Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Amd fx-4100 and gtx 660ti bad fps in bf3

Tags:
  • Components
Last response: in Components
March 7, 2013 6:12:44 PM

Hello, i have a fx4100 oc to 4.05 and a 660ti i am playing 1920x1080 i am playing on medium settings and i got only 40-55 fps its ok to play it but it dosent feel like its running smooth sometimes it will drop down to 30 to 35 so is my computer bottlenecking? cause i am thinking about geting a i5/i7 with a new motherboard. my current specs are a amd9+ msi motherboard 16gigs of corsair vengeance ram at 1600ghz 660ti at basic settings a 850wat psu thermaltake and a kingston hyperx ssd 120gigs with a 2tb slave drive. also my gpu temp is around 61c and gpu usage is around 50 to 80

More about : amd 4100 gtx 660ti bad fps bf3

March 7, 2013 6:25:21 PM

Check the cpu support list for your motherboard. If it will support an FX 8350, I would go that route. The Bulldozer FX chips are slower than Phenom II chips in almost everything. The Piledriver/Vishera ones are much better. I would check, but don't have your actual model number for your board.
m
0
l
March 7, 2013 6:41:52 PM

Hm, I don't think you should be bottlenecking with an OC'ed 4100. It sounds as if its the cpu itself - one infamously known for its failed architecture.
An 8350/6300 is what you will want with a 660 - an excellent pairing, a cpu that can handle the high-end cards. Something you can go Ultra on. The vishera models are much much much more capable cpus than the zambezi's. Will give you excellent performance.

Now if you can afford it, the intel route of course.

Those temps seem a bit high, though I run about 5 case fans and never breaks 40C on any game.

Have you tried going to 4.5?
m
0
l
Related resources
March 7, 2013 7:40:00 PM

logainofhades said:
Check the cpu support list for your motherboard. If it will support an FX 8350, I would go that route. The Bulldozer FX chips are slower than Phenom II chips in almost everything. The Piledriver/Vishera ones are much better. I would check, but don't have your actual model number for your board.

my motherboard is MSI 970A-G46 AMD 9 Series Motherboard
m
0
l
March 7, 2013 7:44:20 PM

biopolar said:
Hm, I don't think you should be bottlenecking with an OC'ed 4100. It sounds as if its the cpu itself - one infamously known for its failed architecture.
An 8350/6300 is what you will want with a 660 - an excellent pairing, a cpu that can handle the high-end cards. Something you can go Ultra on. The vishera models are much much much more capable cpus than the zambezi's. Will give you excellent performance.

Now if you can afford it, the intel route of course.

Those temps seem a bit high, though I run about 5 case fans and never breaks 40C on any game.

Have you tried going to 4.5?

i have been looking into geting the 6300 and i have been haveing problems with the 660ti i had to turn off the adaptive settings to prefer maximum performance and that made things a little better bet it also made my idle temps go up to 39c tho. when i would be playing bf3 64player maps my gpu clock would drop down to about 725mhz but it should be at 915mhz during games but it would always drop in bf3 to 725
m
0
l
March 7, 2013 10:35:18 PM

update the bios and still did not help :/ 
m
0
l
March 8, 2013 12:28:28 AM

I experienced the limitations of my 4100 a while ago. Mostly what the bios updates did were "fix" the issues of compatibility with certain games that were causing BSODs and crashes upon execution.
Ex: Dues Ex, Batman, Saints Row
But in no way did I see that the updates were to improve gameplay.

I can onyl suggest OC'ing a bit more to see if there is improvement or upgrade the cpu.
m
0
l
March 8, 2013 1:11:53 AM

Before buying a cpu consider the fact that the settings are not the only issue. Look at anti aliasing, if you decrease it, because at that res you really do not need it, you will see a boost. The 4100 should be ok. With intense games slowdown is going to be inevitable honestly in parts unless you have something such as a Titan and a top level i7. Your system is good as is. That low frame rate is liveable 30 fps is more than enough to convince of motion. If you do upgrade when going amd remember games will generally favor larger more powerful cores.

m
0
l
March 8, 2013 1:33:33 AM

nseamans said:
Before buying a cpu consider the fact that the settings are not the only issue. Look at anti aliasing, if you decrease it, because at that res you really do not need it, you will see a boost. The 4100 should be ok. With intense games slowdown is going to be inevitable honestly in parts unless you have something such as a Titan and a top level i7. Your system is good as is. That low frame rate is liveable 30 fps is more than enough to convince of motion. If you do upgrade when going amd remember games will generally favor larger more powerful cores.

i have tried all settings seems like no matter what i do it stays around the same just gotta keep working at it i guess
m
0
l
March 8, 2013 1:35:33 AM

biopolar said:
I experienced the limitations of my 4100 a while ago. Mostly what the bios updates did were "fix" the issues of compatibility with certain games that were causing BSODs and crashes upon execution.
Ex: Dues Ex, Batman, Saints Row
But in no way did I see that the updates were to improve gameplay.

I can onyl suggest OC'ing a bit more to see if there is improvement or upgrade the cpu.

ok ill try oc it a bit more i dl a benchmark called catzilla and i ran it on the kitty mode for laptops and during the cpu test i would get 6 to 7 fps a second during that part... :ouch: 
m
0
l
March 8, 2013 3:05:04 AM

well i put everything to the lowest settings possible and my average fps was 45 the peak was around 55 and it went below 30 several times
m
0
l
March 8, 2013 3:19:11 AM

If you getting Piledriver, get the 8350 or forget AMD.. the 6300 is a POS
m
0
l
March 8, 2013 4:22:45 AM

korndingo said:
update the bios and still did not help :/ 



The bios update was in regards to 8350 support.
m
0
l
March 8, 2013 4:28:26 AM

Rockdpm said:
If you getting Piledriver, get the 8350 or forget AMD.. the 6300 is a POS



I don't know where you are getting such flawed information as results of this review say otherwise. The 6300 stayed within 2-6 FPS in every game benchmark for about a 3% average difference in game performance. Such a little difference in gaming performance isn't really worth the $60 premium.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...
m
0
l