Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Shouldn't my FPS be higher?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 15, 2010 1:22:50 AM

Hello, I recently upgrade my psu and video card from a 9800GT EE 350WATT to a radeon 5770 with a corsair 650 Watt psu, What made me want to upgrade is battlefield bad company 2, with my 9800GT I couldnt get 30fps no matter what I changed my settings to, now that I have a Radeon 5770 I average like 26-28FPS but it seems like its smoother then the 9800GT and it is playable but I would think that the game would run atleast a little bit better, I have tried different things like changing the direct x version, changing drivers, ETC I run the settings on High high medium medium , shadows and effects at medium, 1400x900. My specs are below me. Before I purchased this gpu I made sure that it was not being bottlenecked by my cpu or ram you can check out some other posts I was talking about that in with some people.

Thanks

More about : fps higher

March 15, 2010 1:34:15 AM

I don't think that the game uses more then 3 cores though. with my cpu running at 2.9GHZ really effect my framerate that much?? I have heard of many people with 9800GTX's with dual cores running a lot better then my system, I am just really curious why this 5770 isn't working out as good as I want it to
m
0
l
Related resources
March 15, 2010 1:42:08 AM

in some games, like crysis, Nvidia just runs better. A tell tale sign is the Nvidia logo at the start of the game. Also your CPU was pushing the 9800GT EE to its limit, the 5770 is hungrier for a faster CPU.

you said the game runs better and the 5770 is a far better GPU then the 9800GT EE so you do have more headroom in future upgrades.

m
0
l
March 15, 2010 1:52:22 AM

ok cool thanks, I was just hoping that I could squeez like 5 more fps from bad company 2, I tried overclocking, I didn't notice much of a difference.. I also run dual monitors so I cant overclock unless I disable one of the displays because of the screen tearing.. If you have any tips on how I can make my fps go up in games like crysis and bad company 2, they do run good enough but I would like to turn the shadows up to high and other stuff or atleast get a steady 30fps even in combat.

Thanks

Oh one more thing, would it be a help at all if I took this card back and got something better? like a 5830 or somethen? or would it not make much difference
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 1:55:46 AM

Well, sadly, the Athlon 64 X2 series it's on it's limit regarding performance, unless you can overclock to 3.6Ghz or higher. (Which is unlikely

I also suggest setting the DXVersion setting in the game into DX9 so you can get maximum framerates with minimal graphical impact.
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 2:06:16 AM

Yea I have it set to direct x 9.. I posted in a few other forums asking whether I should get a quad core cpu, motherboard and ram OR a new video card, everyone said that the video card would be a much bigger improvement over new cpu mobo and ram.. I am sad now, mabey I should return the card
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 2:13:48 AM

vexun11 said:
Yea I have it set to direct x 9.. I posted in a few other forums asking whether I should get a quad core cpu, motherboard and ram OR a new video card, everyone said that the video card would be a much bigger improvement over new cpu mobo and ram.. I am sad now, mabey I should return the card


every game is different and they where correct on the whole

some games like 3-4 core cpu and good GPU

some like a fast dual core CPU (even if you have a quad) and don't care much about the GPU

some rely on the GPU and don't care much about the CPU

declaring the 5770 as bad on one game is silly, it was a good upgrade
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 3:12:39 AM

Ok, thank you. I really appreciate it! :) 

So will I atleast be set for some of the future games? I plan to upgrade my system in a year or so but in the mean time I would like to enjoy games that are comming out, every game I play I can max out with AA @ 1680x1050 except crysis and battlefield bad company 2 which are both playable, are the upcomming games comming out in the next few months like those? Did I waste my money, should I take the card back and get a quad core cpu and motherboard?
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 4:16:01 AM

you did not waste your money, as you plan to upgrade your system the 5770 can transition with you.

there are several posts here about battlefield bad company 2 and slow frame rates
that game along with crysis are at the high end of the spectrum and most games are xbox360/PS3 ports (mass effect2, Bioshock2) or optimized for the PC (blizzard, valve games) and you will have no issue running them on high-very high settings.

m
0
l
March 15, 2010 4:26:09 AM

Yea I always was confused why games on the ps3 and 360 run so much better on console then a pc with better hardware then the console, It's pretty much just how the game is programmed?
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 4:45:12 AM

this game does need a quadcore.

all the particle effects and real time destruction take a heavy toll on a dual core system.

the GPU is capable of much more than that, but the CPU will be limiting your frames.

with my rig i get 60fps maxed out (1920x1080), so im sure its the CPU holding you back.
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 5:51:52 AM

Yea the engine is amazing, the explosions are so good, Im just really glad it's playable and enjoyable for me, I average like 28fps but it feels like 30-40 for some reason as with my old video card when I would get 28fps it would feel like much less.

Should I just get a cheap quad core and motherboard for like 180? I have seen some combos on newegg with amd x2' quad core plus gigabyte mobo for 160

If I did that would it make a huge difference?

Thanks

Oh and also I was just playing crysis warhead and I switched it to direct x9 and it was amazing! I was running everything maxed out except AA and I was getting like 30-50FPS I was able to turn vsync on and it looked great, everything was running fine then this part where it looks over a whole island came and my fps was like 15-25 ish it wasn't bad but if I were to get a quad core and mobo would that not effect my framerate that much? When it has to load a whole enviorment like that I would like to have a steady framerate.. Whats weird is crysis was made for dual core yet I have a decent dual core a 5770 and more ram then it needs and it still skips at times, other times its amazing.

I did notice one scary thing, when I was running the shaders and shadows at max the video card would get hotttt I always am monitoring my temps just incase and I saw my video card get up to 80C I crankedthe fan to like 65% and it dropped to 75 ish. I also have really good cooling in my case all the hot air is comming out the back of the card so it seems like thats just how the video card runs I dont see any other way to cool it other then water cooling or putting a cup of ice next to the fan lol.


are these cards really meant to get that hot??
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 6:34:24 AM

the GPU temps are fine even up to 100c. if you are uncomfortable then you can keep the fan spinning faster, but its not really needed.

getting a quad is a good idea, but only if you can afford the upgrade. and if an AMD is designated 'x2' its a dual, not a quad.

if you are fine with those framerates, then you dont really need to upgrade. but its still futureproofing, and will give you better performance (especially in games like bc2)

and yes, its the Dx10 codepath in crysis that was so badly optimized, without it the game runs very well and still looks pretty good.
id recomend getting a custom ultra high config though (google it) makes the game look almost as good as dx10, but without the performance hit. very good for lower end cards (i can just about run native dx10 on my 5870)
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 1:20:08 PM

If you are really concerned about fps, the next upgrade should be your processor. The old Athlon X2's are really starting to show their age, and would be much more apparent over time.

The new Athlon X2's and Phenom II's perform better per clock compared to the old X2. So if you are able to even change to just a newer X2, even if it's at the same 2.9GHz, you should see some more improvement in your fps.
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 4:30:45 PM

Yea, when I purchased this cpu I was going to get something better but I needed to flash my bios if I was to get anything more powerful then this 5600+ or I would have got somethin better, I dont want to risk messing something up by flashing my bios
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 11:27:48 PM

vexun11 said:
Yea I always was confused why games on the ps3 and 360 run so much better on console then a pc with better hardware then the console, It's pretty much just how the game is programmed?


combination of things, the PS3/360 games are often run at 30 FPS, low graphic settings, bad lighting, and at lower resolutions then the PC counterpart. Play Bioshock, dragon age, Fallout 3 on a console then try it on your PC. It will be night and day.

then their are games like GTA IV that are horrible ports and are not optimized for the PC.
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 11:30:50 PM

i went from an Athlon x2 6000 to an Athlon II X3 435 and increased Far Cry 2 FPS by 33% at stock speeds (2.9ghz). Currently I have it at 3.3GHZ. I got the Athlon II X3 435 for $67, sold the Athlon x2 for $55.
m
0
l
March 15, 2010 11:38:32 PM

vexun11 said:
Hello, I recently upgrade my psu and video card from a 9800GT EE 350WATT to a radeon 5770 with a corsair 650 Watt psu, What made me want to upgrade is battlefield bad company 2, with my 9800GT I couldnt get 30fps no matter what I changed my settings to, now that I have a Radeon 5770 I average like 26-28FPS but it seems like its smoother then the 9800GT and it is playable but I would think that the game would run atleast a little bit better, I have tried different things like changing the direct x version, changing drivers, ETC I run the settings on High high medium medium , shadows and effects at medium, 1400x900. My specs are below me. Before I purchased this gpu I made sure that it was not being bottlenecked by my cpu or ram you can check out some other posts I was talking about that in with some people.

Thanks


Get another card for Xfire and a new CPU.

And even a Xfire mobo if needed.
m
0
l
March 23, 2010 4:01:50 AM

Awesome, thanks for your feedback everyone, What I am planning on doing is saving up a few more paychecks and I am going to set a budget down for 350$ and see what the best deal is and best performance for that price, now that I have a radeon 5830 All I will need is new mobo cpu and ram and I should be set for a while then in a couple years ill add another video card.
m
0
l
March 23, 2010 4:03:32 AM

good to know ct1516, is the fps really around 30? I was playing xbox at work today and the fps seemed like mabey 40 ish, I was playing bad company 2 and it looked pretty good until I was on a winter level and noticed it didn't look so good but most average around 30fps? it uses vsync right?
m
0
l
March 23, 2010 4:10:54 AM

vexun11 said:
good to know ct1516, is the fps really around 30? I was playing xbox at work today and the fps seemed like mabey 40 ish, I was playing bad company 2 and it looked pretty good until I was on a winter level and noticed it didn't look so good but most average around 30fps? it uses v sync right?


each game is different and FPS lag is not uncommon especially for FPS games. I do recall Xbox owners complaining about lag spikes and very long load times on the first Mass Effect. A game you can can max out with a dual core cpu + 8800GT on the PC and cut load times dramatically. Not sure about the v-sync on a console, I would assume it would for quality control purpose.
m
0
l
March 30, 2010 5:22:04 AM

I am going to continue this forum next week when I get paid and get ready to select what parts I am going to purchase for my new mobo/cpu/ram thanks everyone
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 1:27:51 AM

Thanks everyone for the answeres, I was planning on ordering a phenom 2 denob (spelling?) 3.4 ghz but then I saw that the new 6core phenom's are comming out for under 300$ They keep up with some of the i7's and will be good for the future, what are your thoughts on waiting and getting a 6 core or getting a denob 3.4ghz phenom for 180
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 1:51:39 AM

vexun11 said:
Thanks everyone for the answeres, I was planning on ordering a phenom 2 denob (spelling?) 3.4 ghz but then I saw that the new 6core phenom's are comming out for under 300$ They keep up with some of the i7's and will be good for the future, what are your thoughts on waiting and getting a 6 core or getting a denob 3.4ghz phenom for 180


i plan on getting a hex-core myself.
more cores helps in alot of ways (though not gaming just yet), but apparently the architecture is now much more efficient, and clock for clock is more powerful than the phenom II x4s. they are even saying they should compete with i7's, which would make them a steal.

the 1090t for 295 bucks seems like too good a deal to ignore to me, but then i love have the best stuff in my system and if you dont need the extra cores or care for the extra performance then a 965 would certainly be more than enough.
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 3:17:45 AM

How long until we can purchase them? I will just go for the hex core 965 is nice but I will be glad I got the 6 core in a couple years, I hope.
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 3:36:58 AM

Wow there are some up on newegg I didn't know that, they are expensive as hell though.
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 3:39:38 AM

Quite a while for the 6 cores, amd is releasing one soon, but it'd be as expensive as buy a whole new high end rig.
Gotta wait quite a while till they release a "consumer" version
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 4:12:59 AM

HKH said:
Quite a while for the 6 cores, amd is releasing one soon, but it'd be as expensive as buy a whole new high end rig.
Gotta wait quite a while till they release a "consumer" version


now i masy be mistaken, but i was led to believe the consumer hex-cores were being released on the 26th of this month. including the 300 dollar 1090t.
perhaps something has changed drastically in the last 2 weeks, but im pretty sure these chips are not that far away, and are not going to be that expensive (compared to intels chips at least)
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 4:49:42 AM

Ok cool, I wonder how the 1090T and some ddr3 will run with my 5830.

BTW you have a really good looking system, my avatar is before I put my system in a new case, and that video card in it was a 5770 now I got the 5830 which I pretty much paid the same for :)  Anyway I see that you were able to overclock your video card very good, every card I have had I was unable to overclock more then like 100-150MHZ and it didn't make much of a difference, with your video card I am sure the performance is noticeable, How were you able to overclock it so much? is that something that the motherboard helps you do or were you able to do that with a certain program like msi afterburn? lemme know cuz I wanna OC this 5830 when I get my new h3x core.
m
0
l
Anonymous
April 9, 2010 11:22:36 AM

vexun11 said:
Ok cool, I wonder how the 1090T and some ddr3 will run with my 5830.

BTW you have a really good looking system, my avatar is before I put my system in a new case, and that video card in it was a 5770 now I got the 5830 which I pretty much paid the same for :)  Anyway I see that you were able to overclock your video card very good, every card I have had I was unable to overclock more then like 100-150MHZ and it didn't make much of a difference, with your video card I am sure the performance is noticeable, How were you able to overclock it so much? is that something that the motherboard helps you do or were you able to do that with a certain program like msi afterburn? lemme know cuz I wanna OC this 5830 when I get my new h3x core.



You shouldnt of replaced your old 5770, the 5770 is more than capable of running BFBC 2 and any other game at high settings, your issue with low frame rate was your ancient Athlon X2 5600+ which was casuing a huge bottleneck. You'd off been better off keeping the 5770 and investing in a new Athlon II X3 345 for $74 which would off stopped the bottlenecking.

A 5830 + hexacore isnt going to increase your minimum or average frame rate drastically over a 5770 + Athlon II X3/X4 at your resolution and it will take more than a year for more intensive games to catch up to the hardware you bought in which time faster/cheaper hardware will be available.
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 5:49:24 PM

a 5830 plus a new cpu will do much better then a 5770 with a new cpu, go look at benchmarks, I have looked at dozens of different articles with this video card, it sticks between the gtx 260 - 275, there are times when the 5770 is even with it but thats rare, there are also times when the 5830 is even with the 5850.
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 10:33:13 PM

i am playing this game butter smooth on my system. Do not know why your 5770 isn't performing as it should.
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 10:33:28 PM

i own 4830 with 2gb ram and e5200 overclocked @ 4ghz. You should keep 5770, i have seen its performance in my friend's pc, its awesome gives 16K 3DMarks 06
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 10:51:05 PM

I only purchased a 5830 so I could use it with my processor, I will bet you 100$ that the 5830 will out perform the 5770 in vantage and other benchmarks, the 5770 is a very nice card though, I love my 5830 because it runs so cool, idle 45 60 under full load, my 5770 idle was 58 full load it got up to 83.

I got this 5830 for the same price as a 5770, you think I could take my 5770 back?
thats retarded.


I also installed advanced systemcare and cleaned up my registry and defragged, switch my ati drivers, I run bad company 2 very nice now with 8xAA bsao everything maxed with directx 11, I average 45fps and when there is a lot going on 35 fps

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

^^^^^^ 5770 getting owned by the 5830 in 3dmark Vantage. The 5770 is an extremely nice card for its price, the 5830 isnt worth 260 but the fact that I got it for 200 I am very satisfied.
m
0
l
!