Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Not sure what to think about my my fps

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 21, 2010 12:21:28 AM

ok there day i hooked my girlfriends monitor up to my computer. it has a res of 1680x 1050. the one i use is 1366x768. the thing is when i used hers it seemed like i was getting higher fps with the same graphics settings. i have an athlon II x2 250 and 512mb 4850. does this make sense or was i drteaming. the game i was playing was need for speed shift with 4xaa and 8x af everything else on max except for motion blur because i dont like it lol. just curious about this. i usually get 40ish fps using fraps on my monitor and i was up in the mid to high 50s with hers.

More about : fps

a c 273 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2010 12:25:54 AM

At lower resolutions you are being CPU bound but at the higher resolution your GPU can actually stretch its legs and do most of the work.
m
0
l
July 21, 2010 12:30:27 AM

1366X768? Thats a laptop resolution...

Most newer GPU's work better @ a higher resolution, try and change the resolution on that monitor if you are still at your grandmas or next time you are there. Use Afterburner and see what the GPU load is on lower resolutions compared to higher resolutions.

As stated above, being cpu bound, he is correct...

Your GPU load will be lower @ the lower resolution and higher @ a higher resolution, that is why I told you to check your GPU load using afterburner.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
July 21, 2010 12:53:22 AM

I'm a fan of NFS shift. I just upgraded my monitor to 1920x1080.
Maybe you chose a lower aa when you dialed in your higher resolution. If anyone is familiar with the game, knows that selection is a little different than most games.
Also reasons stated above.
Also different tracks, amount of race cars, racing at dusk can all effect the fps.
m
0
l
July 21, 2010 3:10:08 AM

well i had the res at 100 on my screen and 165 on my girlfriends.
m
0
l
a c 153 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2010 10:25:55 AM

Mousemonkey said:
At lower resolutions you are being CPU bound but at the higher resolution your GPU can actually stretch its legs and do most of the work.


This is everything you need to know right here.

The reason you were doing better on the other monitor is becuase your GPU was being used more then the CPU due to the higher resolution. Higher resolution (to a degree), can increase your FPS.
m
0
l
July 21, 2010 11:36:31 AM

Quote:
Have u patched it 1.02.if not patch it u will get huge improvement.


already patched to this version
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2010 6:02:44 PM

Quote:
higher resolution can never improve flps.

I take it you don't understand the concept behind the term "CPU bottleneck" then?
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2010 7:04:29 PM

Quote:
i havenot seen any online benchmark where framerate increased with res.

You need to look harder mate. ;) 

This article may help you get your head around the concept of what's being discussed here.
http://www.benchmarkextreme.com/Articles/I7%20920%20Bottleneck%20Analysis/P1.html

Because of the resolution and cards used and the fact that the article is looking at SLi/CPU bottlenecks only bench that sticks out is the Crysis average framerate one which quite clearly shows the affect of lower res giving a lower framerate.
m
0
l
July 21, 2010 7:37:01 PM

I also was under the impression that if you increase your resolution your fps will decrease. I am using a 5850 and my native resolution is 1440*900. Do you guyz think if i get a new monitor with native resolution of say 1600*900 or 1680*1050, my 5850 will perform better??
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2010 7:44:20 PM

evan4244 said:
I also was under the impression that if you increase your resolution your fps will decrease. I am using a 5850 and my native resolution is 1440*900. Do you guyz think if i get a new monitor with native resolution of say 1600*900 or 1680*1050, my 5850 will perform better??

If you have the CPU horsepower then yes as 16 x 10 is probably the optimum resolution the 5850 was designed to be used at.
m
0
l
July 21, 2010 8:13:20 PM

Mousemonkey said:
If you have the CPU horsepower then yes as 16 x 10 is probably the optimum resolution the 5850 was designed to be used at.




Oh...i forgot to mention my CPU. I am using an i5 750 @ 2.67Ghz, Intel DP55WB mobo, 2GB 1333Mhz DDR3 Ram.
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2010 8:17:08 PM

evan4244 said:
Oh...i forgot to mention my CPU. I am using an i5 750 @ 2.67Ghz, Intel DP55WB mobo, 2GB 1333Mhz DDR3 Ram.

If you have more questions then please start your own thread rather than hijacking this one.
m
0
l
July 21, 2010 8:20:34 PM

Mousemonkey said:
If you have more questions then please start your own thread rather than hijacking this one.



Sorry about dat!
m
0
l
a c 153 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2010 8:57:31 PM

Quote:
just look at the reviews of 5850 all over the web.no game showed improved framerate with higher resolution.


Thats because benchmarks will never use a CPU that will bottleneck so you are not going to see that difference.

Mousemonkey said:
You need to look harder mate. ;) 

This article may help you get your head around the concept of what's being discussed here.
http://www.benchmarkextreme.com/Articles/I7%20920%20Bottleneck%20Analysis/P1.html

Because of the resolution and cards used and the fact that the article is looking at SLi/CPU bottlenecks only bench that sticks out is the Crysis average framerate one which quite clearly shows the affect of lower res giving a lower framerate.


+1
m
0
l
July 21, 2010 10:39:34 PM

yeah i was gonna mentin the thing about reviews using usually top end cpu to do benchmarks so there are no bottlenecks. i know my cpu isnt very fast but it works pretty well for a 60 dollar cpu and a 110 dollar gpu.
m
0
l
!