Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Im really pissed off about my new PC

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 10, 2012 2:51:35 PM

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

More about : pissed

December 10, 2012 3:19:52 PM

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.
December 10, 2012 3:20:11 PM

Resolution ?
Related resources
December 10, 2012 3:28:44 PM



i put it windowed because print screen showed all black.
December 10, 2012 3:41:20 PM

Wow my current computer would propably explode only from screenshot with these settings !!!
Are you sure you dont want to put it lil lower ?
December 10, 2012 3:42:14 PM

And what about the other questions? You mentioned it looks framed, what ever that means, but what are your FPS?

Also, you notice all those settings from 4xMSAA and down, people often turn those down a little.
December 10, 2012 4:18:49 PM

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).
December 10, 2012 5:33:17 PM

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
December 10, 2012 5:39:31 PM

Might be. Did you even bother checking the temperatures?
December 10, 2012 5:40:28 PM

migueldlr88 said:
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


Could defenitely have been heat. Might try downloading something like HWMonitor to check out CPU temps?
December 10, 2012 5:56:46 PM

migueldlr88 said:
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


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.
December 10, 2012 6:01:39 PM

Hi :) 

Easy answer = NOT a good enough graphics card...

All the best Brett :) 
December 10, 2012 6:09:01 PM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

Easy answer = NOT a good enough graphics card...

All the best Brett :) 


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 ?
December 10, 2012 6:16:41 PM

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).
December 10, 2012 6:20:40 PM

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.
December 10, 2012 6:30:09 PM

iyzik said:
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.



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.
December 10, 2012 6:36:59 PM

iyzik said:
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 said:
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.


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. :/ 
December 10, 2012 8:28:12 PM

In single player it goes from 65 to 115 fps.
December 10, 2012 8:30:29 PM

Get an aftermarket cooler and OC the CPU. It will increase your performance in multiplayer dramatically.
December 10, 2012 9:34:11 PM

Yeah single player is not nearly as intensive on the CPU as multiplayer is.
I second what Sunius said.
December 10, 2012 9:41:52 PM

iyzik said:
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.


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.
December 10, 2012 9:54:06 PM

Sunius said:
Get an aftermarket cooler and OC the CPU. It will increase your performance in multiplayer dramatically.


My GPU is weaker, plus my CPU isn't overclocked and I get better performance. Why is this?
December 10, 2012 10:04:11 PM

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


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.
December 10, 2012 10:10:12 PM

casualcolors said:
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.



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.
December 10, 2012 10:11:42 PM

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


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.
December 10, 2012 11:17:07 PM

voiidwulf said:
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.


You got that wrong. The 7950 is the same as the 7970 only with lower clocks and maybe a few disabled shaders. Though the 7870 isn't that different, it is most similar to the 7850.
December 11, 2012 12:27:43 AM

bystander said:
You got that wrong. The 7950 is the same as the 7970 only with lower clocks and maybe a few disabled shaders. Though the 7870 isn't that different, it is most similar to the 7850.


Oh, your right.
December 11, 2012 12:53:31 PM

I dunno about the overclocking, just seems dangerous to me and expensive if something goes wrong.

I think if you can run it on on high with 70+ i think your doing alright. :) 

December 11, 2012 1:52:27 PM

Take off ambient oclusion, get off AA and use SweetFX to get AA. Should get you going np.
December 11, 2012 2:13:18 PM

Serthy said:
I dunno about the overclocking, just seems dangerous to me and expensive if something goes wrong.

I think if you can run it on on high with 70+ i think your doing alright. :) 


Nothing can go wrong if you're careful. If he bought FX CPU, he doesn't have any other choice than to OC them. They were meant to be OCed, as at stock their performance sucks.
December 13, 2012 7:02:17 AM

I've heard the AMD FX CPUs are terrible. Even if you got an 8-core one.
December 13, 2012 8:36:54 AM

the newer piledrivers are slightly better but not much. but they do run bf3 pretty well as it uses all 8 cores. on that setup he will be lucky to stay above 60 on most multiplayer maps more like 55 average with them settings.
certain parts of the maps are badly optimized you may be looking at a full screen of blank wall and thats all you see but in certain areas the gpu still draws huge amounts of pollys that just cant be see which results if fps crumpling...

go to the south side of the market map and stand in the main road with the market square at your back. now turn slightly to your right you should have buildings in front of you and very little else. walk sideways along that road till you come to the bridge and you will see your fps bouncing all over the place as you move...
like i say you wont see much other than walls and ally ways but the fps drop will be dramatic as the card renders stuff you cant see.
just poor programming on dices part.
December 13, 2012 10:01:29 AM

Yeah the FXs should be overclocked to increase performance. There's not much else you can do about them.
December 13, 2012 1:41:22 PM

The Stealthinator said:
I've heard the AMD FX CPUs are terrible. Even if you got an 8-core one.


I have the AMD FX 8350.......with the 7870 and I can play Skyrim MAXED OUT>

My Brother's rig has an i5 with Nvidia GTX 560 and even though it is a generation before it cannot handle Skyrim Maxed out.

This is contradictory to what all the websites say that the AMDs are 2-3 generations behind in performance.....

Not sure about BF3 yet.
AMD is releasing upcoming 12.11 drivers and according to them: "•10%-15% more performance in Battlefield 3 in most cases
◦More than 20% in certain missions and sequences (Comrades)"

SO I would wait for the new drivers.....and re-test
December 13, 2012 2:26:18 PM

tomniko said:
I have the AMD FX 8350.......with the 7870 and I can play Skyrim MAXED OUT>

My Brother's rig has an i5 with Nvidia GTX 560 and even though it is a generation before it cannot handle Skyrim Maxed out.

This is contradictory to what all the websites say that the AMDs are 2-3 generations behind in performance.....

Not sure about BF3 yet.
AMD is releasing upcoming 12.11 drivers and according to them: "•10%-15% more performance in Battlefield 3 in most cases
◦More than 20% in certain missions and sequences (Comrades)"

SO I would wait for the new drivers.....and re-test


The reason his computer can't handle maxed out skyrim with all the anti-aliasing and so on, is because his card is only a 560. The 560ti was considered the entry-level card to begin to maybe max some games with 2x MSAA at most during its generation. The 560 was well behind it in performance, and more of an OEM card. Your 7870 is considerably more powerful, and Skyrim's not a particularly intense game relative to a lot of things on the market making it kind of a poor benchmark (since so many rigs clear its threshold so easily).
December 13, 2012 2:30:06 PM

AMDs are 2-3 generations behind in terms of CPUs, not GPUs.
December 13, 2012 5:28:17 PM

Migueldlr88, the only HDD I could find was a Green version of your Seagate. Now that's a huge problem for gaming, as Green HDD's are actually slow. Good for the enviroment but slow for gaming. RPM is 5900, I use a WD HDD and the RPM on it is 7200, perfect for gaming because it's faster and can read all of the files on my computer in time for quicker loads than a Green HDD. Your right, it is the worst item on your PC but I stopped with AMD three years ago, went to Intel so I don't know anything about your CPU. Intel's Sandy and Ivy Bridge I know by heart, the FX series I don't know. But if it's the newest FX CPU to replace the Bulldozer, then it should be good enough as it can stand against Intel for budget builders. Hope this helps and happy gaming! =D
December 13, 2012 10:25:02 PM

tomniko said:
I have the AMD FX 8350.......with the 7870 and I can play Skyrim MAXED OUT>

My Brother's rig has an i5 with Nvidia GTX 560 and even though it is a generation before it cannot handle Skyrim Maxed out.

This is contradictory to what all the websites say that the AMDs are 2-3 generations behind in performance.....

Not sure about BF3 yet.
AMD is releasing upcoming 12.11 drivers and according to them: "•10%-15% more performance in Battlefield 3 in most cases
◦More than 20% in certain missions and sequences (Comrades)"

SO I would wait for the new drivers.....and re-test


Seriously? You are saying that in this thread too? The 7870 is much more powerful than a GTX 560, Intel or not. Also, how come it changed from your friend to your brother?
December 14, 2012 1:40:16 AM

voiidwulf said:
Seriously? You are saying that in this thread too? The 7870 is much more powerful than a GTX 560, Intel or not. Also, how come it changed from your friend to your brother?


I second this. 7870 owns a 560 Ti. And AMD is way behind in CPUs not GPUs. They are on top of the GPU market ATM with their 7970 GHz.
December 14, 2012 4:33:54 AM

voiidwulf said:
Seriously? You are saying that in this thread too? The 7870 is much more powerful than a GTX 560, Intel or not. Also, how come it changed from your friend to your brother?


Because this is the internet, where formulating an argument to fit your desired response is better than getting a real answer to a real question.
December 14, 2012 8:17:30 AM

TC just OC you HD7950 from 800MHz(core) to 1200Mhz(core) like i did, and you will a massive massive differences in performance, of course your GPU need to have a good cooler. also OC your cpu will help in BF3.
December 14, 2012 8:49:37 AM

The 8-core cpu you have isnt really utilised in my knowledge in games yet so it performs worse then a quad core i5-i7 cpu.

But the 7950 is a great gpu, so no reason why it shouldn't run bf3 maxed maybe with AA down a little bit.
December 14, 2012 9:56:16 PM

You need to look at per thread performance to choose the best CPU. 8-core CPU might perform better than quad-core using all threads, but if only using one thread, maybe the quad-core could perform better. Because games aren't yet designed to take advantage of more than 4-cores, having a 6 or 8-core CPU won't really help over a quad when it comes to gaming.
December 14, 2012 10:18:50 PM

Well in I have an i7 3770K with hyper threading so it has 8 threads, as does the FX-8. And bf3 most certainly does utilize all of those threads, BUT if I disable hyper threading and run the game on 4/4 instead of 4/8 I really dont see a big difference, barely noticeable at all.
December 14, 2012 10:31:13 PM

Maybe BF3 doesn't utilize all those threads. It is very rare to find a game that utilizes more than 4 cores today.
December 14, 2012 10:41:12 PM

The Stealthinator said:
Maybe BF3 doesn't utilize all those threads. It is very rare to find a game that utilizes more than 4 cores today.


Yeah, I agree with that. All I am saying is that if I monitor CPU thread usage across all 8 threads during bf3, they are all being used. But if I put it at 4 threads, there is no real performance difference.
December 15, 2012 11:30:10 AM

iyzik said:
Yeah, I agree with that. All I am saying is that if I monitor CPU thread usage across all 8 threads during bf3.


That's because windows spreads the load, and not because the game uses 8 threads.
December 15, 2012 3:20:27 PM

Sunius said:
That's because windows spreads the load, and not because the game uses 8 threads.


Figured thats what it was.
!