Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I think something's still wrong...

Last response: in Video Games
January 4, 2009 9:04:32 PM

Well I thought my system was working just fine but the more and more research I do, it seems that I'm kinda an "underachiever" with my current setup. I'm wondering what could possibly be wrong, but basically, I seem to be getting sluggish framerates in Crysis when compared to others. I see a lot of people with similar setups that are averaging over 35fps at 1680x1050 with DX10 and everything fully maxed on Very High settings..

I have trouble averaging 25fps with the "Ultra High" config on DX9 (which supposedly gives higher FPS than "Very High everything" at DX10) and I'm only at 1280x768. And I could be running 1440x900..

I use NO AA, 8xAF, and the Ultra-high config. My setup is..

Vista 32bit
2gb PC2-5300 DDR2 667/533/400
Q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz (cannot overclock it)
Visiontek HD4870 (stock clocks) 512mb
Sound Blaster X-Fi (gamer)
BFG 650watt PSU

I keep the video card pretty cool now compared to stock (idles around 60*C, gets into the upper 70's when working) and my cores never go higher than 50*C while playing either.

Not really sure if I'm just being picky or if there's something else wrong.. it just seems like my performance is more reminiscent of an 8800GT and I'm pretty sure that my 4870 is a huge step ahead of that card.

I made a pass through 3dMark Vantage and got a CPU score of 8619 and a Graphics score of 6925. Sound wrong?

Thanks for the help again, I feel like a jackass for beating you all up here with questions.


More about : wrong

January 4, 2009 9:21:58 PM

Why don’t you read some really hard evidence about what sort of performance your hard is giving you rather then rely on vague colloquial sources about how people systems have been inhabited by the fairies which give them magical frame rates in Crysis? For starters try reading the Toms Hardware Video charts found here.

As you can even a even SLI'ed GTX280 can't get above 25 FPS at a lowly 1280x1024 so in all fairness your frame rate would appear about right (by looking at the charts). Sorry to be so hard on you but you shouldn't allow yourself to overcome by fanboy's who post utter bollocks.

If you want more FPS I suggest you find some way to overclock your CPU, if your PC is a Dell or HP hunt around the web for hints and tips you never know what might turn up. Other then that I suggest turning graphics settings down shadows are a killer and don't add much IMO so you might want to knock that on the head.

January 4, 2009 10:18:31 PM

I am normally right with you on this except that it's damn near impossible to find any real benchmarks with the Ultra Quality config installed. Whether or not I can prove it, everyone under the sun claims huge FPS increases with this, and other .cfg tweaks in the mix..

..I would not have posted this here if all the research I've done on it showed that my PC was acting normally. It just appears that a lot of people with similar systems are getting much better results and others with lesser-equipped setups are doing about the same as I am.

I can find videos of people running benchmarks averaging 35-36fps at 1680x1050 with everything maxed out and they CLAIM that they have virtually identical guts as my PC does, but I can't prove that's actually what's in their case. I'm running a much lower resolution and in many cases seem to get about 9-10fps less than most, so that's why I'm raising a question.

I'm reinstalling Crysis right now, (it had the 1.2 patch and will be getting it again) and my ATI drivers are as new as possible.