Tech Support banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was disapointed with this card, after spending $350 on it. First thing I over clocked the card to 520/1.2. I was all excited and went to play FEAR with max settings, and yet only 27 average fps, dipped to 17 fps. The funny thing is, Quake 4 which has more graphics runs perfectly smooth even at 16x AA. go figure?
counter-strike gets 60fps

Athlon 64 3200+
2 gig ram. 2.5, 3, 3

Over clocking the cput from 2.0ghz to 2.34ghz added no extra fps so whats the point of over clocking cpu?

Would 3800+ dual core make fear run 60fps?

thanks for any input
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,118 Posts
In this case I'd say your CPU is limiting your overall performance. And remember what Intel taught us: Mhz != performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yes I downloaded the latest nvidia drivers. My psu is 425 watts, seems to run 4 harddrives without a problem. I was talking to someone in counter strike who has the same cpu as me and gets 100fps. althought I don't know if he had all his gfx maxed out now I'd assume he had since he has a 7800gt as well and is a performance guru.. I need to know for certain if it's my cpu, need to find benchmark results for 3200 vs 3800 x2.. I'll go spend hours hunting in google.. thanks for the replies though, it's nearly impossible to get ppl to say anything, especially in IRC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
There nothing wrong with what you getting. FEAR is the most graphic card heavy game ever created.

These are around the numbers you should be getting



Also for this particular game cpu wont make much of a difference.

I was talking to someone in counter strike who has the same cpu as me and gets 100fps. althought I don't know if he had all his gfx maxed out now I'd assume he had since he has a 7800gt as well and is a performance guru
I dont know your defintion of max but there no way in hell at 1600X1200 with 4XAA/8XAF that he getting 100fps average.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Ok, I dropped my res from 1280x960 to 1024x960 and I get 36 fps average which is now playable. thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
I turned off vsync and now I get 52 avg fps, ***? lol, I did 4 abreviations in a row :laugh: .. But really I like the vsync because the screen teers without it and it looks dumb, but now fear runs smooth so screw it I'll do without..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Games are always much more dependent upon your GPU rather than your CPU. Your gpu determines how much rendering can take place versus the cpu which governs the speed of loading, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,118 Posts
Vsync syncs up the display of new images with the refresh rate. If your refresh is set to 60 then it'll display either at 60FPS or 30FPS. Turning it off can cause some "tearing" but yields more FPS, sometimes also at the sacrafice of quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Wow, that game is seriously high demand. 6600 gt barely even runs well. I need to take mine back lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Whiteboyfunk said:
Games are always much more dependent upon your GPU rather than your CPU. Your gpu determines how much rendering can take place versus the cpu which governs the speed of loading, etc.
In a way, your argument has some truth to it, but the basic fact remains that certain games are more cpu oriented than gpu. FEAR is a perfect example of this. FEAR is CPU oriented. On the opposite corner, Quake 4 is extremely GPU oriented. What is the best answer? Match a decent cpu with a decent video card(high end with high end etc) and youll get the results that youre asking for.
FEAR is taxing on pretty much every system right now, in a way you could argue that its poorly coded, but discussion on that issue should be in another thread all together.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top