Graphic settings dont increase frame rate


Recommended Posts

So i got my first real graphics card today (always had onboard) so I could play games,

I got the EVGA GTX650 Ti SuperSuperClocked

When I am playing Cod BO2 at max settings, my average FPS is 32, but it drops as low at 16 sometimes.Obviously when it does that the game "judders" for a second or two.

According to this review: http://www.bit-tech....650-ti-review/5

This card should have a minimum of 32 and average of 37 at ultra (for BF3 but roughly the same type of games?) My resolution is even lower than their benchmark (1680 x 1050)

My CPU load is at 100% when im playing, If I put the graphic settings down to low, turn AA off, the FPS doesnt increase at all, infact it seems to be even jumpier and worse with the settings down than full up.

Do I have some sort of issue or is my CPU not good enough for these games? CPU is the only difference I see from my system to the review system.

Its a Core 2 Duo e6400 OC'd to 2.4Ghz. which I know isnt special, but surely it could handle COD black ops 2?

Temp is 40C steady at full load.

Win8 64Bit with 4GB ram.

Latest nvidia driver installed

edit: also id like to add im not a FPS addict or anything, if I have to turn textures/settings down to get a smooth gameplay then I dont care. Im not one of those guys who wants everything to ULTRA lol. It just seems to play better that way for now and I thought this card would handle it.

edit2: thought I should add that the card has 2xDVI slot and one MiniHDMI, my monitor supports HDMI but I dont have a mini adapter yet, so im using DVI>VGA adapter. Maybe the analog signal is playing a part?

Well isn't this just a classic case of a CPU bottleneck? :/

I dont know, thats what Im asking :laugh:

As I said, total noob at PC gaming.

Black Ops 2 Requirements:

Minimum CPU is:

Celeron E1200 Dual Core @ 1.66Ghz

Recommended CPU is:

Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 3.15Ghz

I dont know, thats what Im asking :laugh:

As I said, total noob at PC gaming.

Black Ops 2 Requirements:

Minimum CPU is:

Celeron E1200 Dual Core @ 1.66Ghz

Recommended CPU is:

Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 3.15Ghz

Generally do not trust minimum system requirements.

They are sometimes complete nonsense.

I haven't played the game so I cannot comment on its engine. :/

Do you have the latest patches and everything?

Nothing bad running in the background? (antivirus can slow things down)

If yes to both,

Maybe Google performance tweaks?

Generally do not trust minimum system requirements.

They are sometimes complete nonsense.

I haven't played the game so I cannot comment on its engine. :/

Do you have the latest patches and everything?

Nothing bad running in the background? (antivirus can slow things down)

If yes to both,

Maybe Google performance tweaks?

Thanks for helping, Im a total noob and although I know my CPU isn't anything special, I did think It would handle this OK. however the game is new and the CPU is 4 years old.

I installed from Disc and through steam, it auto updated before it let me play so I'm guessing that means its up to date. Don't see any option for manual update.

I tried closing down as much as I could, however I was playing with Avast running in the BG as it normally is when im online. I just noticed it has a gaming/silent mode, perhaps that might help.

By performance tweaks, do you mean tweaks to the game or tweaks to my system?

thanks again :)

I don't know... with your system and GPU I would expect a bit more from COD BO2, and the fact that lowering settings makes no difference is suspect

COD series are not very heavy on hardware

Gonna have a think about this and will post back, I don't think your CPU is 100% the problem, and lowering GPU settings should help, you say 100% CPU - Is the CPU normal on idle?

Thanks for the replies guys

@Detection

Yes CPU is normal on idle, well normal to me lol

its at 15% justnow with 77 proccesses running, rainmeter is using 5% and chrome 8%. Its just sitting happily at 15% which seems normal to me.

@ArialBlue

Reading those links now thanks

@farmeunit

Thanks, will check that site out

Thanks for the replies guys

@Detection

Yes CPU is normal on idle, well normal to me lol

its at 15% justnow with 77 proccesses running, rainmeter is using 5% and chrome 8%. Its just sitting happily at 15% which seems normal to me.

Idle is generally always 0% for me, but if they are the only processes using the CPU then it doesn't look like malware, although it wouldn't harm to give a scan with malwarebytes

Capture.PNG

Idle is generally always 0% for me, but if they are the only processes using the CPU then it doesn't look like malware, although it wouldn't harm to give a scan with malwarebytes

funny you say that as my old system was always at 0. This one never seems to go below 10%

this install is 7 days old so surely its not malware, i will scan anyway though.

Going to disable avast and close AS MUCH processes as I can and try again see if its any better.

Its not just COD BO2, I just downloaded assasins creed II (older game) and its doing the same thing, 100% cpu and stuttering even with a steady FPS.

Although the world is huge in AC so it may be down to that.

I was so excited for my new gfx card to game on PC but im sorta missing my console, at least it just worked lol.

EDIT: added screenshot

post-147642-0-31157300-1356227457.png

I don't know if this may help you but in the past when my cpu was a bottle neck ... I would always reboot then use the taskmanager and end anything that I didn't need before going into my game.

Hope that may help you out.

It worked then but may or may not work now.

I don't know if this may help you but in the past when my cpu was a bottle neck ... I would always reboot then use the taskmanager and end anything that I didn't need before going into my game.

Hope that may help you out.

It worked then but may or may not work now.

thanks gonna try that now

I just booted into BO2 zombies, same game but different mode, alot less going on and with everything maxed out im getting 60FPS steady, no jumping/juddering

however CPU is still at 100%

I also maxxed out my CPU and GPU overclocks and disabled avast and everything I could so dont know which has made the difference.

Going to reboot and try again with full game in Single Player as this is where the problem was happening.

post-147642-0-74859600-1356228544.png

CPU bottleneck, Core 2 Duo in 2012 is a little bit...ancient

You could achieve better performance and FPS if you are using Core i5 or i7

yeah I do wonder if this is the case, however its not a really crappy CPU?

would love to upgrade but that would mean new Mobo, Ram and CPU which would be like ?300-400

I just dont have that kind of money at the moment:( as soon as I do, PC is the first thing to get upgraded lol

update:

Something has worked and now I am getting a steady 60FPS dropping to 40ish at really intense parts (like loads of people/shooting/smoke and fire etc)

I did windows updates and rebooted. Stopped as much services as I could from task manager and disabled Avast antivirus

I reset game settings to default, they were all screwed up after me playing around. Default went to maxxed out at from AA which is at 4X and shadows are off.

Also upped CPU clock to 2.4ghz from 2.37 (max I can go while stable) and upped GPU from already high stock clock another 5%.

Cpu is now at 90-95% so I guess im right on the limits of this 4yr old CPU.

:D This is awesome now! so SMOOOOTH!

thanks for all the help guys

update:

Something has worked and now I am getting a steady 60FPS dropping to 40ish at really intense parts (like loads of people/shooting/smoke and fire etc)

I did windows updates and rebooted. Stopped as much services as I could from task manager and disabled Avast antivirus

I reset game settings to default, they were all screwed up after me playing around. Default went to maxxed out at from AA which is at 4X and shadows are off.

Also upped CPU clock to 2.4ghz from 2.37 (max I can go while stable) and upped GPU from already high stock clock another 5%.

Cpu is now at 90-95% so I guess im right on the limits of this 4yr old CPU.

:D This is awesome now! so SMOOOOTH!

thanks for all the help guys

Just a heads up, you don't necessarily have to entirely disable your anti-virus software. In your anti-virus software there is an option to set exceptions. You can add the folder where COD was installed to the exception list which would force your anti-virus scanning to ignore that folder which should improve performance.

That frame rate is not right for your card.

You cannot compare BF3 and COD2. It your card has an average of 37fps on BF3 at ultra then it's average framerate for Blackops 2 will be well over 60fps.

Your CPU is definitely a huge bottleneck for the card I would look into a new one. It will handle BO2 fine though. The game will really run on anything its a mostly ancient engine.

edit: just read your post saying it's working better. Nice. I have no idea why people were saying that CPU would give you problems in such a basic game.

That frame rate is not right for your card.

You cannot compare BF3 and COD2. It your card has an average of 37fps on BF3 at ultra then it's average framerate for Blackops 2 will be well over 60fps.

Your CPU is definitely a huge bottleneck for the card I would look into a new one. It will handle BO2 fine though. The game will really run on anything its a mostly ancient engine.

edit: just read your post saying it's working better. Nice. I have no idea why people were saying that CPU would give you problems in such a basic game.

thanks for the reply, thats what I thought too and why I said BF3, it was the only benchmark i could find and I knew that if it was decent in BF3 it should be good in black ops 2.

Its now at 60 and down to 38 at the lowest when there is alot going on. I think the card could probably do better but is bottlenecked by the cpu like you said :)

As soon as I can afford it I will be getting a new CPU/Mobo/Ram :)

thanks for the reply, thats what I thought too and why I said BF3, it was the only benchmark i could find and I knew that if it was decent in BF3 it should be good in black ops 2.

Its now at 60 and down to 38 at the lowest when there is alot going on. I think the card could probably do better but is bottlenecked by the cpu like you said :)

As soon as I can afford it I will be getting a new CPU/Mobo/Ram :)

Just keep an eye out for deals. On a whim a month and a half ago I walked into TigerDirect and bought parts to make an HTPC. Case (w/PSU), CPU, Motherboard, 4GB RAM, 1TB Hard drive and DVD burner...$330 total with taxes in.

It's an HTPC so it's nothing spectacular and I went with an AMD CPU with built in graphics (HD6530) and only a tri-core, but the point is...you can find fantastic CPU/Motherboard combo deals and RAM costs next to nothing these days. I picked up that 4GB DD3 stick for $19.99 ;)

According to this review: http://www.bit-tech....650-ti-review/5

This card should have a minimum of 32 and average of 37 at ultra (for BF3 but roughly the same type of games?) My resolution is even lower than their benchmark (1680 x 1050)

Why are you comparing the result of that review to yours? Have you checked their testing setup?

You should: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2012/10/09/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-review/4

It's better than yours, so you shouldn't really expect the same performance.

Why are you comparing the result of that review to yours? Have you checked their testing setup?

You should: http://www.bit-tech....650-ti-review/4

It's better than yours, so you shouldn't really expect the same performance.

I know their set up, i read the review twice before I bought the card

I compared it because like I said in the OP, i am a total total noob at gaming and I thought the GPU was all that mattered since my CPU has been good enough for anything else ive done up until now.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!