Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LOW FPS 7950

Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 14, 2012 6:48:48 PM

Hello,
I just brought a new gigabyt 7950 oc but my card is not giving the frames shown in benchmarks in its reviews in games like the witcher 2 and skyrim. Is it my card , the version of reviewers game ( they use the enhanced edition while im using v1.1 for the witcher) or is it simply cux the reviewers have a killer rig? i mean their cpu rams etc r top of the line.

More about : low fps 7950

August 14, 2012 6:55:32 PM

Post your PC specs, game settings, resolution and what FPS you're getting.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 7:44:03 PM

Sunius said:
Post your PC specs, game settings, resolution and what FPS you're getting.

spec =
i5 2400
8 gb ddr3
gigabt 7950 oc
gx 550 watt psu
playing at 1080p
fps at same spot on witcher as the reviers = avg 45ish (settings r on ultra but ubersampling off and vsync off same as the reviewers)
m
0
l
Related resources
August 14, 2012 8:38:07 PM

jay_nar2012 said:
45 FPS isn't low.

I knw. im just asking why im getting lower. plus my old 6870 gave more or less the same 45ish fps on witcher.. so i gues i was expecting frames to sky rocket. (like they did with bf 3)
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 9:41:20 PM

Did you reinstall drivers?
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 9:49:20 PM

yea..im using 12.7 beta drivers right now
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 9:58:46 PM

dirtymanso said:
spec =
i5 2400
8 gb ddr3
gigabt 7950 oc
gx 550 watt psu
playing at 1080p
fps at same spot on witcher as the reviers = avg 45ish (settings r on ultra but ubersampling off and vsync off same as the reviewers)


I don't know how CPU demanding The Witcher 2 is, but there is a good chance it's your CPU holding you back. Most reviews are done with the fastest CPU available, and usually Overclocked a lot, to show what the GPU is capable of without bottlenecks.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 10:02:32 PM

bystander said:
I don't know how CPU demanding The Witcher 2 is, but there is a good chance it's your CPU holding you back. Most reviews are done with the fastest CPU available, and usually Overclocked a lot, to show what the GPU is capable of without bottlenecks.

yes i thought so too. because these two games r open world and this type of games tend to be more demanding on cpu right? cux i got a massive increase in bf 3. i get like 60+ fps where i would get 45fps with 6870. well 40+ fps in witcher 2 is great. i mean its not a first person shooter or anything. i was just worried if i had wasted money or something
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 10:12:42 PM

No, it isn't CPU bottleneck. Witcher 2 isn't CPU hog at all. Actually, it's very CPU efficient.

Something is wrong here for sure. You should have gotten huge fps boost.

Do you have another hard drive to which you could install another copy of windows and witcher 2? It might be a serious driver problem, I had some issues with them myself and the only solution I have found was reformat.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 10:31:52 PM

What section are you having low FPS? I find the prologue is a lot harder on the system than anywhere else.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 10:55:12 PM

bystander said:
What section are you having low FPS? I find the prologue is a lot harder on the system than anywhere else.

In the camp after the scene with triss i get like 30-40 fps . And the siege where we get out of the tower i get like 40-50 fps where the reviewers were getting like 50+ fps. Thats what got me worried. Also i have one more question my friend has this rig
i5 2400
4 gb ddr3
evga gtx 460
and the witcher 2 auto detect puts his comp to high settings where as it puts mine to medium settings even though i have the same cpu and twice the ram.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 10:58:29 PM

Sunius said:
No, it isn't CPU bottleneck. Witcher 2 isn't CPU hog at all. Actually, it's very CPU efficient.

Something is wrong here for sure. You should have gotten huge fps boost.

Do you have another hard drive to which you could install another copy of windows and witcher 2? It might be a serious driver problem, I had some issues with them myself and the only solution I have found was reformat.

I have formatted my hdd many times. And yes my friend has a brand new 1 tera hdd (if u read the question asked bystander) where as I have a old 360 gb hdd. and by old i mean 3 years old or more.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 11:02:59 PM

dirtymanso said:
In the camp after the scene with triss i get like 30-40 fps . And the siege where we get out of the tower i get like 40-50 fps where the reviewers were getting like 50+ fps. Thats what got me worried. Also i have one more question my friend has this rig
i5 2400
4 gb ddr3
evga gtx 460
and the witcher 2 auto detect puts his comp to high settings where as it puts mine to medium settings even though i have the same cpu and twice the ram.


I wouldn't read anything into the auto detect. You have a new card, that has come out since the games released. It is very common for games to auto detect them incorrectly.

Anyways, those aren't bad fps for those areas. I have a little different setup to really compare. I run 680's in SLI, but in 3D Vision. I get the same type of fps you do with those settings. I turn off DoF settings to always stay above 45 fps and usually near 60.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 11:19:06 PM

680 sli? and u get my type of fps? im sorry but that is realy hard to believe...is the game optimized bad or something? btw u run enhanced edition? or simple ?
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 11:22:07 PM

dirtymanso said:
680 sli? and u get my type of fps? im sorry but that is realy hard to believe...is the game optimized bad or something? btw u run enhanced edition? or simple ?


I did mention 3D Vision, which roughly cuts FPS in half. It's also true that the game is inconsistent on FPS, depending on where you are.
m
0
l
August 15, 2012 6:54:04 AM

bystander said:
I did mention 3D Vision, which roughly cuts FPS in half. It's also true that the game is inconsistent on FPS, depending on where you are.

Oh sorry forgot abt that part. so without 3d vision u get like 60+ fps all the time. no surprise considering that rig. But as sunius said that i should have gotten a huge fps boost switching from 6870 to 7950 which i didnt with these two games and thats what concerning me. I even overclocked it to 1060/1570 mhz still very little difference.
And just for the record the game gave medium settings to my 6870 too. Will upgrade to enhanced edition maybe it has more fps (the reviewers were running enhanced edition) although I havnt found any proof of it on the internet. This is like my last pc upgrade and im hoping it would last a while
m
0
l
August 15, 2012 7:02:55 AM

Have you tried OCing the CPU (if you can)? Usually when OCing the Graphics card, or upgrading the graphics card doesn't result in higher FPS, it's the CPU holding back performance.

Skyrim is definitely known for being a CPU hog. You could also be having CPU throttling issues, have you check the temps and clocks of it under load?
m
0
l
August 15, 2012 8:14:56 AM

bystander said:
Have you tried OCing the CPU (if you can)? Usually when OCing the Graphics card, or upgrading the graphics card doesn't result in higher FPS, it's the CPU holding back performance.

Skyrim is definitely known for being a CPU hog. You could also be having CPU throttling issues, have you check the temps and clocks of it under load?

no i havent. I was always scared of cpu overclocking i gues :p . And one other thing the witcher 2 stuters alot too. And as for the cpu temps max i got was 60c on bf 3. never 70c or above.
m
0
l
August 15, 2012 10:39:21 AM

Did you check CPU usage during witcher 2?
m
0
l
August 15, 2012 1:43:04 PM

Sunius said:
Did you check CPU usage during witcher 2?

CPU usage fluctuates like crazy between 40-70% hardly ever reaching full 70%. Frames stay the same wether i decrease the resolution or even lower the settings! Not to mention it runs hiccupy too
m
0
l
August 15, 2012 3:43:56 PM

hmm I might suspect you've got some unwanted processes eating up your CPU when you're playing. Mind taking a screenshot of task managers processes tab sorted by user name when playing witcher 2?
m
0
l
August 16, 2012 11:54:30 PM

Sunius said:
hmm I might suspect you've got some unwanted processes eating up your CPU when you're playing. Mind taking a screenshot of task managers processes tab sorted by user name when playing witcher 2?

Ok i will upload them. Btw do u guys think that its worth spending $65 more to get a gtx 670? the only game gtx670 runs better worth extra $65 is battlefield 3 (which is nvidia biased game in my opinion) So what u guys think? gtx 670 or should i stick with 7950?
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 12:50:01 AM

Just stick with what you have. It should run all the games decently :) .
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 6:28:25 AM

Sunius said:
Just stick with what you have. It should run all the games decently :) .

I want to. I want this to be my upgrade for atleast a whole year. But im getting the feeling i got ripped :( 
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 9:54:41 AM

Why so? If you want, you can change it :) . But I'm sure it will last you much longer than a year.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 7:48:36 PM

dirtymanso said:
Hello,
I just brought a new gigabyt 7950 oc but my card is not giving the frames shown in benchmarks in its reviews in games like the witcher 2 and skyrim. Is it my card , the version of reviewers game ( they use the enhanced edition while im using v1.1 for the witcher) or is it simply cux the reviewers have a killer rig? i mean their cpu rams etc r top of the line.


I hope you don't mind me on here and not trying to jeopardize this forum. I have the same issue with FPS drops. I have MSI Twin Frozr III 7950, when I first got it, I had decent FPS on all Ultra setting on battlefield until recently I dropped abnormally. So I am hoping we both can the same answer in this forum figuring out how to resolve this issue. I have good specifications even I ocerclocked my CPU AMD 965 BE from 3.4 to 3.8GHz using hyper 212 cooler and kept it under 45C under loaded. It just happened this week for me and I am getting irritated as well. 12.7 Beta here as well. I hope our card aren't defected D:
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 7:58:02 PM

skele said:
I hope you don't mind me on here and not trying to jeopardize this forum. I have the same issue with FPS drops. I have MSI Twin Frozr III 7950, when I first got it, I had decent FPS on all Ultra setting on battlefield until recently I dropped abnormally. So I am hoping we both can the same answer in this forum figuring out how to resolve this issue. I have good specifications even I ocerclocked my CPU AMD 965 BE from 3.4 to 3.8GHz using hyper 212 cooler and kept it under 45C under loaded. It just happened this week for me and I am getting irritated as well. 12.7 Beta here as well. I hope our card aren't defected D:

BF3 is a big CPU bottleneck in multiplayer. Is this something you've noticed in multiplayer or singleplayer. Did you start playing new maps, the bigger and more players, the more of a CPU bottleneck you'd have.

You may want to make sure your CPU is still overclocked. At least some motherboards will default back to stock clocks if you have a crash.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 8:02:39 PM

I change it thru using motherboard bio and it still is the same as I set it to. My GPU is at 99% load and CPU is usually under 40% load. So I don't see any bottlenecking here. I always play on 64 player TDM, Conquest and Domination, I had decent FPS without Vsync I had 100+ FPS till now something has happened I am betting its the game itself because I play on Fallout 3, ultra details and I don't see any drops. It's just plain weird. Maybe driver issues that need to be updated once again by AMD and yet no luck :-/
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 8:05:20 PM

bystander said:
BF3 is a big CPU bottleneck in multiplayer. Is this something you've noticed in multiplayer or singleplayer. Did you start playing new maps, the bigger and more players, the more of a CPU bottleneck you'd have.

You may want to make sure your CPU is still overclocked. At least some motherboards will default back to stock clocks if you have a crash.


Funny thing is I even lowered the setting and the FPS goes up for a few minutes till a few minutes it dropped back to 29-44. It's a bit stuttery I can tell you that. But it has never happen till now :( 
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 8:11:11 PM

skele said:
Funny thing is I even lowered the setting and the FPS goes up for a few minutes till a few minutes it dropped back to 29-44. It's a bit stuttery I can tell you that. But it has never happen till now :( 


On 64 player large maps, everyone gets drops below 60. It's your CPU. It is the bottleneck. AMD CPU's are much slower than Intel.

40% usage does not mean it does not have a bottleneck. Though it's possible you have some other issue as well, you are going to experience drops to about 30 in multiplayer on an AMD CPU. 40% usage means if you add up the power used on every core. The bottleneck happens on a single core, while other cores have low usage. Add all the core usage up and average them, and you end up with 40% usage.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 8:28:26 PM

bystander said:
On 64 player large maps, everyone gets drops below 60. It's your CPU. It is the bottleneck. AMD CPU's are much slower than Intel.

40% usage does not mean it does not have a bottleneck. Though it's possible you have some other issue as well, you are going to experience drops to about 30 in multiplayer on an AMD CPU. 40% usage means if you add up the power used on every core. The bottleneck happens on a single core, while other cores have low usage. Add all the core usage up and average them, and you end up with 40% usage.


I had the CPU for 4 months, the graphic for 2, and they hav3 not given me any trouble at all while playing. Intel i5 and AMD 965 BE are on par tho i5 is greater due to their speed slightly, but still AMD CPU isn't the causes. I always do researches before buying parts for gaming PC. A lot of people I talked to are using AMD 965 Black Edition and never had any bottlenecks. So we can rule out the AMD CPU. I think it might be the card that's defective I doubt it due to MSI decent made card that's made for overclocking.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 9:22:09 PM

skele said:
I had the CPU for 4 months, the graphic for 2, and they hav3 not given me any trouble at all while playing. Intel i5 and AMD 965 BE are on par tho i5 is greater due to their speed slightly, but still AMD CPU isn't the causes. I always do researches before buying parts for gaming PC. A lot of people I talked to are using AMD 965 Black Edition and never had any bottlenecks. So we can rule out the AMD CPU. I think it might be the card that's defective I doubt it due to MSI decent made card that's made for overclocking.


I did not say your troubles are because of the AMD processor. I said it's worse with the AMD processor. AMD CPU's do fine in most cases. If you look up an average FPS chart for several games, AMD CPU will look nearly the same as Intel's. The reason is because most games are more GPU bound than CPU bound. If the game is not held back by the CPU, they perform nearly the same. However, in games in which the CPU holds back FPS, like multiplayer BF3, or Skyrim, you will see lower FPS on an AMD CPU.


All of these are at 3.0Ghz. What makes this worse is that the Intel CPU's generally clock higher.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=703...
Look at this post. You'll see with a stock i7 860 at 2.8ghz, he gets dips that are very low. To under 30 FPS. Once he OC's to 4Ghz, those minimums go over 50.


I am finding it hard to find tests for multiplayer and Phenom's. It seems BF3 likes more than 4 cores, so the hex core AMD cpu's do well, but looking at the Phenom 980, it didn't perform so well.

Anyways, your dips are a common problem in multiplayer, intel or AMD. When a game is CPU bound, and AMD CPU bottlenecks the game more. In a handful of cases, more than 4 cores does prove useful. Even the I7 hyperthreading helped, where it commonly does nothing.

Edit: Btw, I saw a lot of reviews of your CPU, and when OC'ed to 3.9Ghz, it just finally gets comparable to the i7 920 at stock (2.67Ghz) for gaming at least. It's not comparable to an i5-2500k.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 10:31:41 PM

Then should I try overclocking it to 3.9, even tho my GPU says 99% that doesn't mean anything then?
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 10:50:17 PM

skele said:
Then should I try overclocking it to 3.9, even tho my GPU says 99% that doesn't mean anything then?


Keep in mind, you are experiencing dips, not prolonged low FPS. When the CPU is not bottlenecking, the GPU is 99%, when the CPU is bottlenecking, for those moments, the GPU usage drops and yes, an OC would help raise the minimums, but it may not do much to the average. You may also be using too high of settings.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 10:56:06 PM

It shown low FPS at low setting as well. So it can be the game?
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 10:59:35 PM

skele said:
It shown low FPS at low setting as well. So it can be the game?


Often that's an indication of a CPU bottleneck. Graphical settings in many games put all the stress on the GPU, although some games will use the CPU for some settings.

See if an OC on the CPU helps. Otherwise, there is something else going on. Perhaps driver related.
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 11:22:49 PM

Drivers related or defective CPU. :-/ I'll let you know once I get home. Thanks in advance. Do I made bad choice by choosing AMD 965 BE?
m
0
l
August 17, 2012 11:51:56 PM

Looks like we both need a better CPU after all :-/ unless yours are better than mine *sniffling*
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 12:16:31 AM

skele said:
Looks like we both need a better CPU after all :-/ unless yours are better than mine *sniffling*


BF3 gives everyone troubles on some multiplayer maps, it just gives AMD a little extra trouble. You don't have to upgrade, you just will occasionally suffer a larger bottleneck than having gone with an i5-2500k.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 1:58:34 AM

bystander said:
BF3 gives everyone troubles on some multiplayer maps, it just gives AMD a little extra trouble. You don't have to upgrade, you just will occasionally suffer a larger bottleneck than having gone with an i5-2500k.


Can you give link for good motherboard and good intel processor? So I can add wish list from newegg.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 10:45:15 AM

toms tend to give the average fps on there tests. only recently have they started putting the all important minimum.
what your seeing on witcher 2 qnd bf3 are the correct fps for the cards your using...
the biggest variance will be down to the ram. amd cpus benefit a lot more form higher frequency ram than intel cpu's do but intel cpu's do like lower latencies.
you can spend all the money you want on new motherboards and cpu's but if your running on anything stronger than a first gen i5 750 then you will see roughly 0 fps increase in your games on the most part. on bf3 you will see a slight gain if you have a hyperthreading cpu nut not a huge amount. reason being 1s you get over 2.4 ghz theres very little gained benefits to gaming. reason being is programmers write there waits in seconds not cpu cycles. so you can have a 4.2 ghz cpu and a 2.4 ghz cpu running the same game at the same fps and the difference will only show in overall cpu usage. the faster cpu will likely only use 60% while the slower 1 will be near 97%.
if the waits in games were set in cpu cycles then games would run faster or slower depending on the speed of the cpu and all cpu's would be maxing out at 97%+

waits* in the programming sense is a set time between 2 events happening. wait for event A then do b and if A and B are correct then do C
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 5:12:14 PM

skele said:
I hope Asrock is a great brand and I noticed it has 3.0 PCIe slots :D  great selection there mate, and as for CPU, Does it give great FPS than the 2500k? And do I need to overclock it in order to get great FPS? :-/ or it doesnt matter since stock and overclock gives good performances?


The CPU doesn't really generate FPS, but the CPU sometimes determines the maximum FPS you can get when the game is heavily using the CPU. That means it helps lift your minimums in some games, like BF3, and can play a bigger role in things like SC2.

Yes, that is a great CPU. It's the Ivy bridge version of the i5-2500k, which is newer, though not much faster.
m
0
l
August 18, 2012 5:48:32 PM

skele said:
I hope Asrock is a great brand and I noticed it has 3.0 PCIe slots :D  great selection there mate, and as for CPU, Does it give great FPS than the 2500k? And do I need to overclock it in order to get great FPS? :-/ or it doesnt matter since stock and overclock gives good performances?


The cpu is around 5-10% faster than 2500k. As for Asrock, it's a decent brand. This specific board won Tom's Hardware motherboard award:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/z77-express-ivy-bridge-be...
m
0
l
August 22, 2012 1:21:17 PM

Sunius said:
Why so? If you want, you can change it :) . But I'm sure it will last you much longer than a year.

I meant will it be worth the extra money? I realy dont wana make a hasty decision abt it
m
0
l
August 22, 2012 1:33:32 PM

skele said:
I hope you don't mind me on here and not trying to jeopardize this forum. I have the same issue with FPS drops. I have MSI Twin Frozr III 7950, when I first got it, I had decent FPS on all Ultra setting on battlefield until recently I dropped abnormally. So I am hoping we both can the same answer in this forum figuring out how to resolve this issue. I have good specifications even I ocerclocked my CPU AMD 965 BE from 3.4 to 3.8GHz using hyper 212 cooler and kept it under 45C under loaded. It just happened this week for me and I am getting irritated as well. 12.7 Beta here as well. I hope our card aren't defected D:

I feel u man. I used to play on a 6870, dual core cpu, 4 gb ddr2 when the game came out but gradualy after every update my fps started decreasing. In multiplyer i usualy get 60+ fps but i keep msaa off. But i do get stuterings and i mean BAD stuterings but they are almost always in karkand maps when im veiwing the whole city with 50+ players then fps drops to 45ish. (and one part of caspian near a fence even though there is nothing there so i figured must b a glitch). but all in all i think its cux of my cpu and ping(150+ ms ping )
m
0
l
August 22, 2012 1:42:57 PM

dirtymanso said:
I feel u man. I used to play on a 6870, dual core cpu, 4 gb ddr2 when the game came out but gradualy after every update my fps started decreasing. In multiplyer i usualy get 60+ fps but i keep msaa off. But i do get stuterings and i mean BAD stuterings but they are almost always in karkand maps when im veiwing the whole city with 50+ players then fps drops to 45ish. (and one part of caspian near a fence even though there is nothing there so i figured must b a glitch). but all in all i think its cux of my cpu and ping(150+ ms ping )


I agreed it can be the CPU, but still, FPS dropping on Battlefield is unacceptable for me. I spend a lot of money and especially went over my budgets to get a decent FPS. It gave me a decent FPS till recently it dropped like some type of encoding in the game is broken or maybe there's hackers on the servers that lagged most of the time. there are too many theories and complications for gaming, it's bull, why can't everything be just as simple.
m
0
l
August 22, 2012 8:47:36 PM

skele said:
I agreed it can be the CPU, but still, FPS dropping on Battlefield is unacceptable for me. I spend a lot of money and especially went over my budgets to get a decent FPS. It gave me a decent FPS till recently it dropped like some type of encoding in the game is broken or maybe there's hackers on the servers that lagged most of the time. there are too many theories and complications for gaming, it's bull, why can't everything be just as simple.

I upgraded mainly cux of bf3 too. But after each update they are like leeching the fps out of AMD cards. I read so many posts on battlelog forums in which people were complaining about fps drop and yes like 99% of them had AMD. By the way are there any specific maps in which u get lag spikes? Or general. AS i said i have issues with B2K maps only. Also which settings are u using?
m
0
l
!