(really) Bad performance? 4870 512MB

[alwinp]

Ok, i'm getting fed up about this now.

I already had bad FPS in far cry 2 playing it on XP pro with settings on super high and resolution at 1280 x 1024.
I had arround 40 fps, sometimes it drops to 20 sometimes it raises to 6x
In all terms it was playable, but not smooth, not at all.

I eventually upgraded to vista now, and as I feared, this got worse Alot worse. I installed service pack 1, got the entire system auto updated. Installed the 8.10 hotfix catalyst and yes, my fps is even worse.

(note: I installed far cry 2 after installing the catalyst)

I can't enable HDR either (maybe thats because DX10 already adds it by itself, no idea)

I tried few settings:

Resolution is the same on all settings: 1280 x 1024.

Ultra high - 8x AA - bloom enabled : ~15 FPS
high - 0x AA - bloom disabled: ~40 FPS
Low - dx9 version (no hdr) - bloom disabled - 0x AA: ~65 FPS

Seriously, what the hell?
I know my cpu is bottlenecking my card, but is it really that bad to cause such performance.

People recommanded me to buy this 512MB card, and i'm feeling ripped off right now. other benchmarks on the net show stable performance with higher resolutions and settings at super high.

Maybe they used the 1024MB version of this card, but would that really make this big of a difference? Or maybe because i have an Asus EAH4870 (although someone out here told me there no difference)

Its pissing me off now. I spended 250 euro on this card, I expect(ed) alot better for this.


My current system:

- ASUS EAH4870 DDR5 512MB
- Kingston 4GB ddr2 pc 800
- Asus m2n-e
- AMD x2 4600+ core speed at 2.4 ghz (default)
- 650W antec power supply

I even oc'd my card using ati's overdrive and putted my gpu from 750 to 800 and my memory from 900 to 1000. still the same results.

 

[njalterio]

That CPU is definitely bottlenecking you big time. You answered your own problem. Usually for when sites like Tom's do any benchmarking, they will use an e8400 overclocked.

 

[njalterio]

Actually I just checked the graphics card benchmarking article on Tom's.
They used a QX6800 at 2.93 GHz. That would make a HUGE difference on your results compared to Tom's.

 

[ahslan]

sorry to be the bearer of bad new but it does seem like ur processor is bottlenecking your rig...if you could reach an OC of about 2.9ghz (maybe...), u will see some improvements in your gaming performance...

 

[accu]

with your resolution @1280x1024 it doesnt matter if you got the 1gb version. make sure your 4870 is stable due to the fact that you have OC'ed. you should oc your cpu rather then your gpu.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Try using the Cat 8.11 drivers, there supposed to have fixed a few bugs, plus performance is up also in FC2 http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_catalyst.aspx?p=vista32/common-vista32

 

[topper743]

Do an uninstall and try the new 8.11 driver. The cpu is a little slim for max performance. Can you get the cpu up a bit 2.7, 2.8? Is the "hot fix" required for 8.10 & 8.11? That was ment to be used before specific the HD 4XXX drivers were issued, Try the 8.11 without the added hot fix. Back the gpu mem back down to 950. 8.11 has some enhancements for far cry.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10447&Itemid=1

 

[yonef]

Definitely the CPU is bottlenecking. I have AMD 4800+ OC @ 3.2 and HD4870 512MB ver. FarCry2 is going good (1680x1050 ultra setting ~40 fps) BUT if I revert my CPU back to default clock - ho******! It drops to ~15 fps on the same settings. I don't know what is the problem in here but on other games there is no such impact on performance when switching between 2.5 and 3.2 Ghz CPU. FarCry2 seems to be hugely CPU demanded.
I doubt that cat-8.11 will improve your performance because you're definitely CPU bottlenecked.

 

[alwinp]

well, i have no idea where to start when it comes to oc'ing my cpu

I checked the bios but it dousnt show any options to raise the multiplyer nor FSB. I was hoping i could OC it to about 2.6/2.8 ghz.

and i'm totally unfamiliar with voltage overclocking

 

[antiacid]

so you are running a cpu from 2 years ago to play a game from last month and you are sad that you don't get performance levels comparable to 6months old hardware?.

Get a grip.

 

[alwinp]

Actually, yes i'm sad

because i didn't expect this. I had no idea that the cpu would be this old compared to the card.

If i would have known that this cpu would have been way out to date for this card then i would have bought that instead.

Sorry for not knowing that much about computer systems as you do.

sigh

 

[jonpaul37]

update that CPU to an AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ or higher, that will solve your problems

 

[alwinp]

well I was planning to wait till i have enough budges to buy a gigabyte mobo & intell C2Q 6600.

I might get that amd 6000+ if its really nessicary
The cashe is only 512kb while intell has at least 4x that much

 

[zodiacfml]

don't get the c2q 6600 if you can't overclock it.
just ask someone to overclock your current amd processer to 2.8 or 2.9 Ghz, it can be done.

 

[husky mctarflash]

Don't worry--this is not a fatal problem.

If you are living in the US, check out this CPU at NewEgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16819103272 $92, with free shipping, and I suspect you could ebay your 4600 and get maybe $30-40 out of it.

This wouldn't be the end all/be all of processors (and unfortunately not really competitive with comparable Intel offerings), but it would solve all of your problems until you decide to do the big buck system overhaul.

2.4 GHz is too low for games. The magic number seems to be in the low 3 GHz level. The X2 6000+ is at 3.1 stock, and can go up to 3.3 or so.

This is a no-brainer with your existing mobo/RAM/VGA. ~$60 well spent.

Good luck!

 

[topper743]

Hi, I thought I would pop in with a benchmark review I found.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/far-cry-2-pc-vga-graphics-performance-review/5

Notice the test bed system an e8400 but not overclocked. Perhaps the new 8.11 will improve your performance. Several others have recommended some upgrades, find one you can live with/afford. You can see that you are not far off some of the benchmarks even with the older cpu.

 

[BlakHart]

Definitely the CPU being bottlenecked. Those benchmarks seem reasonable with your hardware. FC2 is a little less stressful on the cpu than say...Crysis. but it does utilize 4 cores and having that is essential with those shadows cranked up. OC the CPU or go quad. You basically have the same specs as me minus my q6600 and the 1gb 4870 and I get 50 fps average @ 1680x1050, Ultra High, and 4xAA.

 

[alwinp]

well, i'm thinking about getting a 6400+ amd athlon.

I know its not as great as intell quad, but my mobo makes it almost impossible to OC my current cpu to even 2.8 or so.

And if i would go intell i'd lose at least 300euro because i would have to add a new mobo. It'll be worht it, sure
But my budget is low, and the 6400+ is a quick solution.

 

[topper743]

Here is a good article for you to read. You'll see the performance of faster CPUs and faster GPUs compaired.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870-x2,2073.html

The same issues apply to your system. Even the fastest CPU you can buy will only get you so far. The article was done with the cat 8.10 driver. Try the 8.11 with the far cry optimizations. Post your results,