111 replies to this topic

[xWiredx]

Um... dude. I get better performance than you and my 5820K has a slightly lower clock speed, not to mention the fact that I'm running a "lowly" GTX 980. If your numbers don't look at least as good as mine in the 'some performance tests' thread, you might want to take a look at your system.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 21 March 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

Um... dude. I get better performance than you and my 5820K has a slightly lower clock speed, not to mention the fact that I'm running a "lowly" GTX 980. If your numbers don't look at least as good as mine in the 'some performance tests' thread, you might want to take a look at your system.

Ha ha... I wish I had your problem and the "lowly" GTX 980 you have.... lol. I am sure it would produce better results then my XFX 7970 gb at 1440P for sure.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 22 March 2015 - 08:10 AM.

[huckles]

I have a MSI GTX 980 paired with a i7-4770k OCd to 4ghz. I get 120-140 fps on most boards except in faction matches. It will drop down to 18-20 fps when there is a lot of action. I would imagine the 970 would be pretty close.
I dropped a few settings and it does run smoother. I had a R9 290x prior to upgrading and there was not much advantage going from AMD to NVIDIA. I can say that the power draw and heat is way less.
Also, I heard the GTX 970 was only using 3.5gb of memory instead of the advertised 4gb.

I got this off MSI forum:
[color=#FFFFFF]So we have now had it confirmed that the specification of the 970 GTX was wrong. These specifications were released by Nvidia and these were the specifications printed on the box of my MSI Gaming 970 4G. Namely that card has 4G of Vram running on a 256 bit bus. In reality we now know that only 7/8th (3.5G) of the 4G vram operates at the expected 224 Gb/sec memory bandwidth. We also know that the cards performance will seriously degrade in scenarios where a game tries to access that last 0.5G of vram.[/color]

[color=#FFFFFF]Games increasingly used up more Vram when using high res texture packs. Also running higher resolutions and sli profiles require much more Vram and can easily exceed 3.5G.[/color]
[color=#FFFFFF][/color]

[xWiredx]

Bill Lumbar, on 22 March 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

Ha ha... I wish I had your problem and the "lowly" GTX 980 you have.... lol. I am sure it would produce better results then my XFX 7970 gb at 1440P for sure.

Yeah, not sure how this guy with a Titan X and a 4.7GhZ 5820K is getting worse frame rates than I am. Gremlins and unicorns most likely.

[Smokeyjedi]

xWiredx, on 22 March 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Yeah, not sure how this guy with a Titan X and a 4.7GhZ 5820K is getting worse frame rates than I am. Gremlins and unicorns most likely.

Not to mention his alleged 4K testing on his system. all the while running a 1440P monitor. hmmmmmmm!?!

[xWiredx]

Smokeyjedi, on 22 March 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

Not to mention his alleged 4K testing on his system. all the while running a 1440P monitor. hmmmmmmm!?!

Actually, I think that's possible with DSR or whatever it is in the Nvidia control panel. Nvidia gave us an easy way of doing downsampling. I don't like it much, but to each their own.

[JosefKafka]

Not that it helps, but my game is running well with GTX 970 so the issue shouldn't be with the GPU. My CPU is i7-4790K so that might have something to do with it.

[Felagunda]

so here is my discovery it's nutty but worked for me.

http://mwomercs.com/...ps-fix-for-970/

[Gremlich Johns]

If you have a 60Hz monitor, keep your FPS target on your GPU to 60. You can get more FPS on a 60 Hz monitor, but you have to turn vsync off - I don't recommend that, there's a lot of tearing at higher FPS rates. I have the GTX970 4GB SSC and get a consistent 60FPS (my set target rate) in an MWO match and pretty close to that in Arena Commander (a Star Citizen module). I'm running an FX-8350 OC'd to a paltry 4.2 GHz (liquid cooled) on an ASUS 5A97M Le v 2.0 with 16GB 1600 RAM. My mobo and RAM are keeping me below a higher OC. My case is an Antec 900 with as many fans as I can install (2x120mm front, 1x220mm top, 1x120mm side, 1x120mm w/radiator for CPU in back)

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 26 July 2015 - 07:21 AM.

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

with my old pc (amd phenom x3, radeon hd 6570, 4gb ram ddr2)that was kinda aged but good enough to play all games with not too low graphic settings, 20-25 fps though but i got used to it.
since i have my new pc with an i5 and a gtx750ti and 8 gig of ram i play the game all maxed out
with postAA on (playing on dx9, msaa is too much for my system) i play with 40 fps worst case is 30 fps.I know this comment sucks, but MWO really seems to favor pentium proccessors

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

knightsljx, on 29 November 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

Wall of text damage: 9999

Without even reading, I can tell you that GPU does next to nothing for MWO. You'd have known this if you did a quick search on the forums.

Just turn Particles and Efffects to low and Shadow to Medium. You can leave the rest on very high on a GTX970. I push between 45-110 FPS on my i5-3570K with GTX970 on those settings.

If you upgraded your GFX card just for MWO, I'm sorry to tell you but you should have upgraded your CPU instead.

why bother to answer when not even reading oO?

[Tarl Cabot]

Nice to bump a 2 year old thread with your last post being a year old. Did you use this forum's search engine to bring this back up or simply reviewed your previous posts?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 27 October 2016 - 11:48 AM.