55 replies to this topic

[wildside50]

Am I doing something wrong? I cannot seem to avoid a sub 60 fps frame rate during games with a GTX 670. I frankly would expect to get 60 fps on ultra, but I cannot get a constant 60 fps on high. Am I doing something wrong?

[Flapdrol]

probably cpu bound, although this game can stress the gpu as well on the higher settings.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I would also guess CPU bound.
I run an EVGA GTX 670 FTW edition, and achieve 57-60FPS 1080P and 30 FPS (avg) across three 1080P monitors.

[Catamount]

I hate to break it to you, OP, but no one is getting 60fps right now, consistently. The game is highly, highly CPU-bound, as has been suggested, and right now, no CPU on the market can give 60fps minimums at stock clocks. I run a 3570k slightly OCed to 4.2ghz (can't go higher until I fix the IHS issue) and I drop down to a hair below 50fps in combat, sometimes even 45 if it's heavy combat. This is regardless of settings. In a prior thread, I showed this was even the case at 1024x768 on the lowest settings, where the GPU was churning out over 200fps, but the CPU was still dragging it to the same minimums.

[WardenWolf]

Definitely let us know what your CPU is, as that makes all the difference here. I have a different experience than Catamount, though - I have a GTX 660 Ti and stock-speed i5 3550, but I get 50-60fps reliably (a drop below 50fps is extremely rare). You may not get 60+ constantly, but you should absolutely be at 50+ average with that card *if* you have a modern, quad-core Intel processor.

[Juicebox12]

Catamount, on 28 March 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

I hate to break it to you, OP, but no one is getting 60fps right now, consistently. The game is highly, highly CPU-bound, as has been suggested, and right now, no CPU on the market can give 60fps minimums at stock clocks. I run a 3570k slightly OCed to 4.2ghz (can't go higher until I fix the IHS issue) and I drop down to a hair below 50fps in combat, sometimes even 45 if it's heavy combat. This is regardless of settings. In a prior thread, I showed this was even the case at 1024x768 on the lowest settings, where the GPU was churning out over 200fps, but the CPU was still dragging it to the same minimums.

Not quite true, i run between 70 in combat to 120 out of combat with my 670 AMP! and i5 750(4.0ghz oc) on all ultra with AA and AF.
But they are right on it being quite CPU dependant. Let us know what cpu you have and might be able to help you out.

[Patrick Wolf]

Juicebox12, on 28 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Not quite true, i run between 70 in combat to 120 out of combat with my 670 AMP! and i5 750(4.0ghz oc) on all ultra with AA and AF.
But they are right on it being quite CPU dependant. Let us know what cpu you have and might be able to help you out.

You must be running lower resolutions then. I have a 3570K, 2x gtx 680 4gb (I know SLI doesnt work). And i will float in between 45-75fps. I highly doubt you are getting that much fps at 1920x1080 or higher. I maybe average 30fps at 5760x1080

[Juicebox12]

Nope, 1080p. Lowest i drop is 75 ish maxxed out. Hits over 120 in alpine.

My 670 amp is faster then your average 680 by quite the margin due to clocks. Its clocked at 1175mhz on the core and 6608 on the mem.

Edited by Juicebox12, 28 March 2013 - 05:14 PM.

[saintchuck]

670 and 3770 and do 60 fps all day long.

Edit: at 1920x1200

Edited by saintchuck, 28 March 2013 - 05:23 PM.

[Patrick Wolf]

Juicebox12, on 28 March 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Nope, 1080p. Lowest i drop is 75 ish maxxed out. Hits over 120 in alpine.

My 670 amp is faster then your average 680 by quite the margin due to clocks. Its clocked at 1175mhz on the core and 6608 on the mem.

First: The game is very cpu bound, if your gpu is faster than my not so average 680 it wouldnt matter as my cpu is quicker than yours meaning i would be less cpu bound than you.

Second: I normally run stock clocks as i have 2 cards and i dont need more power or the excess heat, so 1058/6008. However i have pushed them past 1250, i think last stable one i had was 1276 on core cant quite remember.

Edited by Patrick Wolf, 28 March 2013 - 05:30 PM.

[Juicebox12]

Hey man, just posting my results. Also my 670 is stock at this clock. My overclock is done using bclk as i do not have multiplier adjustment on my i5 so my cpu is indeed fast. Just because bus bandwidth rather then raw cpu speed. I also have 7cl ddr 3 1600 memory as well as a host of other tweaked settings due to a true high end motherboard of its era. I even manage over 60 fps streaming using the same cpu for encoding.

Sorry edited the post because i came off as a complete dbag, wasn't the intention.

Edited by Juicebox12, 28 March 2013 - 05:49 PM.

[Catamount]

Juicebox12, on 28 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Not quite true, i run between 70 in combat to 120 out of combat with my 670 AMP! and i5 750(4.0ghz oc) on all ultra with AA and AF.
But they are right on it being quite CPU dependant. Let us know what cpu you have and might be able to help you out.

I have never seen or heard of a machine that gets 70 fps minimums. Russian reviewers who posted the first numbers on MWO overclocked a 3930x to just shy of 5ghz, and even they weren't getting 70fps minimums. They were averaging 80fps and had minimums of 60.

Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge i5s (a large step up from Nehalem) typically have minimums somewhere around 50, and even when I OCed by 3570k to 4.3 I was only getting 50-55 minimum in my various FRAPS runs (obviously my 7970OC passes 100fps easily when the CPU isn't holding it back).

If you're not dropping below 70fps, then your game has something weird going on with it, or a tweak that's really easing off the CPU (grain removal, etc). Warden's experiences are more typical of what's typically seen for top-end CPUs (50 is about right most of the time, although I certainly see it go a little lower during real furballs).

Edited by Catamount, 28 March 2013 - 06:19 PM.

[GetinmyBellah]

Sure vsync isn't on? I get 60-125fps with my 670 & very high settings ~ 60 being in heavy combat.

[Juicebox12]

Hey, i understand. Just pointing out my results with that gpu. Same gpu and settings with my amd 6100 oc'd to 4.5 was only getting a max of 65 and averaging around 50. Im curious to see this guys cpu if he isn't able to stay around 60.

[Catamount]

Juicebox12, on 28 March 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Hey, i understand. Just pointing out my results with that gpu. Same gpu and settings with my amd 6100 oc'd to 4.5 was only getting a max of 65 and averaging around 50. Im curious to see this guys cpu if he isn't able to stay around 60.

Well as your own test with the OCed FX6100 (a very capable CPU) shows, most chips don't stay around 60 during heavy action. Frankly, your old Nehalem chip shouldn't be doing nearly as well as it is, but be glad MWO's notorious wild inconsistencies in performance -and they're pretty huge; my slow laptop outperforms a few machines on these forums that are twice as quick, inexplicably- have landed in your favor. Actually, the FX6100 should be outperforming your i5-750 by far, given that MWO is highly multitreaded.

I'm curious, is your game otherwise stock, without filter adjustments or other user.cfg or general tweaks? What settings do you have in the Nvidia control panel?

Catamount, on 28 March 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

I hate to break it to you, OP, but no one is getting 60fps right now, consistently. The game is highly, highly CPU-bound, as has been suggested, and right now, no CPU on the market can give 60fps minimums at stock clocks. I run a 3570k slightly OCed to 4.2ghz (can't go higher until I fix the IHS issue) and I drop down to a hair below 50fps in combat, sometimes even 45 if it's heavy combat. This is regardless of settings. In a prior thread, I showed this was even the case at 1024x768 on the lowest settings, where the GPU was churning out over 200fps, but the CPU was still dragging it to the same minimums.

WardenWolf, on 28 March 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Definitely let us know what your CPU is, as that makes all the difference here. I have a different experience than Catamount, though - I have a GTX 660 Ti and stock-speed i5 3550, but I get 50-60fps reliably (a drop below 50fps is extremely rare). You may not get 60+ constantly, but you should absolutely be at 50+ average with that card *if* you have a modern, quad-core Intel processor.

Also, for the record, I misreported here. I'm getting numbers pretty close to what you're seeing, Warden, but my CPU is not overclocked as I thought. I had had a problem (the dreaded "Dr. Debug A6" Asrock bug) with my board and had reset the CMOS, and didn't re-apply my overclock. So getting 50 typically (sometimes 45) is with a stock 3570k. In fact my CPU is slightly underclocked it seems, because I'm only getting to 3.6ghz turbo (3.8 is stock) when running Prime95, I'll have to look to that.

At present, this is what a typical FRAPS run looks like

Spoiler

FPS
119
119
121
75
49
67
68
54
62
71
62
59
56
54
53
52
59
64
62
56
59
60
69
70
71
71
63
62
56
57
59
61
71
66
59
64
67
63
70
72
67
57
59
62
62
64
61
70
71
64
66
71
71
71
71
71
60
80
74
59
56
64
62
58
57
56
59
77
77
68
77
71
77
66
60
61
61
58
60
61
59
54
55
55
54
56
64
71
73
71
62
47
47
48
48
50
52
56
70
66
65
58
55
55
50
54
56
51
56
65
49
48
49
56
65
55
53
59
56
47
46
43
39
39
38
43
41
47
45
49
59
64
62
68
66
71
63
67
67
71
69
60
63
67
61
54
52
57
56
57
53
57
60
50
54
55
57
49
55
55
59
52
51
47
49
54
60
57
62
60
63
58
54
50
49
50
51
51
50
49
42
46
48
49
51
60
58
58
62
60
58
52
56
54
56
58
60
59
51
59
61
62
57
56
54
54
56
54
56
71
68
47
43
42
48
53
53
53
59
50
51
50
44
52
50
52
48
46
49
49
53
58
51
57
59
61
53
49
44
44
47
49
48
46
43
48
47
53
52
59
64
62
75
88
86
85
70
73
69
71
91
76
70
65
67
63
57
57
59
60
65
62
71
78
67
62
59
56
62
59
63
75
76
76
76
59
60
61
58
63
56
62
61
60
54
59
62
65
73
75
73
73
73
72
70
72
72
68
63
63
62
63
65
64

Edit: Huh, so I bumped the 3570k up to 4ghz (previously it wouldn't turbo past 3.6ghz) and it gobbled it up. I was below 60fps only 4% of the time, and that was 57-59fps, and averaged 72fps instead of 60. a 20% performance increase from an 11% clock increase is odd. Of course, MWO is odd Clearly this title really doesn't run well unless it just has gobs of CPU power though (meanwhile, OCing the 7970 didn't do anything).

Edited by Catamount, 29 March 2013 - 06:51 AM.

[Lord of All]

Juicebox12, on 28 March 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Hey, i understand. Just pointing out my results with that gpu. Same gpu and settings with my amd 6100 oc'd to 4.5 was only getting a max of 65 and averaging around 50. Im curious to see this guys cpu if he isn't able to stay around 60.

If you can do it while encoding then you can certainly do it when running fraps so run it. I'd love to see it. I'm thinking when your getting a lrm rain your not looking at your framerate.

This game needs a time demo.

Edited by Lord of All, 29 March 2013 - 07:08 AM.

[WardenWolf]

Catamount, on 29 March 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

Also, for the record, I misreported here. I'm getting numbers pretty close to what you're seeing, Warden, but my CPU is not overclocked as I thought. I had had a problem (the dreaded "Dr. Debug A6" Asrock bug) with my board and had reset the CMOS, and didn't re-apply my overclock. So getting 50 typically (sometimes 45) is with a stock 3570k. In fact my CPU is slightly underclocked it seems, because I'm only getting to 3.6ghz turbo (3.8 is stock) when running Prime95, I'll have to look to that.

Turbo Boost is affected by how many cores are active. If you are running Prime 95 with four threads (one for each core) then it will only go up a little (3.6 sounds right); it is only if a single core is active that it will reach the full 3.8

[Just wanna play]

maybe someone with a multiple cpu workstation could try running this game..

Catamount, on 29 March 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

Well as your own test with the OCed FX6100 (a very capable CPU) shows, most chips don't stay around 60 during heavy action. Frankly, your old Nehalem chip shouldn't be doing nearly as well as it is, but be glad MWO's notorious wild inconsistencies in performance -and they're pretty huge; my slow laptop outperforms a few machines on these forums that are twice as quick, inexplicably- have landed in your favor. Actually, the FX6100 should be outperforming your i5-750 by far, given that MWO is highly multitreaded.

wtf? i guess mwo is weird


just made my computer, is my 3570k enough for this game? or should i find a better cpu, i dont have a dedicated gpu yet

[Catamount]

Yeah good call, warden.

Just wanna play, on 29 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

maybe someone with a multiple cpu workstation could try running this game..

wtf? i guess mwo is weird


just made my computer, is my 3570k enough for this game? or should i find a better cpu, i dont have a dedicated gpu yet

No, not at all. A 3570k is overkill most of the time for gaming. In MWO it should get you average fps in the 60s or 70s without an issue with a decent GPU, and rarely drop much below 50. If you do want it above 60 at all times, just do a mild OC. Most hit 4.2+ at stock voltage, although watch your temps if you do. That damned Ivy Bridge IHS remains a constant problem for overclockers (I'll be fixing mine in a day or two and doing a writeup on it on our site).

[Just wanna play]

what site? im interested in the results, also imo, intel needs to stop increasing the transistor count AND reducing the size of the die, i don't see the point of a smaller cpu, i always though they where small enough, all they are doing is making it harder to dissipate all the heat

seriously, they could at least make a desktop cpu that was bigger and less compact for a change, it would be just as fast, but would have a bigger surface area to help with temps, that, and again, interested in the ihs problem

also, got any recommendations on a decent bang for your buck air cooler that could get me to atleast 4.2ghz??? i know how to oc, but im scared to on the intel cooler