Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Asus HD4870 with Crysis - choppy!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 15, 2008 3:07:10 PM

This is kinda frustrating, isnt Crysis supposed to run smoothly with HD4870?
All settings on "High", 1440x900 res and no AA.
The stuttering becomes particularly severe in combat scenes, which turns the game into a slideshow at times.
I still get about 7900 gpu points in 3DMark Vantage which is, as far as I know, a decent value for this card running at stock.

I've tried with both the asus drivers and the latest Ati drivers (along with the "hotfix") and although I get much better performance with the ati drivers compared to the asus version, I'm still not satisfied.

Is there a problem with my card? drivers? or perhaps Crysis is simply too demanding for my system? The only game I've tried with this card aside from Crysis is BF2 which runs with no problems.

GPU: Asus Extreme Radeon HD4870 512MB
CPU: C2D E6750 @ 3,2 GhZ
MB: Asus P5KC iP35
PSU: 750W Corsair
RAM: 2GB Corsair DDR2 PC2-6400
OS: Vista x32 SP1
August 15, 2008 3:17:27 PM

Your first problem is that you purchased an Asus video card. I have had so many problems with their graphics cards over the past 12 months that I simply refuse to buy anything but their motherboards anymore.

Now, my rant aside, Check the card temps and make sure you're not close to a run away nuclear reaction.
August 15, 2008 3:26:24 PM

Vista is your plague. Get XP, with modified configuration files you'll have basically all the effects that DX10 has minus the massive performance loss (it actually looks better to me).
Related resources
August 15, 2008 3:37:37 PM

It may not have to do with the graphics card at all. Is there a lot of hdd activity during the stuttering? If so your system may be running out of ram. Vista itself takes 1+gb of ram at any given time, and Crysis hogs 2+gb after a while of gameplay. I use Vista 64bit with 8800gts, and get 45+ fps minimum, including heavy combat scenes, at 1280x1024 resolution, which is roughly the same area as 1440x900 widescreen.

It could also have to do with cpu overheating and throttling. Run prime95 and see what the max temperature is.

On the graphics card side, how much do you get in 3dmark06? I can't run Vantage because the trial version has limited number of runs and I don't want to pay for the full version. :p 


Aside from benchmark, try to stress the gpu and see how hot it gets.
http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/fur/
August 15, 2008 3:45:55 PM

Im runing a Q6600 at 3.2 ghz 4 gig ram and a force 3d HD4870, runing vantage at 1280x800 (i dnt no if reselution run at efects the final score) but i got 9823 at stock and when OCd in CCC to 790/1100 i got 10429, which means yours is running slow (if the reselution run at doesnt effect the score)

Try OCing in CCC just pull both bars all the way 2 the right in overdrive and use the fan fix thing you can do so it dont run hot

Maybe only 2 gigs of ram isnt helpin
August 15, 2008 4:05:19 PM

+1 to the ram issue. especially on vista. not sure why they even have a 32 bit vista with all the ram it uses. this might not be your only problem but it will be a problem. check the other stuff but at somepoint you are definitely going to want to spend a few $ (probably $50 or so) to get 2 more and go 64-bit.
August 15, 2008 4:13:19 PM

bdollar said:
+1 to the ram issue. especially on vista. not sure why they even have a 32 bit vista with all the ram it uses. this might not be your only problem but it will be a problem. check the other stuff but at somepoint you are definitely going to want to spend a few $ (probably $50 or so) to get 2 more and go 64-bit.

Even with the 4gb limitations (around 3.2gb realistically), it should still be enough. 2gb is not.
August 15, 2008 5:06:19 PM

If you're using Vista you should go 4GB+ and 64bit. Kind of stupid that you need that extra ram and will still trail behind XP SP3.
August 15, 2008 5:08:01 PM

4gb is enough. You do not need more than 4gb for typical programs.
August 15, 2008 5:11:34 PM

32 bit sucks the big one. <------pointless comment
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2008 5:12:46 PM

4 gigs is plenty. And 32 bit, youre stuck with 3.2 anyways. 64 bit, like dagger says, can use 8 gigs, but what programs actually needs that much? Anything over 3 gigs is overkill ATM
August 15, 2008 5:23:36 PM

modtech said:
Vista is your plague. Get XP, with modified configuration files you'll have basically all the effects that DX10 has minus the massive performance loss (it actually looks better to me).

I have Vista x64 and a 512MB 8800GT and I get perfectly playable FPS under DX10 all high settings. You can easily force Crysis to run under DX9 in Vista anyway, but driver updates have made the performance difference between DX9 and DX10 pretty much negligible. And WTF the hacked DX9 very high settings don't look better than 'real' very high; despite what you might hear from the Vista hating crowd there are some effects in Crysis that absolutely will not work properly under DX9.

What s1m0rgh describes does not sound like a RAM issue. More likely something is getting too hot or a driver needs updating.
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2008 5:35:31 PM

Those 8.8 betas I posted are said to give at least a 20% increase in very high settings.
August 15, 2008 5:36:04 PM

if he's running Vista 32bit he cannot have more than 4 gb or ram

well mate go for XP sp2 with all the latest update (integrated on the xp cd)

A friend of mine owns crysis and works perfectly with the Nvidia 8800gt and XP sp2
August 15, 2008 5:41:29 PM

Try turning down the shadows in crysis, its the only setting that chokes my 4850 a little. (catalyst 8.7)
August 15, 2008 5:44:06 PM

Crysis can hog 2+ gb of ram on high settings after a few hours of gameplay. 2gb of ram won't be enough regardless of OS. Reinstalling OS is a drastic, time consuming step that won't solve the problem anyway, if the problem is ram related. It may also have to do with something else.
August 15, 2008 7:04:10 PM

The differences between DX10 and tweaked DX9 are too subtle to justify the performance loss. Vista is automatically slower in DX9 vs XP which is actually a dream OS to run since SP3.
August 15, 2008 7:24:39 PM

To each his own. It all depends on hardware.

I think Vista Ultimate 32 runs way faster then XP Pro 32. People will agree and argue, but it depends on the system.

But you should get more ram for Crysis.
August 27, 2008 5:42:52 PM

I agree with dagger, you will need more than 2GB of ram for sure to play crysis in vista. I have 4GB installed and when crysis boots up my system is at 58% physical usage, so at minimal load in-game my system is using well over 2 GB RAM.
August 28, 2008 2:14:51 PM

Then again I've noticed it runs fairly slowly in DX10 v.high settings too, i've got a 4870, running at 1680x1050, with 6gigs in vista64 plus an e8500 overclocked to 3.8GHz... I'm only seeing around 22 to 23fps, if I drop the shader quality to high leaving everything else on very high though it gives me around 35fps on average.

I've been debating swapping for a 4870x2 for this reason, as I'm concerned about wanting to run warhead and farcry 2!
August 28, 2008 2:37:22 PM

Then again I've noticed it runs fairly slowly in DX10 v.high settings too, i've got a 4870, running at 1680x1050, with 6gigs in vista64 plus an e8500 overclocked to 3.8GHz... I'm only seeing around 22 to 23fps (and I'm pretty sure I remember my 8800GTX I upgraded from giving me around 20 to 21fps - although granted that was at 1280x1024), if I drop the shader quality to high leaving everything else on very high though it gives me around 35fps on average.

I've been debating swapping for a 4870x2 for this reason, as I'm concerned about wanting to run warhead and farcry 2!
August 28, 2008 9:41:12 PM

I am running at the same rez with the 4870. I get more frequent drops in FPS using Vista than what I do with XP but you shouldn't be getting slide shows.

Getting 4GB of RAM will no doubt help. Maybe you can try ready boost if you have a USB memory key laying around. Perhaps it will free up some RAM for gaming.

I would go through Vista and tweak it for gaming though at the least. Turn off the Aero and indexing for sure but check out this site for some ideas. It might help a bit.

http://redchaos.wordpress.com/2007/03/06/tweak-vista-fo...
a b U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
August 29, 2008 2:29:01 PM

I run a 9800GX2 with 2GB system RAM on XP SP3, 30-55 FPS in most instances.

Try running at 1200x1024 and tell me what you get, so I have a direct comparision to work with.
August 29, 2008 11:19:06 PM

gamerk316 said:
I run a 9800GX2 with 2GB system RAM on XP SP3, 30-55 FPS in most instances.

Try running at 1200x1024 and tell me what you get, so I have a direct comparision to work with.


That's a bit low. Benchmarkers get avg 48.8 fps on higher 1680x1050 resolution, High settings with shaders at Very High.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=13

Running out of ram would certainly explain the difference.
August 29, 2008 11:42:51 PM

modtech said:
Vista is your plague. Get XP, with modified configuration files you'll have basically all the effects that DX10 has minus the massive performance loss (it actually looks better to me).

I can play all high with 30 fps on a 9600GT using vista 64 stfu and stop spreading lies. Crysis uses up to 2 gb of ram for me and I never get any stuttering. and superfetch wil NOT cause this, when the game needs ram the cache is instantly purged and is NO slower than allocating free memory, some of you trolls need to get your facts straight.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.a...

vista has nearly identical gaming performance as xp.
August 30, 2008 8:36:49 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
4 gigs is plenty. And 32 bit, youre stuck with 3.2 anyways. 64 bit, like dagger says, can use 8 gigs, but what programs actually needs that much? Anything over 3 gigs is overkill ATM


8gb allows you to switch off the pagefile altogether forcing vista to just use physical memory and still run memory hog applications without a problem. Personally I prefer to have my system accessing fast ram rather than a slow mechanical hard disk for memory operations.

With 3-4 GB turning off the pagefile leads to crash situations, dont forget operating systems start using the pagefile by default for operations long BEFORE they run out of physical memory, I hate having hearing my disk shunting away waiting to swap a window or alt tab out of a game etc etc. 8gb allows you to safely run all memory operations in actual memory 3-4gb isnt enough to do this without affecting system stability.
a b U Graphics card
August 30, 2008 10:03:34 AM

Has that actually been proven with Vista. I know with xp it always was a questionable call, with 32 or 64. Any links? Something that shows actually access reduction times? Im not doubting you, its that Id like to read about it
August 30, 2008 10:43:12 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Has that actually been proven with Vista. I know with xp it always was a questionable call, with 32 or 64. Any links? Something that shows actually access reduction times? Im not doubting you, its that Id like to read about it


Ive not done any bench marking to prove it but you certainly notice your hard disk not shunting away, things feel that bit quicker, but I dont know of any benchmarks for pagefile vs ram, you can get hard disk benchmarks and ram benchmarks, but I dont know of any benchmarks for ram vs pagefile. First loading of an application wont be any quicker but in actual use it makes a difference I find particularly when alt tabbing or working with large files.

I dont think there can be any qustion that ram is faster access and throughput than hard disks... Thats part of the reason why SSD solutions are coming on the scene... (Ive got a SSD hard drive coming monday)

This is an article toms ran, no benchmarks though...

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Microsoft-Windows-Vista,r...
a b U Graphics card
August 30, 2008 10:52:45 AM

TY Im reading...
a b U Graphics card
August 30, 2008 9:42:27 PM

try to reinstall driver only reason im saying this because for some reason my 2 gtx260 was getting 18-24fps running crysis on 1680x1050, all very high, 16aa randomly when i was getting 30-35fps earlier, after reinstalling my fps went back normal to 30-35fps.
!