my brother has a GTX 760 and i5-4590, and he runs Crysis 3 on ultra settings with SMAA at 1080p at 40-60 fps in the locations tested so far.
Share
Related resources
August 17, 2014 8:13:18 PM

Rationale said:
Not sure if you're getting normal performance, but you absolutely do not need 8xAA. It's a ridiculous performance hit for practically no gain. I'm convinced the only reason 8x is still in the options is because it reacts differently to different resolutions.

For example 8xAA at 720p reduces jaggies and hits performance by roughly the same amount as 4xAA at 1080p.
2xAA at 2560x1440 reduces jaggies and decreases performance by slightly less than 4xAA at 1080p.

8XAA at 1080p or above is quite simply a ridiculous performance hit with negligible gains. Drop that to 4x at most at 1080p, or 2x at 1440p or above.

For reference, my brother has a GTX 760 and i5-4590, and he runs Crysis 3 on ultra settings with SMAA at 1080p at 40-60 fps in the locations tested so far.


Only thing is he should be able to play it. with a 290 and 4670k he should be still getting 60fps
m
0
l
August 17, 2014 8:17:34 PM

aaronfield said:


Only thing is he should be able to play it. with a 290 and 4670k he should be still getting 60fps


Since he's at 1080p, perhaps. However, Crysis 3 uses a deferred rendering engine. Antialiasing is always a disproportionately massive framerate hit in those. I'm not saying his performance is normal; really, I don't know how well the R9 290 can eat through antialiasing. I'm just giving a general warning to watch out for massive amounts of antialiasing, as the performance hit is literally exponential and rises with both resolution and the sampling multiplier.

I don't mean to rule out other possible issues, ofc.
m
0
l
August 17, 2014 8:20:02 PM

Rationale said:
aaronfield said:


Only thing is he should be able to play it. with a 290 and 4670k he should be still getting 60fps


Since he's at 1080p, perhaps. However, Crysis 3 uses a deferred rendering engine. Antialiasing is always a disproportionately massive framerate hit in those. I'm not saying his performance is normal; really, I don't know how well the R9 290 can eat through antialiasing. I'm just giving a general warning to watch out for massive amounts of antialiasing, as the performance hit is literally exponential and rises with both resolution and the sampling multiplier.

I don't mean to rule out other possible issues, ofc.


I will agree to that. So far though i havent found a game that i cant max out(even AA) except Total War: Rome II. That game is awful on optimization but for it fps isnt needed.
m
0
l
August 18, 2014 1:10:22 PM

Rationale said:
Not sure if you're getting normal performance considering the copious amounts of AA, but you absolutely do not need 8xAA. It's a ridiculous performance hit for practically no gain. I'm convinced the only reason 8x is still in the options is because it reacts differently to different resolutions.

For example 8xAA at 720p reduces jaggies and hits performance by slightly more than 4xAA at 1080p.
2xAA at 2560x1440 reduces jaggies and decreases performance by slightly less than 4xAA at 1080p.

8XAA at 1080p or above is quite simply a ridiculous performance hit with negligible gains. Drop that to 4x at most at 1080p, or 2x at 1440p or above.

For reference, my brother has a GTX 760 and i5-4590, and he runs Crysis 3 on ultra settings with SMAA at 1080p at 40-60 fps in the locations tested so far.


thank you, i am currently playin in 1080p and when i drop to 4xaa the fps goes up to 40-60
m
0
l
!