Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

6870 TOO POWERFUL

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 1, 2012 1:40:12 PM

Hello i own a XFX 6870 1GB and i play on a 32inch 1366x768(not going to change it, its great)

Phenom ii x4 965 BE @ 3.4
XFX 6870 1GB
8GB 1866MHZ

I think there is something wrong with my graphics card but in a good way i play alot of games with fraps on to see how much fps i get and the fps i do get is quite amazing.

BF3 - 50 MIN WITH SOME ULTRA EXPLOSIONS 85 avg and 150 max (fps)
i play on ultra everything except v sync on

gta 4 about 90 fps avg all maxed out too without distance, all distance on 1

mafia 2 about 120fps on avg.

Crysis 2 - 70 fps avg

Are these the normal fps rates for my system also when i play gta 4 it says i have 1gb of vram so i made a commandline.txt and put that i have 2gb and i can set settings over 1gb like 1.5gb and it works, never ever has it gone over 55 degrees, when i start my pc its about 4 degrees above room temp so 24 degrees on avg.

Should i be gettings fps as high as this or is there something wrong? thanks for the replies

More about : 6870 powerful

a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 1:45:00 PM

I have no idea, but that's quite amazing. Don't know how, are you sure your graphics card is a 6870? Those frame rates are as much as a 7870, and even 7950. Quite impressive.
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 1:45:33 PM

That's because your resolution is so low as it is barely 720p. 1080p will cut your frames in about half.
Related resources
November 1, 2012 1:47:04 PM

Yup I'm sure i brought the graphics card off dabs.com and installed it myself & yeah its pretty weird im kinda confused
November 1, 2012 1:48:03 PM

But lower resolution uses the cpu more so i dunno how that makes sense but correct me if i am wrong
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 1:51:05 PM

mantalic said:
But lower resolution uses the cpu more so i dunno how that makes sense but correct me if i am wrong


No it's dependent on the CPU more as a percentage not as a number. It will still require the same CPU resources at 1080p if not more.
November 1, 2012 2:01:45 PM

you are nerfing your system running at those resolutions. upgrade the monitor and experience BF3 at 1080p!

you won't regret it...unless you find your hardware cant hack it...in which case you are welcome to come back to this post or forum and bit*h at us about how we ruined your bank balance.
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 2:06:03 PM

1366x768 is pretty low res, no surprise at all that you are getting those FPS. Try something like 1920x1080 or higher and then come back and tell us how amazing it is :) 
November 1, 2012 2:39:31 PM

lostmyclan said:
the intel hd 4000 can give that at this resolution... Too powerfull "try 2560x1600" and you will find the answer "trash"


Please show me proof
November 1, 2012 2:40:48 PM

720p is fine once you get used to it you cant really tell the difference, and anyway i dont wanna lose a bunch of fps just to play 1080p, i love to play 60 fps

60fps>1080p
a c 75 U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 2:42:20 PM

samuelspark said:
No it's dependent on the CPU more as a percentage not as a number. It will still require the same CPU resources at 1080p if not more.

Exactly. Lower resolution just puts less load on the graphics card so the bottleneck will sometimes shift from the graphics card to the CPU. When FPS drops when you turn up the resolution or graphics settings, the CPU is still capable of the higher FPS number, it's just sitting idle more often waiting for the graphics card to finish rendering the bigger/more complicated frames.
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 2:43:26 PM

mantalic said:
720p is fine once you get used to it you cant really tell the difference, and anyway i dont wanna lose a bunch of fps just to play 1080p, i love to play 60 fps

60fps>1080p


Ok well to your question then... No that is not Amazingly high fps given your settings.
November 1, 2012 2:44:54 PM

what would my fps be if i was playing at 1080p
a c 75 U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 2:45:38 PM

mantalic said:
720p is fine once you get used to it you cant really tell the difference, and anyway i dont wanna lose a bunch of fps just to play 1080p, i love to play 60 fps

60fps>1080p

If 1366x768 was the native resolution of the screen it would be okay. Not quite as good as 1080p, but still something you can live with easily.

However, I bet your screen has a native resolution of 1080p or higher, and that means when you're sticking a 1366x768 frame on there, some of the pixels get misaligned and it just mucks up the image quality. I wouldn't recommend it. Then again, it's your eyes; if you like it, that's all that really matters.
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 2:47:38 PM

Sakkura said:
If 1366x768 was the native resolution of the screen it would be okay. Not quite as good as 1080p, but still something you can live with easily.

However, I bet your screen has a native resolution of 1080p or higher, and that means when you're sticking a 1366x768 frame on there, some of the pixels get misaligned and it just mucks up the image quality. I wouldn't recommend it. Then again, it's your eyes; if you like it, that's all that really matters.


He could give us more info on the tv but i would assume it is a 1366x768 native, a lot of 32 inch tvs are that resolution.
November 1, 2012 2:49:23 PM

32 inch AV320PD TFT LCD brand - evesham

Hope that helped
a c 75 U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 2:51:11 PM

Derza10 said:
He could give us more info on the tv but i would assume it is a 1366x768 native, a lot of 32 inch tvs are that resolution.

Oh, yeah if it's a TV then it could well be native. But then TVs are kinda crappy for gaming.
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 2:53:53 PM

Sakkura said:
Oh, yeah if it's a TV then it could well be native. But then TVs are kinda crappy for gaming.


I agree, and yes it is 1366x768 native. OP says its great, guessing hes never played on 1080p or higher on a monitor and not a tv.
November 1, 2012 2:56:52 PM

I have played on a 23 inch 1080p before, and ive played on a 50inch 1080p and i dont see that much difference once ive gotten used to it, but i do agree 1080p is nicer
November 1, 2012 3:04:05 PM

I did a quick check on a 1080p tv and the fps has stayed more or less the same
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 3:05:50 PM

You changed your resolution in each game to 1920x1080? and have all settings same as before other than that?
November 1, 2012 3:08:25 PM

Derza10 said:
You changed your resolution in each game to 1920x1080? and have all settings same as before other than that?

yeah i plugged it to another tv which 1080p and the settings on bf3 are the same but i just changed it to full hd and fps is still the same around 80-85 avg with 50 min cos i played the same mission to test it
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 3:11:16 PM

So you went into the settings on BF3 and changed the resolution from 1366x768 to 1920x1080?
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 3:11:41 PM

Meh calling BS on this. Pics or it didn't happen. BF3 with all settings on ultra running full AA and DX11 will lag that card so bad.

So nice try at trolling almost had me fooled that I could get that framerate using my 5870 which is faster than a 6870 by 4-5fps. Had a good laugh thanks
November 1, 2012 3:12:08 PM

yea
November 1, 2012 3:13:36 PM

mightymaxio said:
Meh calling BS on this. Pics or it didn't happen. BF3 with all settings on ultra running full AA and DX11 will lag that card so bad.

So nice try at trolling almost had me fooled that I could get that framerate using my 5870 which is faster than a 6870 by 4-5fps. Had a good laugh thanks


I am not bsing this is why i posted a thread
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 3:14:41 PM

1366x768 is 1,049,088 pixels
1920x1080 is 2,073,600 pixels
No way you will get the same performance I don't think you really changed the in game resolution or you are lying. The performance should drop to about half.
November 1, 2012 3:23:25 PM

Oh yes sorry it has dropped i must of not clicked save settings, yea its about 40 fps now
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 3:33:48 PM

well the game consoles play at those resolutions but generally with out all the extra eye candy so. if anything its a good indicator of graphic capability difference from your system vs a game console which only has to run the games at 30fps. a lot of doctors will tell you that you cant physically see much more then 30fps yet the video game industry and others will say 60fps ..is ideal .. will you notice if it drops below 30 yes... but much more over 30 and you dont notice it if anything things will be a bit more fluid and thats about it.
November 1, 2012 3:35:09 PM

mantalic said:
Oh yes sorry it has dropped i must of not clicked save settings, yea its about 40 fps now


Ok 40 fps is about right for your set up.

I have an i7 950 & GTX 460 1GB (which is about equal to your card in games) and get around 40 fps with everything maxed. at 1080p.

November 1, 2012 3:40:33 PM

Nice, but i still think under 60 looks horrible so i wouldnt wanna get 40fps playing even at full hd
November 1, 2012 3:45:28 PM

mantalic said:
Nice, but i still think under 60 looks horrible so i wouldnt wanna get 40fps playing even at full hd


Yea well you can always move down to high/ultra mix or cut some settings to get closer to 60. Im comfortable with 40-50 fps.

Well, I sometimes notice a small hiccup here or there, but I understand that I don't have the most powerful system for BF3 Ultra. Although when I overclocked CPU and GPU the performance increase was awesome. Rarely see a hiccup when im overclocked.

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 3:46:34 PM
Share

mantalic said:
Nice, but i still think under 60 looks horrible so i wouldnt wanna get 40fps playing even at full hd


So I think your question is answered then. Your card is performing as it should no better or worse.
November 1, 2012 3:48:29 PM

Best answer selected by mantalic.
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 3:57:18 PM

samuelspark said:
That's because your resolution is so low as it is barely 720p. 1080p will cut your frames in about half.


lol barely 720? Actually more than 720 ...1366x768
720 is 1280x720
November 1, 2012 4:23:07 PM

I have to chime in on this::

I have had 2x6870's running in eyefinity and while it ran pretty good, it was certainly not end-all, be-all by any stretch of the imagination. That system was:

Core2duo E8500 @ 4.1ghz
4 gig of Corsair XMS
2x HIS Radeon 6870
3x 23" Acer H233H TN panels
DFI LanParty x48 motherboard
1.5 TB Seagate drive
Windows 7 32-bit

Some games, it ate alive, others it was a "fall flat on its face" disappointment. Bulletstorm and Brink both come to mind when I think of disappointment. World of Warcraft was pretty great at 5760x1080 resolution, though.

I sold 2 of my panels and one of my video cards. The improvement was worth the cost. I am slowly upgrading my machine.

i5-2500k@4.8 ghz on default voltage with a Corsair H80 cooler
8 gig of Corsair 1600 ram
1 HIS Radeon 6870 (maxed the overclock on what the bios of the card allows)
1 x Acer H233H TN Panel
Asrock Extreme4 Motherboard
120 gig Series III SSD
Windows 7 64-bit

The other night I played some Left 4 Dead 2 with friends. I cranked it up to 1920x1080, 8xmsaa, 16x aniso, Multicore Rendering On, and maxed out every other setting.

I averaged 22-26 fps on the "Hard Rain" campaign. After dropping the FSAA to 2xmsaa, I averaged 60, no problems.


Keep in mind, this is a Source engine game and is not going to push your card NEARLY as hard as BF 3 will.


By the way, I have an older 50" Plasma tv. Samsung T-5054. At the time I bought it, it was a $1500.00 TV. It only supported a max of 1080i and the VGA input defaults to 1366x768 resolution. You can push it higher, but it looks horrible. 1366x768 gives the cleanest picture on my HTPC. Yes, this needs upgrading too.

If you do a bit of research, you will see that as the resolution rises, the memory bus of the card becomes more important. I believe the rage right now is 2560x1440 resolution @ 120hz. Don't quote me, but I have heard that a single GTX670 isn't enough for this at Ultra high res.

Food for thought.
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 4:29:22 PM

Not sure if you realize this, but you should consider enabling vsync when you aren't trying to benchmark.

It is literally impossible to see over 60fps, since your tv is (assuming) at a 60hz refresh rate. Enabling vsync will cap your frames to your monitor refresh rate, letting your cpu/gpu idle between frames (less power and heat), rather than rendering something that won't be sent to the monitor.

The only time vsync will really cause problems is if your framerate is less than your refresh rate, because it will cause a bit more stuttering than you would normally see. Since you easily post good fps, vsync is probably a good idea.
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 4:40:30 PM

maxinexus said:
lol barely 720? Actually more than 720 ...1366x768
720 is 1280x720


It's slightly over 720p, so it's barely 720p.
November 1, 2012 4:40:43 PM

mantalic said:
720p is fine once you get used to it you cant really tell the difference, and anyway i dont wanna lose a bunch of fps just to play 1080p, i love to play 60 fps

60fps>1080p



What do you mean you cant tell the difference? Have you ever experienced 1080p before?
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 4:43:42 PM

Don't use a TV for gaming....
November 1, 2012 5:13:16 PM

mantalic said:
Are these the normal fps rates for my system also when i play gta 4 it says i have 1gb of vram so i made a commandline.txt and put that i have 2gb and i can set settings over 1gb like 1.5gb and it works, never ever has it gone over 55 degrees, when i start my pc its about 4 degrees above room temp so 24 degrees on avg.

Should i be gettings fps as high as this or is there something wrong? thanks for the replies



I made an account cause I am so confused by this post. This guy has to be trolling. Next he'll refer downloadmoreram.com. :na: 
a b U Graphics card
November 1, 2012 5:17:18 PM

this clearly means that a 6870 is overkill for 1366*768. something like a 6670 would be a better fit for that resolution
November 1, 2012 5:40:36 PM

inherendo said:
I made an account cause I am so confused by this post. This guy has to be trolling. Next he'll refer downloadmoreram.com. :na: 


This i can prove to you by making a video if you are that curious on knowing
November 1, 2012 6:00:07 PM

mantalic said:
This i can prove to you by making a video if you are that curious on knowing


I'm just assuming you are misinformed then. Cause you stated you had a 1gb card, and by magically editing some text, you made it a 1.5 gb card. Just your op just reads like a troll post.
November 1, 2012 6:03:34 PM

inherendo said:
I'm just assuming you are misinformed then. Cause you stated you had a 1gb card, and by magically editing some text, you made it a 1.5 gb card. Just your op just reads like a troll post.


it's a glitch/bug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJMoiFgY2zA
November 1, 2012 7:20:48 PM

djscribbles said:
It is literally impossible to see over 60fps....




I hate when people say "humans can't see above 60fps".. Have you ever compared a 60Hz to a 120Hz TV? yes its a TV but what a HUGE difference.. i get motion sickness watching a 120Hz TV (lame joke)..
!