Jump to content



Photo

Graphic settings dont increase frame rate


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#16 OP Guth

Guth

    Alba Gu Bráth

  • Joined: 30-December 05
  • Location: Scotland
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia

Posted 23 December 2012 - 02:19

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


#17 OP Guth

Guth

    Alba Gu Bráth

  • Joined: 30-December 05
  • Location: Scotland
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia

Posted 23 December 2012 - 02:36

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

#18 nekkidtruth

nekkidtruth

    I'm sorry, do you still exist?

  • Joined: 10-March 07
  • Location: Canada
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit
  • Phone: Stock LG Nexus 5

Posted 23 December 2012 - 02:42

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.

#19 Slammers

Slammers

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 30-April 08

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:31

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.

#20 OP Guth

Guth

    Alba Gu Bráth

  • Joined: 30-December 05
  • Location: Scotland
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:41

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 :)

#21 nekkidtruth

nekkidtruth

    I'm sorry, do you still exist?

  • Joined: 10-March 07
  • Location: Canada
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit
  • Phone: Stock LG Nexus 5

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:55

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 ;)

#22 Pupik

Pupik

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 09-December 05

Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:04

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....650-ti-review/4

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

#23 Vvo

Vvo

    nom! nom! nom! Hug a fluffy dolphin!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 28-November 10
  • Location: fluffyland
  • OS: Windows 7/Windows 8/Windows 8.1/Windows XP/ Linux
  • Phone: Samsung Vibrant (android 4.4.4 KK Spirit Rom 1.2)

Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:17

you could simply upgrade to a core 2 quad which you don't need to replace your mobo at all

#24 OP Guth

Guth

    Alba Gu Bráth

  • Joined: 30-December 05
  • Location: Scotland
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia

Posted 23 December 2012 - 12:21

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.