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

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!