Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is my FPS normal ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 169 U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 11:29:49 AM

Hi all :) 
My old rig somehow died so i built a new system and wanted to know whether my FPS is fine or not,here are my system specs:

Core i7 860 @ stock(2.8 with speed step @ off)
8GB DDR3 1333 RAM
ATI HD 5970 @ stock
ASUS P7P55D EVO
WD Caviar Black 1TB
Corsair HX 1000
Windows 7 Ultimate X64
Catalyst 9.12 Hotfix

Stalker CALL OF Pripyat benchmark
Settings used:
1920x1200
Ultra settings
Enhanced Full Lightning DX11
0xAA
SSAO Mode: HDAO
SSAO Quality: Ultra
DX 10.1,Tessellation,Contract hardening shadows
By ImageHousing.com

Crysis Benchmark tool (Map Island)
Settings used:
1920x1200
Very high settings + DX 10 + 0xAA
Overall Average FPS: 45.45

Batman Arkham Asylum benchmark.
Settings used:
Everything maxed out @ 1920x1200 with V-Sync OFF
Avg: 141.449 - Min: 72 - Max: 198

FarCry2
Settings used:
1920x1200
Ultra high + DX10 + 0xAA
Avg:117 - Min: 73 - Max: 154

I looked around the web and my Stalker and Crysis scores were the same like other reviews but my FC2 and Batman benchies are lower than other reviews (such as Toms)its maybe they were using a 3.3 i7 or even faster CPUs ?

More about : fps normal

a c 169 U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 3:02:19 PM

Anyone ? :D 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 3:28:39 PM

I ain't got the expendable resources or need for a new system at the moment otherwise I would help you out there.

However, remember to only look at the minimum fps in tests, as a higher cpu will probably result in useless max fps affecting average scores.

Also, what is with the no AA?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 169 U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 4:12:47 PM

Well i play all of my games without any AA(Anti Aliasing) because it barely makes a difference for me
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 6:51:50 PM

Heresy.

Do you want the rack or dragged over coals to make you recant?
m
0
l
a c 169 U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 7:44:50 PM

I don't get what you are saying,i only want to know whether this Frames are OK or not :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 9:27:08 PM

Your fps seem right, but if i were you i would overclock your system. Should give you a really good boost.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 9:33:21 PM

For games that only take advantage of 2 cores, overclocking will give you a nice boost. Games that can take 4 cores I dont think you will gain to much.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2010 11:00:11 PM

Maziar said:
Well i play all of my games without any AA(Anti Aliasing) because it barely makes a difference for me


a moderator can't say things like that!

xD
m
0
l
a c 169 U Graphics card
February 17, 2010 3:16:22 AM

Well it doesn't really because for resolutions like 1920x1200 i don't see much of jagged edges,i don't mean it doesn't have an affect at all but it won't change the quality much compared to other important settings like AF or so
m
0
l
a c 169 U Graphics card
February 17, 2010 3:21:29 AM

paperfox said:
For games that only take advantage of 2 cores, overclocking will give you a nice boost. Games that can take 4 cores I dont think you will gain to much.

Yup that's what i thought,however i noticed when i enable AA,my FPS is pretty much like the benchmarks i have seen(even with faster CPUs)and i did a search and found this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5850,2433...
"Certain games we know are fairly CPU-dependent, like Left 4 Dead and to a lesser extent World in Conflict. It also appears that Resident Evil 5 has a penchant for processing power as we step down from our 4 GHz Core i7-870 to a stock-clocked 2.93 GHz chip. In the situations where the lower-clocked CPU gives up performance, though, you have lots of frame rate already. The most demanding workloads where playability is debatable could still use more GPU muscle. "
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2010 5:52:56 PM

My guess is, looking at your FC2 numbers, its XFire and the lower clocks combined here, but both are well over playable rates.
As for BAA, well thats a nVidia game, and it can be a problem for ATI cards for some odd reason. Whats the physx settings on?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2010 5:58:52 PM

I'm sure I had more posts than just two?

Am I going crazy here?
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
February 17, 2010 6:06:08 PM

strangestranger said:
I'm sure I had more posts than just two?

Am I going crazy here?

No, one was deleted for reasons unknown to me.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2010 6:07:18 PM

Ah, religious censorship no doubt. Oh well my sanity is restored.
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
February 17, 2010 6:20:04 PM

strangestranger said:
Oh well my sanity is restored.

Now that is unlikely. :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 169 U Graphics card
February 17, 2010 6:22:30 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
My guess is, looking at your FC2 numbers, its XFire and the lower clocks combined here, but both are well over playable rates.
As for BAA, well thats a nVidia game, and it can be a problem for ATI cards for some odd reason. Whats the physx settings on?

No PhysX is OFF,yes both games are completely playable and if i add AA my FPS would be pretty much like the reviews i saw but without AA it seems to be lower.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2010 10:19:07 PM

Maziar said:
No PhysX is OFF,yes both games are completely playable and if i add AA my FPS would be pretty much like the reviews i saw but without AA it seems to be lower.


karma?

:p 

sounds like it could be the dreaded VRM bottleneck. check your GPUz temperatures and make sure your card isnt throttling from high VRM temps.

may need to increase the fan speed manually, if thats the case.
m
0
l
February 18, 2010 11:48:03 AM

hey, where can I get that "map island" to benchmark. I'd like to compare my results to yours. I'm running 3 5870s with a PII 965 @4.0GHZ
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 18, 2010 12:44:19 PM

The crysis built in benchmark IMO is not the best to use. I say just run through the game.
m
0
l
!