Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX680s: Low FPS

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Games
  • Low FPS
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 19, 2012 3:49:43 AM

I am currently running two EVGA GTX 680 SuperClocked cards in SLI with a Dell U2711 2560x1440 monitor.

The cards perform amazingly in every game play except for Darksiders 2.

Darksiders 2 should not be straining these cards as the graphics are nowhere near most of the games I play.

Generally I can play Battlefield 3 on Ultra and I average around 90FPS but I never drop frames and the game remains constantly smooth.

In Darksiders 2 it frequently dips down to 40FPS and there are frame drops that are very noticeable and irritating considering my hardware.

I have the most current drivers (Dec17) and I've tried running the game with SLI disabled but I get even worse results. I've also tried both lowering and raising the OC on my video cards as well as running them stock speed.

Any ideas on what could be causing this?

Thanks in advance!

More about : gtx680s low fps

a c 135 U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 4:00:34 AM

Ah what is the rest of your configuration.

1. As you list it for me/the community. Let me start by saying if you have a standard 2 gigabyte model of the 680 1440p will destroy your card on its own. A high resolution IPS display like that will bring it to its knees if you run games at 1440p. But please list the rest of your configuration. If you were to turn down your resolution to 1200 or 1080 you would see a dramatic increase in frames.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 4:59:02 AM

Almost no game will ever use more than 2Gb, even at that resolution, unless you are using MSAA x8 or higher, or SSAA, or any form of AA beyond normal levels. If you are doing that, back off the AA a bit and never use SSAA or FSAA, those are just ridiculous for any system.

2560x1440p only uses a few megabytes more than 1080p unless it is mixed with absurd AA levels.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 135 U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 5:08:58 AM

Right you may need to slow down on the settings. However bystander I will tell you that at that resolution he will need more power to get the frames he is after with all settings turned up. I suggest you look at this review of a similar screen the ASUS PB278Q similar specifications. However when turned up to 1440 issues came into effect even with a 7970 with more VRAM. Also its just fact that even the most recent cards that have been released are just not up to snub for anything much higher then 1080p or 1200p.


written review
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/asus_pb...
video review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGhz01JL24&list=UU_SN80...



Dell UltraSharp U2711/ ASUS PB278Q

Both are IPS Panels.
Similar response time with the ASUS panel being 1 ms faster.
Very similar contrast ratio.
only real difference is price where you have the Dell monitor which can be around $1000.00 can be found on amazon for around $750.00 on sale. The ASUS monitor rounds $699.99.
m
0
l
a c 177 U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 7:23:01 AM

as others have said, lower the AA. If your getting dropped frames and low playability, this is known as microstuttering and there is only one way to solve that currently: an FPS cap. Put an fps cap of 40 fps if that is about the lowest the fps goes in that particular game. Yes you will be capped to a lower FPS, but playability, smoothness and synced frames make it propper smooth 40fps. FPS monitors do not take into account dropped frames and frames with high output delay. 40 fps and microstutter can make the feel of a game more like 25fps. On the other hand it may just be the usual thing of, not all games work well with SLI, or nvidia cards. Some work better on AMD, some work better on NVIDIA.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 12:56:24 PM

bigshootr8 said:
Right you may need to slow down on the settings. However bystander I will tell you that at that resolution he will need more power to get the frames he is after with all settings turned up. I suggest you look at this review of a similar screen the ASUS PB278Q similar specifications. However when turned up to 1440 issues came into effect even with a 7970 with more VRAM. Also its just fact that even the most recent cards that have been released are just not up to snub for anything much higher then 1080p or 1200p.


written review
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/asus_pb...
video review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGhz01JL24&list=UU_SN80...



Dell UltraSharp U2711/ ASUS PB278Q

Both are IPS Panels.
Similar response time with the ASUS panel being 1 ms faster.
Very similar contrast ratio.
only real difference is price where you have the Dell monitor which can be around $1000.00 can be found on amazon for around $750.00 on sale. The ASUS monitor rounds $699.99.


I did not say that the resolution doesn't require more power. I said that your assertion that 2GB will get destroyed at that resolution is absurd. Not one of those benchmarks even hinted at having troubles as a result of 2GB. The performance was lower at 2560x1440, but it was still relatively the same as with a 3GB card.

Note that he is using two 680's in SLI.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 1:03:40 PM

try installing msi afterburner (or something similar), check the amount of video memory your game is consuming. Then you'll see if 2gb is enough or not, and yes turning down those AA will lessen the load. on 1080p, bf3 on ultra (with bells and whistles) takes around 1.8gb
m
0
l
December 19, 2012 1:22:06 PM

Not trying to knock anyone's response down, but don't worry with Darksiders 2.

The game was a horrible port to the PC.

Notice the lack of graphical options, aside from resolution change and v-sync I believe.

I played the game, I had 5970, that card could run BF3 on ultra constant 60FPS and yet Darksiders 2 had issues.

Again don't worry its the game, not your setup.
m
0
l
December 19, 2012 1:40:31 PM

My current configuration is as follows:

CaseLabs Merlin SM8
Intel 2600K @ 4.5Ghz @ 1.32V
2 EVGA GTX 680 Superclocked SLI @ 1215Mhz 2GB. OC settings: (+50Mhz GPU offset +300Mhz Mem Offset +132 Power Target)
16GB Corsair Dominator @ 2133Mhz
Asus P8Z77-V MOBO
Corsair FORCE 120GB SSD
Intel 330 Series 60GB SSD
Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black (Game Location)
Windows 7 Home Premium
Creative Fatal1ty
Koolance PMP-450S water-cooling (PMP>RAM>CPU>480>VGA>VGA>240>Res)
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/281251-29-caselabs-me...


I don't think it has anything to do with the VRAM only because other games run with no problem and also over-clocking the VRAM doesn't seem to give me any performance gains.

Its just strange to me that a game with graphics similar to World Of Warcraft can put such strain on my cards when they run a game like BF3 w/ EVERYTHING maxed, 64 players etc with no problem whatsoever at 1440p.

I have lowered and even turned off the AA and the Shadow detail. This helps a little but I still dip down into the 40FPS area.

According to GPU-Z I am using 1370mb of VRAM

Thanks for the responses guys.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 1:40:44 PM

well that too can be a reason, sorry, i did not play that game :) 
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 1:44:22 PM

You said it dips into the 40 FPS area? What is the average? Contrary to popular believe, but just about every CPU will allow for bottlenecks from time to time. It is completely normal to have dips to the 40's in some games if they are CPU bound, even at 4.5Ghz.
m
0
l
December 19, 2012 2:21:41 PM

You obviously did not read my post.

The game was just a bad port. Not your setup what so ever. You can have all the most expensive hardware from today, over clocked and watercooled with a phase changer, and it will still lag.

Darksiders 2 is a BAD PC PORT.

Understand this, believe this, get this.
m
0
l
December 19, 2012 3:01:30 PM

Razec69 said:
You obviously did not read my post.

The game was just a bad port. Not your setup what so ever. You can have all the most expensive hardware from today, over clocked and watercooled with a phase changer, and it will still lag.

Darksiders 2 is a BAD PC PORT.

Understand this, believe this, get this.





Sorry I must have overlooked your post, I wasn't ignoring you intentionally.

I was beginning to assume that it was something with the game rather than my system.

It really is too bad that its a bad port since the game is really fun or at least I think it is.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 3:13:05 PM

Read the OP post people before commenting!

OP clearly state that other games runs fine, only Darksider. The VRAM problem is BS. Battlefield 3 use quite a lot of VRAM, and OP said it just runs fine.

As Razec69 said, maybe Darksider just a horrible port.
m
0
l
December 19, 2012 3:13:36 PM

Yes, I have to agree. I loved the game, a bit tedious and boring at times, but overall this an extremely good game.

But, again the game was just a bad console port, hence the lack of any graphical options to change.

This game could have looked, and overall played a lot better if it had a month or two of support behind it. But you know THQ with its managerial woes its had the past years.

And then they have the audacity to charge for DLC that was specifically taken out of the game for the sole purpose to charge people.

I'll buy it when the Steam christmas sale comes around because I won't ever pay more than $20 for a complete pack of DLC.

The issue with this is, is what I see in a lot of games, it has a strong beginning and get boring and repetitive, and may end well, but rarely with a boom.
m
0
l
a c 135 U Graphics card
December 19, 2012 6:47:30 PM

acerace said:
Read the OP post people before commenting!

OP clearly state that other games runs fine, only Darksider. The VRAM problem is BS. Battlefield 3 use quite a lot of VRAM, and OP said it just runs fine.

As Razec69 said, maybe Darksider just a horrible port.



Not always true there are other examples where vram has come into play as an issue. overclock3d that review on that monitor I listed you tried out walking dogs on a 7970 when he checked the ram usage it was 3 gigabytes it used all the ram up on that card. You will find this also the case in a game like GTA IV. So yes some games may be poorly coded or poorly optimized as a PC port but nothing everything is black and white. A standard 680 only has 2 gigs of ram you can stick 4 of them next to each other and you will still only have 2 gigs of ram.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 12:17:22 AM

bigshootr8 said:
Not always true there are other examples where vram has come into play as an issue. overclock3d that review on that monitor I listed you tried out walking dogs on a 7970 when he checked the ram usage it was 3 gigabytes it used all the ram up on that card. You will find this also the case in a game like GTA IV. So yes some games may be poorly coded or poorly optimized as a PC port but nothing everything is black and white. A standard 680 only has 2 gigs of ram you can stick 4 of them next to each other and you will still only have 2 gigs of ram.


I've read tons of reviews, and the only times I've have seen 2Gb to be a limitation was in one of 3 situations:
1) the game was heavily modified.
2) the game used excessive levels of AA (4x MSAA is fine, but higher can rarely cause issues).
3) the game was unplayable even if it had the extra VRAM, unless you had a quad-SLI setup.
m
0
l
a c 135 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 2:17:41 AM

bystander you missed my point with why I said even if you had 4 cards in quad you still only had 2 gbs if you had 2 cups cut those cups in 4 pieces you would still have 4 cups.
also maxing out games includes turning up all those secondary settings.
also the guy used the games benchmark there was no mod in place dude.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 2:24:23 AM

bigshootr8 said:
bystander you missed my point with why I said even if you had 4 cards in quad you still only had 2 gbs if you had 2 cups cut those cups in 4 pieces you would still have 4 cups.
also maxing out games includes turning up all those secondary settings.
also the guy used the games benchmark there was no mod in place dude.


You miss my point. You won't run out of VRAM with 2Gb, unless you use settings not capable of reaching playable FPS, even with 20Gb of Vram, unless you had 3-4 of them in SLI. The only exception I have ever seen, was with a heavily modded game.

And if you want to consider 8-16x MSAA as being required to be considered maxed setting, then there are a ton of games not capable of being maxed out. Most people don't consider that as a requirement to be considered maxed.
m
0
l
a c 135 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 2:34:24 AM

Watch the professional, professionally go through that video I linked explain shitttt to you
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 2:41:44 AM

bigshootr8 said:
Watch the professional, professionally go through that video I linked explain shitttt to you


I would, if it was of reasonable length. That thing is 35 mins, but if you can find any review that shows even up to 5760x1200 that shows you that 2GB is not enough, on anything less than 3-way SLI, I then I'll take your believe with some truth. I also don't consider having to crank up SSAA or 8x MSAA to reach its limits as an issue, as you cannot tell me you can see a difference between 4x and 8x MSAA.

Please find a written review, so you can show me the limitation. The written review you showed before had no such problems.
m
0
l
a c 135 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 2:44:49 AM

If you are to lazy to do your research to put the homework in to know what you are talking about you aren't worth the time explaining shitt to.

What you need is someone to spoon feed you and say yes this is a workable setup this is not. There is a reason his videos are long because they show everything which is more then your posts in this thread surely are doing. I linked both a video and written review. Learn to read noob.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 4:16:01 AM

bigshootr8 said:
If you are to lazy to do your research to put the homework in to know what you are talking about you aren't worth the time explaining shitt to.

What you need is someone to spoon feed you and say yes this is a workable setup this is not. There is a reason his videos are long because they show everything which is more then your posts in this thread surely are doing. I linked both a video and written review. Learn to read noob.


I already told you I have researched it many many times. I've used 2GB for a while, and have yet to find a single example of a game that ran through 2Gb at any playable FPS, outside of a heavily modded game.

The only example you seem to have is from a 35 min video and I can only guess the example he might give, but I'm not spending 35 mins find some odd example that no one would want to do anyways. Surely, if this was a problem, you could find another review.
m
0
l
a c 135 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 4:58:00 AM

Again you don't listen. With Sleeping Dogs (if you watched the video) his 7970 went through 3 GB of ram like a fat kid at a buffet. And you have games like GTA IV which go through ram like its candy as well.

I gave an example of someone who has a better idea of what it takes to run enthusiast machines at a higher resolution. Instead of someone on the forums whose to lazy, or doesn't give a damn about whats in front of your face. Sure there are plenty of games that use a smaller footprint on memory however you look at that resolution and the trend of where gaming is going with the 2k 4k resolution screens around the corner and you are looking at possibly huge issues with these current cards which can't push the horsepower without a little more help.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 5:12:08 AM

You gave one 35 min review. Forgive me for not wanting to waste that much time on your one example. I've seen 100's of reviews as well, where the only examples of a problem were at settings that weren't playable anyway or using excessive AA. I'd be more than willing to look at any benchmarks that I could just view, or spend a couple minutes to read. I do not need to spend 35 mins. If it was really a problem, you could find a better example.

I just went through many GTA4 benchmarks. This is about what they look like: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7870-revi...

Here is a Sleeping dogs benchmark:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/graphics/msi-n680gtx-lig...
Quote:
The single-GPU top-end cards are similar in Sleeping Dogs at the Normal settings, but the AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition goes ahead when we enable FXAA together with SSAA. It is not the first time that we see the Tahiti with 384-bit bus and 3 GB of memory handle the resource-consuming SSAA better than the Kepler with its 256-bit bus and 2 GB of memory.


I don't see where extra Vram would make a difference. At the highest settings, where the 7970 seems to do better, none of them are playable anyway. And using SSAA and FXAA together is just plan stupid anyway, as FXAA is just a poor version of SSAA and when using both together, the FXAA would lower visual quality.
m
0
l
a c 135 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 5:18:38 AM

When he did the review the video review he did one in 1080p and one in 1440p and when he did the review in 1440p frames dropped by 15-20 frames. And the frames were already low.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGhz01JL24&list=UU_SN80...


start at 17:02 and listen to what he says and read what the vram usage is no tricked out mods nothing.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 1:31:50 PM

bigshootr8 said:
When he did the review the video review he did one in 1080p and one in 1440p and when he did the review in 1440p frames dropped by 15-20 frames. And the frames were already low.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGhz01JL24&list=UU_SN80...


start at 17:02 and listen to what he says and read what the vram usage is no tricked out mods nothing.


And as you see, he used the Extreme AA preset, which is SSAA and FXAA mixed together, which is a downgrade from using just SSAA and uses more VRAM. SSAA has never been a playable AA version, except when used on 5 year old games. The last game it was usable on, for me anyways, was Dragon Age Origins. It also did not show whether it was the VRAM as the problem, or just the intense nature of SSAA + FXAA (mostly the SSAA I'm sure). Not all games that use all your VRAM need all your VRAM to produce good FPS.

So to recap, he did use a ridiculous AA level, and even the 3GB card could not produce playable results, and as long as you turn off the SSAA and FXAA mix, the game is playable on cards as low as a 580 with 1.5GB of VRAM.

So, no 2GB is not a problem.
m
0
l
a c 135 U Graphics card
December 20, 2012 3:15:19 PM

Maybe but surely you would expect with a sli system of 2 680's surely it could handle extreme AA+AF.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
December 21, 2012 12:19:11 AM

bigshootr8 said:
Maybe but surely you would expect with a sli system of 2 680's surely it could handle extreme AA+AF.


SSAA was taken out of Nvidia's control panel several years ago, because it just is not a worth while AA type. Same for ATI, though a couple years ago, the re-instroduced it. Look at the Witcher 2 and it's Ubersampling, it is not reasonably playable on 7970 CF or 680 SLI. SSAA is the same thing. It's there for those who want to toy with it, but unless the game is of no challenge what so ever, it is not worth the hit. I can play the Witcher 2 with Ubersampling, but I get dips into the 30's. I take it off, and the lowest FPS I get is in the 60's.

It is just not worth using. It's like using 8x AA or 16x AA. You'd be hard pressed to see a difference, yet the FPS will drop in half to use those levels of AA. 4x AA is the sweet spot, anything else is only worth using when you can still get 90+ FPS with it on (I use a 120hz monitor).

Note: Nvidia has SSAA for transparent textures only. In this limited use, it works great, and is really a good compromise between MSAA and SSAA. It is similar to AMD's adaptive MSAA, only it works more often.
m
0
l
!