Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Empire Total War 4890

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2010 3:07:06 AM

im getting 16 to 25 fps (zoomed into the army fighting) 24 to 34 fps while looking at all the army, but not zooming much
my settings are:
1920x1080 all ultra, no aa, bilinear filtering, everything checked, beside v sync and hardware something(HDR and SSAO ON), unit size is medium
is that good performance? or bad

More about : empire total war 4890

February 26, 2010 3:11:29 AM

No. you should upgrade to a 9700pro. After all a 9700 is over 4000 higher than a 4890.

That being said, if you find a better graphics card for $200 than the 4890 let me know. The 4890 is one of the best graphics cards ever.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2010 3:13:41 AM

gamerguy1 said:
No. you should upgrade to a 9700pro. After all a 9700 is over 4000 higher than a 4890.

That being said, if you find a better graphics card for $200 than the 4890 let me know. The 4890 is one of the best graphics cards ever.

what i me i think i should get over like 40 fps
why only in the 20s?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2010 3:18:16 AM

in World in Conflict im getting 35 fps average
all settings to highest and everything checked, no fps cap, aa or af
1920x1080
anything wrong? or the fps is ok
February 26, 2010 3:21:19 AM

That game is very graphics intensive. I think the performance of your card is right where it should be.

An overclocked CPU might bump it a few frames. How big is your screen?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2010 3:24:37 AM

gamerguy1 said:
That game is very graphics intensive. I think the performance of your card is right where it should be.

An overclocked CPU might bump it a few frames. How big is your screen?

the benchmarks on this website is higher than mines
i got a 23 inch
look
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4890,2262...
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2010 3:27:12 AM

What is your CPU?

hes got a 1920x1080 screen and that's indeed 4890 territory.
February 26, 2010 3:27:12 AM

Maybe its your CPU what MB CPU and RAM are you using?

Most people dont realize those test setups have $1000 ICore7 Cpus with mach 2000 ram.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2010 3:36:15 AM

paperfox said:
What is your CPU?

hes got a 1920x1080 screen and that's indeed 4890 territory.

Intel® Core™2 Quad processor Q8300 2.5Ghz
February 26, 2010 3:39:31 AM

Thats probably it. The test setup has an ICore7 extreme. They are the only CPUs that might make gaming more enjoyable for the hardcore over a dual core gaming rig.

Overclock it to 3.8 if you have a high end MB or 3.2 or 3.4 if you dont. A Q8300 should do that with the stock cooler. Or you might have the OS settings too high. Turn of Aero. Its supposed to increase fps in Windows.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2010 3:42:26 AM

gamerguy1 said:
Thats probably it. The test setup has an ICore7 extreme. They are the only CPUs that might make gaming more enjoyable for the hardcore over a dual core gaming rig.

Overclock it to 3.8. A Q8300 should do that with the stock cooler. Or you might have the OS settings too high. Turn of Aero. Its supposed to increase fps in Windows.

what's aero? my computer is asus
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2010 3:43:43 AM

Do you by chance have the game through Steam? they have a 1.3.0 patch that enables quad core support.

Try running the game, alt tabing out of it and hitting ctrl alt del to run task manager, click the performance tab and see if all 4 of your cores are being used and possibly how much %.
February 26, 2010 3:44:24 AM

Its used in Vista and Windows 7 only (not XP) to give your pc a "glossier" and more fluid look.

Does the Steam patch work for a Triple core processor? I am running 720x3 and a 4890 myself.
February 26, 2010 10:07:34 AM

The reason you are getting such lowe frame rates is due to the fact that you are running SSAO. That thing makes shadows "better", at a huge performance hit. Take that feature off and see the difference. YOu would get better IQ if you increase from Bilinear Filtering to Anisotropic >=8x.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2010 11:03:52 PM

DarthPiggie said:
The reason you are getting such lowe frame rates is due to the fact that you are running SSAO. That thing makes shadows "better", at a huge performance hit. Take that feature off and see the difference. YOu would get better IQ if you increase from Bilinear Filtering to Anisotropic >=8x.


any benchmarks on empire total war with this card,and proof with pic or video?
I want to see what other people are getting
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 3, 2010 1:44:10 AM

Bump again.

I got Napoleon Total War, on the same settings, im getting 40 to 50 fps when looking at a full scaled army moving, and 30s to 40s while looking at close combat.

What's wrong? Why is Napoleon so smooth while Empire is so laggy?
August 22, 2010 1:50:27 AM

So, I have a 9850 which isnt quite as good as your card. I get 15-20fps on the map, and 20-30 in the battlefield with ssao on. I turned ssao of, lowered sky and water detail, unit size is ultra and get around 50-60fps on the map and battlefield. The naval battles are slightly slower, but I didnt run fraps on that. Heres my specs:

athalon x3 3.1ghz
windows 7 (pro? who knows)
ocz 4gb ddr3
650w psu
saphire radion 4850 1gb
!