Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

System Has Poor Performance...Need Help

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
December 27, 2008 11:45:11 PM

OK, so I have an outdated rig, I know. I did build it a few years ago with good quality parts, but I am delaying building a new one because I don't have the time and dont want to have to spend the $$, but I am rapidly approaching a frustration level of just doing it.

So here is my issue. I do many things on my rig, but my enjoyment part is gaming. I play all sorts of games, but the example I will use is Call of Duty 2 and 4. My original rig, which is in my signature, is the one I been using. I just replaced my grafx card form the 7800GTX to an EVGA GTX 260 (216pipes). In order to get this thing on my DFI board, I had to stop using 2 of my Nvidia SATA slots so only my OS hard drive is on the faster Nvidia slots now. Thats just an annoyance and not why I am posting. My annoyance is that with this new card, my graphical performance is not nearly what I want it to be. I was getting 125+ FPS in COD2 almost 99% of the time. I put in this new card with performance settings (Directx7, etc) and I am only getting a bouncing rate of like 170-210FPS. It jumps a lot, but never touches like 220. I was expecting 300+ constant from what I have heard. I cannot even get close.

So my question/concern is: Is my rig really bottle-necking that card THAT badly or is there some tweaking that I can do to bump the performance? I have my memory/cpu OC'd a moderate amount, but nothing drastic. Is there anything that I should change to get a noticeable impact or am I stuck until I buy something new?


System settings from cpuz are attached.



Any feedback is appreciated.
December 28, 2008 2:06:55 AM

directx7? their on 10 now, try updating your drivers. it is also likely due to bottlenecking
December 28, 2008 2:18:23 AM

well i'm not a expert, but I've heard that the human eye can't tell the differance after 60FPS. So, why don't you try for lower FPS and better eye candy?
Related resources
December 28, 2008 12:22:35 PM

I know what you are saying, but there are things in games that are possible with very high FPS that are not possible with lower levels. So I am ot saying this from a "what I see" perspective, but from a capabilities perspective.
a b K Overclocking
December 28, 2008 12:54:30 PM

200fps is all you are getting, holy cow what a terrible, awful problem that must be.......
Anyhow, your processor is not nearly strong enough to boost that GPU to it's full potential. Time to start all over since you are only getting 200FPS, good grief that sounds completely stupid.
December 28, 2008 2:02:26 PM

Quote:
Your an idiot.

Sorry, no point being civil here, people like you who believe all that rubbish about high fps need shot.

I've seen people running games with v-sync on who would hand your ass to you on a plate in some games. Less work on fps, more work on skill me thinks. Of course i aint pro so clearly know nothing.



Well since we are not being civil, then why don't you STFU? I don't disrespect people until they say something stupid to me. Why don't you close your pie hole, mkay?


As for what you know or do not know, well your post shows your lack of intellect.

I have played games competitively for years and it is a world of difference. Its not always about what you can or cannot see, its many times whats possible at higher FPS. For example, there are certain "moves, jumps, actions, etc" that are possible at extreme FPS. Most importantly consistent FPS is the first issue. I will not respond to your classless attempt at making sense about skill. I know one thing....with championships, sponsorships, awards, etc in my past for my teams in gaming, I will consider exactly zero of what you have to say about it.

BTW, before calling people an idiot, you should first learn how to write the English language correctly.
a b K Overclocking
December 28, 2008 2:17:23 PM

Looks to me like CPU might be a bottle neck, have you tried OCing? Also update the drivers.
December 28, 2008 2:19:43 PM

Thx shadow. I think my drivers are up to date. It is overclocked a bit, but nothing drastic. I think the settings should show in the cpuz report I posted above.
a c 86 K Overclocking
December 28, 2008 2:51:54 PM

You are CPU limited. No matter what you do, the CPU is old and you need to UG for what your trying to do. And Methinks the ram you list is wrong, Your running DDR500? Is is even DDR2? Is that Mobo/CPU that old?
a b K Overclocking
December 28, 2008 2:53:39 PM

^ Yes. It's from the Socket 939 days so it's DDR.
December 28, 2008 2:55:25 PM

Get off the Acid. 200 frames dont allow cretain things to happen. You claim to know it does, but have never had a system that could get those frames.
December 28, 2008 3:09:18 PM

djtech2k said:
... there are certain "moves, jumps, actions, etc" that are possible at extreme FPS...



lol what game is this? street fighter?
December 28, 2008 3:39:37 PM

its called the placebo effect, you can tell someone theyr getting 400fps when theyr actually getting 60fps, and since they cant tell the difference they actually believe there is one, kind of like the Mojave experience thing with M$
a b K Overclocking
December 28, 2008 5:39:34 PM

djtech2k said:
I know what you are saying, but there are things in games that are possible with very high FPS that are not possible with lower levels. So I am ot saying this from a "what I see" perspective, but from a capabilities perspective.


ROFLMAO
a b K Overclocking
December 28, 2008 6:22:20 PM

In quake 3 based games there are things you can do with the right frame rates. One of them is to jump both higher and farther. Its sort of a glitch that is still around today.

but no need for 300.
December 28, 2008 7:10:03 PM

How about trying some recent games so you have a real reason for your 'frustration' ? CoD 2? 2?? COME ON what a waste
December 28, 2008 8:09:22 PM

Nukemaster knows what I am saying. Many games still use pieces of the Quake engines, so it is still viable. High FPS makes certain jumps/moves possible. In competition, if you are limited in any way, then you have a disadvantage. Now, I am not as competitive as I used to be, but if I build a new rig or whatever, I want it to be prepared to do anything I want to do.

As for COD2, well that was just an example. I play multiple games, including COD4, CSS, BF series, etc.
December 28, 2008 8:41:35 PM

lol get off the acid. lol
December 28, 2008 9:05:22 PM

Conumdrum said:
You are CPU limited. No matter what you do, the CPU is old and you need to UG for what your trying to do. And Methinks the ram you list is wrong, Your running DDR500? Is is even DDR2? Is that Mobo/CPU that old?


2 year old system + brand new graphics = 2 year old performance

DDR500 was high high end and expensive and didnt offer much of an advantage.

I say new RAM + CPU + MOBO combo and Vista64 to match
December 28, 2008 9:13:15 PM

That's what I figured. I am spec'ing out some parts now, but it looks like I will have to build from ground up. I did not want to go to the time or expense, but I guess I may have to if I want better performance.

The i7 seems nice, but all the boards are crazy expensive for it.
December 28, 2008 10:06:02 PM

djtech2k, if you want to know how your system stacks up, run 3dmark06...its free and you can get a standarized result and we will be able to see what you have. I just built a pretty sick system for about 1100 I think, and you could probably shave some bucks off of that...especally since you already got the GTX 260.
December 29, 2008 5:35:43 AM

Core 2 Quad's are cheap - look into that option for now?
December 29, 2008 2:27:28 PM

I was worried about putting a GTX 260 Black Edition in my old AMDX2 5000+ rig. Instead, I just built a new one, and I think you'd be a lot better off this way as well. If I were you, I'd stick to C2Q, just like apache mentioned. The Q6600/Q6700 and Q9450/Q9550 are all nice CPUs. I went with Q6700, and I'm pretty happy with it. (Definitely doesn't bottleneck the GPU except in CPU-intense games, but that's where the OC capabilities of the chip come in).
!