Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are these acceptable framerates for an HD 7770 + Core i3?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 6, 2013 11:35:28 AM

Hi, Mike2012 here. Well I just upgraded from an HD 7750 to an HD 7770 and I have to say, I've barely noticed any performance increase, despite the higher core clock and the fact that it uses more power.

In Resident Evil 5, I still get an FPS drop in one cutscene with 2x aa at 1600x900. I got the same FPS drop on the HD 7750.

In BF3, I still have to turn everything on low to average 60fps at 1080p. If I turn it on medium, it still dips into the 40's and 50's at that resolution. It still looks pretty good, but it performs pretty much the same as my HD 7750 did.

In Mass Effect 3, I get terrible performance at 1080p. The FPS drips to 40fps and 50fps on max. This is unacceptable performance for a console port.

In Black Ops II, I can still only manage medium settings, with AO off at 1080p and maintain 60fps. If I put AO on, the fps drops down to 30fps in places. Strangely, this doesn't happen at 1600x900.

I've also noticed that even when some games are running at 60fps, they feel sluggish.

I'm using the 13.1 drivers.

Also, I've noticed a couple graphical glitches too, could I have damaged the card or did I just buy a bad one?

And do HDTV's affect framerates at 1080p?
March 6, 2013 12:19:03 PM

A 7750 to 7770 is not a huge upgrade so I would only expect a small increase in FPS that may not be noticeable. If the games are CPU limited then no graphics card will help but I don't think this is likely, you can run GPUz and task manager to check if CPU or GPU are at 100%. A HDTV shouldn't lower FPS but can cause input lag if you can turn off all post processing features on the TV.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 6, 2013 2:04:48 PM

Yeah, that was not the smartest upgrade - should've bumped up to an HD 7850 1GB at least.

Another thing, your CPU determines your minimum framerate. So since you did not upgrade your CPU, your games will still drop to the same fps as before.

I know - I get the same drops in those games - mostly when there's a longer draw distance or a bunch of explosions. i3 cannot handle a constant 60fps in most newer games.
m
0
l
March 6, 2013 8:09:16 PM

jessterman21 said:
Yeah, that was not the smartest upgrade - should've bumped up to an HD 7850 1GB at least.

Another thing, your CPU determines your minimum framerate. So since you did not upgrade your CPU, your games will still drop to the same fps as before.

I know - I get the same drops in those games - mostly when there's a longer draw distance or a bunch of explosions. i3 cannot handle a constant 60fps in most newer games.

What exactly do you mean by it can't hold 60fps? Like I said, I could get 60fps in BF3 at 1080p, but only on low. It's not that the processor that holds me back in a game like that. Even in 32 player games I can hold 60fps on low. It's not a CPU issue.

What especially dissapoints me is seeing such a low fps in ME3. It doesn't look anywhere near good as BF3 on low or Black Ops II on medium, but runs badly in higher resolutions. It recommends an HD 4850 with 512 MB, but I'm having problems with a much more powerful card? Perhaps it one of those games that runs better on older hardware?

Strangely, this guy reports 60fps in ME3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOGTMy2fMxU

I think the HDTV might also play a role in lessening framerates.

m
0
l
March 6, 2013 8:32:23 PM

mike2012 said:
What exactly do you mean by it can't hold 60fps? Like I said, I could get 60fps in BF3 at 1080p, but only on low. It's not that the processor that holds me back in a game like that. Even in 32 player games I can hold 60fps on low. It's not a CPU issue.

What especially dissapoints me is seeing such a low fps in ME3. It doesn't look anywhere near good as BF3 on low or Black Ops II on medium, but runs badly in higher resolutions. It recommends an HD 4850 with 512 MB, but I'm having problems with a much more powerful card? Perhaps it one of those games that runs better on older hardware?

Strangely, this guy reports 60fps in ME3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOGTMy2fMxU

I think the HDTV might also play a role in lessening framerates.

When you turn settings to Low in nearly any game, it reduces the CPU-intensive settings as well as the GPU-intensive settings. Particles, physics, decal and corpse lifetime, and draw-distances are all CPU-based settings that get turned down a lot when you set a game to medium or low. I get very infrequent drops to the 40-50fps range in ME3, but only when I'm looking at a fairly busy scene that extends well into the distance. Same with Arkham City or Assassin's Creed.

Running the game on your TV has nothing to do with framerate, other than the demanding (for your card) resolution of 1920x1080. It's about 40% more graphically demanding than 1600x900.
m
0
l
March 6, 2013 8:32:35 PM

The resolution might but the HDTV has nothing to do with it.

That guys rig has an i5 in it instead which boosts performance in a game like mass effect that isn't GPU limited really.

That video looks very stuttery to me to be honest. Just drop some settings or buy a more powerful card and CPU.
m
0
l
March 6, 2013 8:39:07 PM

Also after watching a few of his videos I don't think his results are legitimate.

skyrim maxed at 1080p, Battlefield maxed at slightly lower. Sounds fishy to me.
m
0
l
March 6, 2013 8:46:33 PM

jessterman21 said:
When you turn settings to Low in nearly any game, it reduces the CPU-intensive settings as well as the GPU-intensive settings. Particles, physics, decal and corpse lifetime, and draw-distances are all CPU-based settings that get turned down a lot when you set a game to medium or low. I get very infrequent drops to the 40-50fps range in ME3, but only when I'm looking at a fairly busy scene that extends well into the distance. Same with Arkham City or Assassin's Creed.

Running the game on your TV has nothing to do with framerate, other than the demanding (for your card) resolution of 1920x1080. It's about 40% more graphically demanding than 1600x900.

Yes, but in Arkham City I even get 60fps in the demo on high settings at 1080p. Not in the actual game though.

Just Cause 2, BF3 and Civ V have much more going on than in ME3. It's one of those games where no matter how much I upgrade my hardware, the game still runs like crap at higher resolutions. 6x more powerful than consoles, but it has problems with running a game with Xbox 360 graphics and textures?

And I do think it has to with the TV though.

With BOII at 1600x900 I can turn everything to high except shadows with AO on and get 60fps.

On the HDTV though, the second I turn on ambient occlusion the game drops to 30fps while there's smoke and then goes back to 60fps. In the same scene at 1600x900 the game kept a constant 60fps with ambient occlusion.
m
0
l
March 6, 2013 8:56:24 PM

Play everything on low and at 720p to get console performance. Remember they only get 30 fps
m
0
l
March 6, 2013 11:23:51 PM

darth pravus said:
Play everything on low and at 720p to get console performance. Remember they only get 30 fps

+1

And your AO performance drop is your GPU running out of steam, and it sounds like you have Vsync on in that game - turn it off and see if the drops are around 50fps... Vsync locks the framerate to a multiple of your monitor's refresh rate. Unless your machine can keep 60fps at all times, it will drop down to 30fps during the times it can't.
m
0
l
March 7, 2013 2:17:44 AM

darth pravus said:
Play everything on low and at 720p to get console performance. Remember they only get 30 fps

Which makes me wonder why you need a 10x better GPU than consoles to max the game. Probably due to poor coding or something.

Not everyone has $1000 to max out a console port.

Guess I'll have to just settle for medium settings in console ports.

Just pains me that I had spent money on a PSU, then a new graphics card and barely see any performance difference.
m
0
l
March 7, 2013 5:54:23 AM

As we said, because you bought a very similar GPU the difference was always going to be minimal as per the benchmarks i posted earlier.

Well playing at 1080p is already pushing loads more pixels plus high res textures, better shaders, more options, DX11 effects and the fact that PC has to develop for multiple hardware sets.
m
0
l
March 7, 2013 2:48:48 PM

It was a driver issue though not the card.

When I installed the 13.1 drivers, I got 40-60fps in Mafia II on max settings with no aa.

Now that I've completely uninstalled those drivers and installed the 13.1 beta 7 drivers I'm getting a constant 60fps.

Yep, it was the drivers, so you guys saying that the i3 was the problem were wrong.

Now, BF3 runs at 60fps at 1600x900 on high settings in single player and ME3 runs at a constant 60fps at 1600x900.

Bad performance isn't always a hardware problem, as some would think.
m
0
l
!