Question about framerates and bottleneck

YMICrazy · December 2012

I turned down all the graphical settings to the lowest of low. And my fps did not change from 50. Turned them all up and it remained at 50. So is my cpu the bottleneck or what? I wonder why lowering/increasing graphical settings does not change frame rate much

Exoskelett · December 2012

do you use an ATI card?

YMICrazy · December 2012

Nope Nvidia. I'm not really complaining about performance I'm just wondering why frames won't increase when I lower every possible setting.

blzd · December 2012

In game or in the menu?

If you use r_stats 1 you can see if your CPU or GPU is waiting on eachother, which would indicate bottleneck in high stress situations (not ready room, not menu etc).

YMICrazy · December 2012

0 MS FOR GPU.

But the MS next to the frame rate number is like 20ms

Waiting for render MS is like 7MS

This is all during stressful situations as in one team is losing and the other is rushing into the last base with jetpacks, onos, maybe an exo etc.

My cpu is an i7920 @ 4 ghz. Also does Hyperthreading help with framerates in this game? I might as well turn it off and increase the overclock if it does not.

Kouji_San · December 2012

Hyperthreading in general doesn't help with games, it is more of a thing that helps with video rendering, threaded 3D rendering (3D modeling programs) or other programs that make use of threading. Games usually aren't threaded beyond maybe 2 cores, simply because it is quite hard to program games to us threading. And usually isn't worth it in terms of performance gain. In some cases it might even hurt performance, if your i7 is using those 4 extra virtual cores.

BTW, more specs are required for us to have a guess at what is causing it...

YMICrazy · December 2012

Oh i7 920 @ 4.2ghz, 12 gigs ram and gtx 480 1.5 900/2200 1920x1200 res. I am not having any huge problems though that make the game unplayable. Messing around with GPU settings does lower frames but only when they are really high like 100+ and even then they do not fall that low with everything maxed. With everything on I usually get 60+ frame rates and even then I tend to turn off settings that make the game less crisp looking. But when everyone and their mother starts entering a single location it lowers to 40-50 so I attempted lowering everything from high to low but no gain in frame rates. It's not that 40-50 is unplayable I just prefer 60+ because my aiming is a little off at 40-50 during those moments when you really need to fight back an invading team. I am asking because I was planning on upgrading my GPU to a 700 series in a few months when it releases but I am assuming a better cpu would be better in the case of this game but I probably will not have enough cash to get both at the same time.

Stardog · December 2012

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (YMICrazy502 @ Dec 25 2012, 11:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051043"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Oh i7 920 @ 4.2ghz, 12 gigs ram and gtx 480 1.5 900/2200 <b>1920x1200 res</b>.</div>
And there's the zinger. Lower your res. As ever with most of these threads, nobody posts what resolution they're playing at. Try 1600x900 max.

I don't care if you can run Far Cry 3 or BF3 ( games that are made for 2005 consoles) on 1080p.

As far as I know, the performance hit with deferred lighting comes from how many pixels are on the screen. Same with things like SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion). Even great comp's at 1080p wouldn't be able to display it without serious downsampling.

YMICrazy · December 2012

I see. But my video card is always 99% with NS2 which leaves me to believe it is the bottleneck either way.

HeatSurge · January 2013

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (YMICrazy502 @ Dec 29 2012, 03:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I see. But my video card is always 99% with NS2 which leaves me to believe it is the bottleneck either way.</div>

You have an identical system as I do, even the overclocks lol (although my 480 is at 840/2100 1.1v). I'm guessing you're on water too, there's no way you're running a GTX 480 at 900 on air... unless you have a vacuum cleaner inside your PC or something xD... And yes, I believe the GTX 480 is just a bit too weak to render 60+ all the time on everything maxed at 1080p, sadly. It does 40+, but not 60 consistent. I'm also planning on getting Maxwell next year when they come out, and I'm sure it will help with NS2 greatly.

It's amazing how much it rocked when it came out 2.5 years ago, and now it's actually showing its age.

YMICrazy · January 2013

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Jan 1 2013, 04:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2054076"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>And yes, I believe the GTX 480 is just a bit too weak to render 60+ all the time on everything maxed at 1080p, sadly. It does 40+, but not 60 consistent. I'm also planning on getting Maxwell next year when they come out, and I'm sure it will help with NS2 greatly.

It's amazing how much it rocked when it came out 2.5 years ago, and now it's actually showing its age.</div>

So you're waiting an entire year for maxwell? I was thinking of doing the same until this game came along and so I will prob just go 700 series. And yea the 480 did last a long time but like everything else it becomes outdated after a few years.

HeatSurge · January 2013

Yeah, I think I'm gonna wait for a year.

The GTX480 is aging, but I definitely have enough games to play with it before I can get Maxwell next xmas (or maybe even earlier if they decide to release earlier).

Of course, if you can't wait a 680 or 670 is a nice 60-70% upgrade over the GTX480 in most situations. My mouth is watering thinking about what Maxwell will deliver though :-D .

Question about framerates and bottleneck

Comments