Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New PC, FPS Problems Already, Please Help!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 23, 2012 10:01:19 PM

To make a long story short, Here we go.....

I just built a brand new computer from scratch...

Specs....

i5 3570k stock clock speed
MSI PE OC 660 ti 2gb, stock speeds
8gb(4gbx2) Gskill Ares @ 1600 ram
Thermaltake 750w Bronze supply
Asrock z77 extreme3 mobo
500gb Western Digital
Windows 7 Home 32-bit OS
23" samsung 5ms LED backlit monitor

I primarily play bf3 and always wanted to play it on ultra settings with no fps lag like other have. However, over the past two weeks or so since i've had it the choppy gameplay in bf3 has became more and more noticeable. To a point where I've tried lowering both resolution and graphic settings in game in order just to play. I checked fps and the average fps on ultra(1920x1080) is around 40! The max I'd get was 50 and it lowered into the 20's normally; not acocunting for the horrible lag stutters. Looking for solutions for problems with other people like me I have turned vsync on, which seems to help but not totally elimenate the stutter problem(the overall fps wasn'teffected it seemed tho)

when I play on high settings at 1600 x 900 i usually get anywhere from 45-60 fps but the stuttering continues. I'm willing to provide any information for anyone interested in diagnosing this problem with me. thank you.

tf

More about : fps problems

October 24, 2012 12:03:31 AM

Did you make a mistake on the 32-bit OS listed? If using the 32-bit version, you essentially cut your RAM in half, as it can't access more than 4GB without specialized software. This lack of RAM may be the cause of your issues. Turning off aero could help, as that takes a lot of vram and ram to run, but the real fix is to reinstall the 64-bit version of Windows 7. Since almost everyone has made the switch to 64-bit, you will get better supported as well.
m
0
l
October 26, 2012 6:31:19 AM

+1 on the switch to 64 bit
m
0
l
Related resources
October 26, 2012 7:08:19 AM

-2 to the 64-bit switch. The game itself cannot use more than 2GB for itself, leaving the rest for OS and background apps. This is a much misspread information. While indeed it disables half RAM, switching OS costs (as in time) too much for the benefit.

My question is, does this happen from the moment you start the game? Or after few seconds it start slowing down? (Latter could be a result of thermal issues).
What other background apps have you installed? AV, MB/GPU utilities (not drivers)?

PS: if the lag is intermittent, can you find a pattern with the HDD light?
m
0
l
October 26, 2012 8:00:09 AM

mathew7 said:
-2 to the 64-bit switch. The game itself cannot use more than 2GB for itself, leaving the rest for OS and background apps. This is a much misspread information. While indeed it disables half RAM, switching OS costs (as in time) too much for the benefit.

My question is, does this happen from the moment you start the game? Or after few seconds it start slowing down? (Latter could be a result of thermal issues).
What other background apps have you installed? AV, MB/GPU utilities (not drivers)?

PS: if the lag is intermittent, can you find a pattern with the HDD light?

ummm, your proof that 32 is as good or better? id like to see this, if its misspread info lets see some facts please
m
0
l
October 26, 2012 9:40:52 AM

tjosborne said:
ummm, your proof that 32 is as good or better? id like to see this, if its misspread info lets see some facts please


I did not say 32-bit is better, I just said that reinstalling will bring too small benefits. And installing the same packages (maybe 64-bit counterparts) could bring the same problems back. So the main problem should be identified first. Windows reinstallation should be a last resort, as it's time-consuming.

But regardless, here are the facts:

A 32-bit application (which most current games are) can use only 4GB of adress space (2 at 32). But this address space is divided 2GB for the application itself and 2GB for kernel mapping (i.e.:when the app calls a kernel service, it will use a call to such a 2GB+ address and the kernel knows it's for it). Some apps can use up to 3GB if they are marked as such (they were designed to allow it) and windows is booted with the /3GB switch (which is considered an advanced, use at your own risk setting). So any specific 32-bit application can never exceed 2GB from a new installation (at least until the switch is set).

Quotes from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardwar... :
"The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. "

note: NX-bit requires PAE to be enabled. And NX-bit is automatically enabled since XP SP2 if the CPU supports it.

Regarding performance, a 32-bit app will have the same performance regardless the OS bitness, since 32-bit instructions are still used. A slight advantage could come only from drivers, but that is too small to be noticeable (since the game itself is what uses the CPU much and drivers usually move and wait for data).

More than 4GB RAM for 32-bit windows (server editions could use up to 64GB since the 90s) is benefical for workstations were a lot of memory-hungry apps are used at once. Hence the used mapping on server/workstation OSes (note: WinXP Pro SP0 and SP1 could use more than 4GB of physical RAM, but due to some driver developers which did 32-bit assuptions, chose to limit IN SW to 4GB). On our current gaming systems, it brings too small advantages for those that know how to keep their systems clean.

So to the OP: think hard and try to remember the sequence of what was installed when the problem appeared.
m
0
l
October 26, 2012 12:30:05 PM

@ OP: 1- Are you talking about the offline mode or online game play? While your system is good enough, internet connection plays a huge role in online game play. Your lags/stuttering may be due to your internet speed. Just mentioning...

2- Perhaps there is a heating issue. In the event of heating, your CPU/GPU needs to throttle down to cool itself (basically telling) so these may affect your experience significantly. Check your GPU/CPU temperatures while you play and see if there is over heating.

All in all, BF3 is a demanding game and it taxes your system more if you are playing in online maps
m
0
l
October 26, 2012 2:03:17 PM

mathew7 said:
I did not say 32-bit is better, I just said that reinstalling will bring too small benefits. And installing the same packages (maybe 64-bit counterparts) could bring the same problems back. So the main problem should be identified first. Windows reinstallation should be a last resort, as it's time-consuming.

But regardless, here are the facts:

A 32-bit application (which most current games are) can use only 4GB of adress space (2 at 32). But this address space is divided 2GB for the application itself and 2GB for kernel mapping (i.e.:when the app calls a kernel service, it will use a call to such a 2GB+ address and the kernel knows it's for it). Some apps can use up to 3GB if they are marked as such (they were designed to allow it) and windows is booted with the /3GB switch (which is considered an advanced, use at your own risk setting). So any specific 32-bit application can never exceed 2GB from a new installation (at least until the switch is set).

Quotes from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardwar... :
"The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. "

note: NX-bit requires PAE to be enabled. And NX-bit is automatically enabled since XP SP2 if the CPU supports it.

Regarding performance, a 32-bit app will have the same performance regardless the OS bitness, since 32-bit instructions are still used. A slight advantage could come only from drivers, but that is too small to be noticeable (since the game itself is what uses the CPU much and drivers usually move and wait for data).

More than 4GB RAM for 32-bit windows (server editions could use up to 64GB since the 90s) is benefical for workstations were a lot of memory-hungry apps are used at once. Hence the used mapping on server/workstation OSes (note: WinXP Pro SP0 and SP1 could use more than 4GB of physical RAM, but due to some driver developers which did 32-bit assuptions, chose to limit IN SW to 4GB). On our current gaming systems, it brings too small advantages for those that know how to keep their systems clean.

So to the OP: think hard and try to remember the sequence of what was installed when the problem appeared.


Your link and quotes are all about Windows XP. XP's primarily used OS version was 32-bit, and got the most love. The OP has Windows 7, which is just the opposite. You'll see a lot of people with driver issues on the 32-bit version a lot, because the 32-bit version is rarely used.

While I agree that you shouldn't willy nilly be switching OS installs, but the OP is wasting a lot of RAM as a result of his install, and the sooner he fixes it, the less painful it'll be. He'd most likely want to do this regardless.

Now, he is having troubles with BF3, a game known to use a ton of RAM and VRAM by todays standards. I personally play a lot of cutting edge games that requires me to turn off Aero to have enough RAM and VRAM to play games without crashes and I have 6 GB of RAM. Imagine having 4 GB?

Rather than wasting time trying to solve something that could very well be a RAM or driver issue, I'd advice first taking care of the most obvious problem that should be resolved regardless. If it fixes the issue, then it saves everyone a lot of time and frustration. If it doesn't, then we can resume.
m
0
l
October 26, 2012 3:31:16 PM

bystander said:
Your link and quotes are all about Windows XP. XP's primarily used OS version was 32-bit, and got the most love. The OP has Windows 7, which is just the opposite. You'll see a lot of people with driver issues on the 32-bit version a lot, because the 32-bit version is rarely used.

If statistics are made of 32-bit vs 64-bit windows 7 problems, I doubt they will be much different. You always will hear about the unsatisfied customers. How many PCs have been shipped with OEM 32-bit win7? Also, Win7 drivers share a lot with Vista (which was not well received by enthusiasts), so many have been fixed before the "big 64" got mainstream.
bystander said:
While I agree that you shouldn't willy nilly be switching OS installs, but the OP is wasting a lot of RAM as a result of his install, and the sooner he fixes it, the less painful it'll be. He'd most likely want to do this regardless.

That is his decision. He knows how much time he can "spare". I'm just saying that the additional RAM may not worth the effort. Finding the problem should be 1st.
bystander said:
Now, he is having troubles with BF3, a game known to use a ton of RAM and VRAM by todays standards. I personally play a lot of cutting edge games that requires me to turn off Aero to have enough RAM and VRAM to play games without crashes and I have 6 GB of RAM. Imagine having 4 GB?

Like I said....if it does not have 64-binaries, it won't use mroe than 2GB, leaving over 1GB for windows itself, including cache. Don't you think the devs want the game to be bought also by those with less RAM? If you have to turn off aero, then some resources are wasted with your configuration. System crashes have nothing to do with RAM size, especially in Win7. Game crashes...well, leaks can be found everywhere, but I would rather blame a game vs. aero glitch.
bystander said:
Rather than wasting time trying to solve something that could very well be a RAM or driver issue, I'd advice first taking care of the most obvious problem that should be resolved regardless. If it fixes the issue, then it saves everyone a lot of time and frustration. If it doesn't, then we can resume.

And I return to my argument: what if he reinstalls some SW that was causing the initial problem. Wouldn't be faster to start uninstalling with game session in between to see any changes?
With reinstallation as 1st solution is like changing a car because of a dent on the door.
I've done enough reinstallations in my life to keep it as last resort.
Besides, if he has an OEM version (remember...cheaper even for DIY), he is not entitled to have 64-bit windows (yeah...I know that doesn't stop many).
m
0
l
October 26, 2012 3:42:31 PM

mathew7 said:
-2 to the 64-bit switch. The game itself cannot use more than 2GB for itself, leaving the rest for OS and background apps. This is a much misspread information. While indeed it disables half RAM, switching OS costs (as in time) too much for the benefit.

My question is, does this happen from the moment you start the game? Or after few seconds it start slowing down? (Latter could be a result of thermal issues).
What other background apps have you installed? AV, MB/GPU utilities (not drivers)?

PS: if the lag is intermittent, can you find a pattern with the HDD light?


Battlefield 3 uses more than 2 GB of RAM. Hell, many games do. Also, 32 bit OS supports 3.25 GB of memory, and the rest gets waste.

So if windows wants 1 GB for itself, you have battlelog open in a browser (that's 400 MB), not much is left for the game, hence the lag. And trust me, Battlefield 3 developers weren't humble on system requirements...

I really suggest switching to 64 bit windows for the plain fact that you have 1 stick of memory just idling inside your PC.
m
0
l
October 26, 2012 3:46:28 PM

mathew7 said:
If statistics are made of 32-bit vs 64-bit windows 7 problems, I doubt they will be much different. You always will hear about the unsatisfied customers. How many PCs have been shipped with OEM 32-bit win7? Also, Win7 drivers share a lot with Vista (which was not well received by enthusiasts), so many have been fixed before the "big 64" got mainstream.

That is his decision. He knows how much time he can "spare". I'm just saying that the additional RAM may not worth the effort. Finding the problem should be 1st.

Like I said....if it does not have 64-binaries, it won't use mroe than 2GB, leaving over 1GB for windows itself, including cache. Don't you think the devs want the game to be bought also by those with less RAM? If you have to turn off aero, then some resources are wasted with your configuration. System crashes have nothing to do with RAM size, especially in Win7. Game crashes...well, leaks can be found everywhere, but I would rather blame a game vs. aero glitch.

And I return to my argument: what if he reinstalls some SW that was causing the initial problem. Wouldn't be faster to start uninstalling with game session in between to see any changes?
With reinstallation as 1st solution is like changing a car because of a dent on the door.
I've done enough reinstallations in my life to keep it as last resort.
Besides, if he has an OEM version (remember...cheaper even for DIY), he is not entitled to have 64-bit windows (yeah...I know that doesn't stop many).


He just bought the computer and put it together. He doesn't have a years worth of software installed, now is the time to reinstall.

You clearly have not played Skyrim, or BF3. Even Crysis has many more issues on 4GB of ram than it does with more, due to a memory leak.

I don't have to time to talk about your other stuff, but I have seen a lot of people come complaining about driver issues on their 32 bit win7 setups. When the vast majority of people have win7 64bit vs 32bit, you obviously will get quicker and better bug reporting.
m
0
l
October 26, 2012 5:23:14 PM

Sunius said:
Battlefield 3 uses more than 2 GB of RAM. Hell, many games do. Also, 32 bit OS supports 3.25 GB of memory, and the rest gets waste.

So if windows wants 1 GB for itself, you have battlelog open in a browser (that's 400 MB), not much is left for the game, hence the lag. And trust me, Battlefield 3 developers weren't humble on system requirements...

I really suggest switching to 64 bit windows for the plain fact that you have 1 stick of memory just idling inside your PC.

yes and as far as bf3 is concerned you also have to have orgin running in the background as well, more resources being hogged.
m
0
l
!