Im really pissed off about my new PC

migueldlr88

Honorable
Dec 10, 2012
5
0
10,510
Hi, first post here. I bought a PC and thought i could run BF3 bery smooth at ultra... but its framed, its playable but framed. I think my computer is able to play it at ultra smooth, what do you think? i also feel the pc a little slow. (could the HDD be the issue?)

- AMD FX 8320 Vishera 8-CORE 3.5GHZ Black Edition
- Sapphire HD 7950 3GB
- Motherboard Saberbooth 990FX R2.0
- 8gb crosair RAM 1800
- HDD: Seagate st1500dl003-9vt16l 1.5tb (this is the shitty item of the pc, i think)
- Power supply: 750W GX cooler master

I think this should run BF3 ultra.

Also i put Assasins creed maxed and the graphies went worst... some didnt match...


Thanks

 
What are you FPS in both games? What settings and what resolution. Saying Ultra doesn't say enough, as many people view Ultra with 8x AA and others view it without AA at all.

AC3 is very poor console port with all kinds of problems and does not fair well on systems.

BF3 can also run into issues in multiplayer, especially with a weak CPU. Are your problems in multiplayer?

The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of games which will not be playable at 50+ FPS on a single 7950.
 

migueldlr88

Honorable
Dec 10, 2012
5
0
10,510
bf3.png


i put it windowed because print screen showed all black.
 

iyzik

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2012
901
0
19,160
No I do not that rig should play bf3 on ultra @ 1080p. Atleast not at 50+ fps constant. My brother had a 7950 with an i5 3570K @ 4.2GHz and it played bf3 at ultra NO MSAA at an avg 70fps, BUT that was at 1600x900 not 1080. So based on that I would expect about avg 45 fps with dips to 30s with your rig at that rez.

You need a seriously ridiculous rig to play bf3 at full ultra @ 1080p and keep even a solid 50. It takes my system up to 85-90% load on two 7970s to hold 60fps constant no matter what (which is what I consider smooth).
 

migueldlr88

Honorable
Dec 10, 2012
5
0
10,510
I try 2xMSAA and its really smooth. The other thing is that i overclocked it to 4.0ghz and it didnt run well. I turned off the overclock to 3.5 and it runs just fine. Maybe to much heat? Stock fans
 

iyzik

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2012
901
0
19,160


Could defenitely have been heat. Might try downloading something like HWMonitor to check out CPU temps?
 


Normally, if you want to OC the CPU, you need an aftermarket HSF. Some are pretty inexpensive yet still considerably better than the stock HSF. The CM hyper 212+ used to be a staple with every system build. There are likely better ones today.
 

digrs

Honorable
Dec 9, 2012
63
0
10,640


I wanted to say this , but i was not sure if i was right so i was scared to post this because I am just learning :)
I think you should get something more strong what would fit right into your slot :)
Gt660 maybe ?
 

Rammy

Honorable
Graphics card is fine for 1080P.
BF3 is pretty demanding but I think it'd play fine.

He's already said he had a dodgey overclock on a stock cooler which when removed improved performance significantly. I think it's safe to say that was a lot of the problem.

In single player, on that card and those settings, he should be managing somewhere in the 40-50fps range (though 50 is a bit optimistic).
 

iyzik

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2012
901
0
19,160
The 7950 is more powerful than a GTX 660.
And @Rammy I must disagree and agree with Brett.
It's not really a powerful enough card for full ultra smooth.

EDIT: let me quickly rephrase. The 7950 is more powerful than both the GTX 660 and GTX 660 Ti. The 7950 Boost is more powerful than the GTX 670.
 

Rammy

Honorable



I agree you might need to tweak some settings to gain performance, but I still stand by the statement that 40-50fps is perfectly achievable without any significant compromise. For me, I consider that perfectly playable.
 

iyzik

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2012
901
0
19,160




Ah, sorry, that was my bad, I didn't catch the 40-50fps part. I was going off of 60fps. Then yes I would agree it should hold an average 40, which personally I don't consider totally smooth but hey that's just me.

And on 1680x1050 I would think you get playable fps at pretty damn close to ultra if not ultra. Maybe just MSAA @ 2x


So to be clearer; I think the 7950 should give you 'playable' fps of 40-45 avg on ultra, but I don't think it would be completely smooth. I think you would possible experience dips to sub 30fps. :/
 

casualcolors

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
2,043
0
19,960


Turning everything to ultra and THEN turning on 4x MSAA is going to yield some lower framerates on a 660, a 660ti and a 7950. That's all Brett is saying. There are certain draws in BF3 that get extremely demanding when you incorporate MSAA.
 

voiidwulf

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2012
903
0
19,010


My GPU is weaker, plus my CPU isn't overclocked and I get better performance. Why is this?
 

casualcolors

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
2,043
0
19,960


Could be that you're comparing your performance to his on 2 different scenes. Could be that AMD does not making good gaming CPU's. Could be both. I could see the difference in CPU architecture making up a bit of the difference between a 7870 and a 7950. They are not that dissimilar in the first place.
 

voiidwulf

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2012
903
0
19,010



Yeah, I googled after I posted that and it appears that the 7870 and 7950 are basically the same but with different clock speeds, so my overclocked 7870 probably comes close to his stock 7950, plus Intel architecture. My 40 - 60 FPS was just kind of the average I notice while playing multiplayer.
 

iyzik

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2012
901
0
19,160


Defenitely due to your i7, Phenom II can't even touch an i7 Ivy Bridge. Also another reason might be that the 7870 overclocks like a boss from what I've heard. Best in the 7xxx series. I think the 7870 with a serious overclock like you have can push it's perfomance past a stock 7950, especially with that i7.