smoot178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 Are you kidding me!?!?! Not 1 person in this thread has the knowledge to see the most obvious? Bro. Look at your System memory usage. its in the 90% range. What do you have like 1.5g-2g or ram or something? Upgrade that sh*t and make it at least 4gb of ram. There. /Fixed. I recently upgraded from my 8800 GTS 640 to a GTX 280. Now I raise the settings up a bit and it is sucking. It's almost unbearable play in some places and it stutters a whole lot. 8800 GTS Benchmark: StatisticsAverage FPS: 18.14Duration: 37.32 secCPU Usage: 71%System memory usage: 94%Video memory usage: 71%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighRender Quality: HighestView Distance: 100Detail Distance: 100Shadows : 0HardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTSVideo Driver version: 180.84Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio)AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core ProcessorFile ID: benchmark.cli XD Okay then. I'll do that. Check out the new stuff: StatisticsAverage FPS: 24.07 Duration: 37.73 sec CPU Usage: 72% System memory usage: 92% Video memory usage: 76% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: High View Distance: 32 Detail Distance: 70 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Video Driver version: 180.84 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio) AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core Processor File ID: benchmark.cli StatisticsAverage FPS: 25.86 Duration: 37.27 sec CPU Usage: 72% System memory usage: 93% Video memory usage: 91% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Very High View Distance: 25 Detail Distance: 68 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Video Driver version: 180.84 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio) AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core Processor File ID: Benchmark.cli And I do only have 2 gb of RAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redemption80 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Yeah, noticed that myself, its usually my CPU usage that is in the 90s. Not sure where in the world you are, but i picked up 8gb of branded ram for £55, so a good time to upgrade, especially to Vista64. lol @ AMD till death, why not a AMD Vid card then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Yeah, noticed that myself, its usually my CPU usage that is in the 90s. Not sure where in the world you are, but i picked up 8gb of branded ram for £55, so a good time to upgrade, especially to Vista64. lol @ AMD till death, why not a AMD Vid card then Because Ati sucks. If they came out with an Ati processor I would never use it. Edit: At the moment I have 2 of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145098 (or one package) I would assume that getting 2 more of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145180 Would be compatible even though they are different sizes. Am I correct? Edit: YEAH I KNOW ITS SUX RAM BUT I DON'T CARE! Edited January 8, 2009 by smoot178 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle016 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 you are using an operating system that isn't even in beta. uninstall the unsupported operating system and install a supported one. The sad part of your assumption is that it is completely wrong. XP 64 & 32 work alright. Vista 64 works alright. Windows 7 works GREAT. I got +15 FPS (in game with Fraps) over the other versions (ALL fresh OS installs). It's quite sad when an OS that isn't even in BETA does a LOT better than ones that have been out a while. Oh, and please, look around next time before making assumptions. I've read from a LOT of people that 7 works MUCH better than Vista/XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 you are using an operating system that isn't even in beta. uninstall the unsupported operating system and install a supported one. The sad part of your assumption is that it is completely wrong. XP 64 & 32 work alright. Vista 64 works alright. Windows 7 works GREAT. I got +15 FPS (in game with Fraps) over the other versions (ALL fresh OS installs). It's quite sad when an OS that isn't even in BETA does a LOT better than ones that have been out a while. Oh, and please, look around next time before making assumptions. I've read from a LOT of people that 7 works MUCH better than Vista/XP. Hehe I think now that I have found the problem I can agree with you. Windows 7 is pretty sweet although from my experience it isn't production worthy yet (wallpaper turns black after 3d games, taskbar sometimes ends up in the middle of the screen). I'll definitely get it once it is officially release though. ANYWAYS. I found that it most likely is my ram. Decreasing detail distance makes the performance alot better while the difference between no shadows and max shadow settings adds no strain to my video card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruXter Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 you are using an operating system that isn't even in beta. uninstall the unsupported operating system and install a supported one. The sad part of your assumption is that it is completely wrong. XP 64 & 32 work alright. Vista 64 works alright. Windows 7 works GREAT. I got +15 FPS (in game with Fraps) over the other versions (ALL fresh OS installs). It's quite sad when an OS that isn't even in BETA does a LOT better than ones that have been out a while. Oh, and please, look around next time before making assumptions. I've read from a LOT of people that 7 works MUCH better than Vista/XP. I have done xp/xp64/vista/vista64/tinyvista and only saw fps increase on tiny. but not much. still felt jitter here and there , while on xp I had low fps but no jitter. so with each gain I take a loss. Main issue with xp is drivers overheat my card fast by 6 degrees Celsius. oh on that note, I found while in menu mode on gtaiv, My temperature would raise about 5-6 I use Precision In windowed mode I whent to menu to pause while I stepped outside for 5 minutes. came inside and I was at 45 C. Sorry went off track there. I have to see more on mighty 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flat Face Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Your sig is so ironic it hurts LOL especially at the "show your .......... by adding this sig to your sig.." show my what? and funked if i know dude sorry, honestly just wanted to comment on the sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle016 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 you are using an operating system that isn't even in beta. uninstall the unsupported operating system and install a supported one. The sad part of your assumption is that it is completely wrong. XP 64 & 32 work alright. Vista 64 works alright. Windows 7 works GREAT. I got +15 FPS (in game with Fraps) over the other versions (ALL fresh OS installs). It's quite sad when an OS that isn't even in BETA does a LOT better than ones that have been out a while. Oh, and please, look around next time before making assumptions. I've read from a LOT of people that 7 works MUCH better than Vista/XP. Hehe I think now that I have found the problem I can agree with you. Windows 7 is pretty sweet although from my experience it isn't production worthy yet (wallpaper turns black after 3d games, taskbar sometimes ends up in the middle of the screen). I'll definitely get it once it is officially release though. ANYWAYS. I found that it most likely is my ram. Decreasing detail distance makes the performance alot better while the difference between no shadows and max shadow settings adds no strain to my video card. Yea, it's something I'll definitely get as well. I've only had a few minor problems, mainly when switching 'themes' while moving files... makes all the windows completely transparent so only the frame appears. I'm ready to get my hands on a complete, polished 64bit version and see how much better it handles other games. I'm planning on testing Crysis and FarCry 2 tomorrow to see how much more of an increase those games have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redemption80 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 smoot178 couldn't disagree more on the AMD thing, they haven't had a proper gaming CPU that has interested me in years, but i nearly got the 4800, before settling on the GTX260. As for Ram, not sure on the PC2 5300, i know you say you don't care, but you obviously care about performance if you have a Quad Core, and a GTX280, so why limit yourself with slow ram. I got two sets of the below a few weeks ago, and very pleased, also far too pretty for ram sticks, its a uk site, but you get the idea. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct....rodid=MY-086-OC If you are going to insist on getting the Corair ram, i would suggest getting the 2 1gb sticks again, as well its cheaper, and 6gb is pointless unless your planning on moving to Vista64, and also cause i've never been keen on mixing ram sizes. As for Window7 64, running it now, and have to say it as sweet as Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 smoot178 couldn't disagree more on the AMD thing, they haven't had a proper gaming CPU that has interested me in years, but i nearly got the 4800, before settling on the GTX260. As for Ram, not sure on the PC2 5300, i know you say you don't care, but you obviously care about performance if you have a Quad Core, and a GTX280, so why limit yourself with slow ram. I got two sets of the below a few weeks ago, and very pleased, also far too pretty for ram sticks, its a uk site, but you get the idea. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct....rodid=MY-086-OC If you are going to insist on getting the Corair ram, i would suggest getting the 2 1gb sticks again, as well its cheaper, and 6gb is pointless unless your planning on moving to Vista64, and also cause i've never been keen on mixing ram sizes. As for Window7 64, running it now, and have to say it as sweet as I can't get faster RAM because I used up all my cash on my GTX 280. Perhaps in the future I will upgrade the speed but for now it will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK47-Maximus Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Your processor sucks dude, get an Intel next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 Your processor sucks dude, get an Intel next time. Really, it doesn't. It may be a step behind the Q6600 but it certainly doesn't suck and I highly doubt this next-gen QUAD CORE is bottlenecking my games. Check it: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/compare,821.html?prod[2194]=on&prod[2171]=on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ja Pierdole Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 turn your view distance and detail distance along with shadow density to low. that gives me about 15 extra fps and not a huge difference in graphics. the only big difference you see is from lowering detail distance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevyboy Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Your processor sucks dude, get an Intel next time. Really, it doesn't. It may be a step behind the Q6600 but it certainly doesn't suck and I highly doubt this next-gen QUAD CORE is bottlenecking my games. Check it: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/compare,821.html?prod[2194]=on&prod[2171]=on Sorry just had to... Your suggesting your processor is below the bottom of the barrel intel quads (Q6600 still a nice chip, don't misunderstand me). In what world would this not point to a "sucky" processor? Anyways to make this not a completely useless post, no you processor is not the bottleneck, from the look of it your system ram is maxed out, thus your first bottleneck. If you already haven't I would try going with medium texture, very high / highest rendering, 40ish draw distance and max everything else. These seem to be the most stable and "highest" FPS I get on my 2 alternate rigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redemption80 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Yeah whether or not its a good CPU or not is beside the point, as its not being maxed. Most of the settings you can see taking affect when you are lowering them, so maybe mess more with that, go with what you can see, rather than just number, as alot of the time there is no visible difference over a certain amount, so you could possibly improve framerate with no visible image loss, as your not using super high res's anyway. But using a 1gb Video card on Vista when you only have 2gb of Ram is always goint to give u trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820104038 Zing. It's certainly an upgrade from my PC2-5300 and it's double to space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Secret Island Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Hey champ, how about trying the game on some oparating system that is officially supported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redemption80 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 smoot178, that would be spot on and wouldn't be holding back a powerful GPU like the GTX280, just make sure your board supports it first. The Secret Island, he has, tryed it on Vista32 too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Your processor sucks dude, get an Intel next time. Really, it doesn't. It may be a step behind the Q6600 but it certainly doesn't suck and I highly doubt this next-gen QUAD CORE is bottlenecking my games. See bud, it was pretty obvious you had a bottleneck , but running only 2 Gb of RAM you had in fact a double bottlenek, the low RAM and your Phenom CPU, so thats no big surprise that even with a GTX 280 your rig is performing like sh*t man. Make it 4 Gb of RAM and go Intel quad , then you will be able to unleash all the GTX power. Edited January 8, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Ordering: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820104038 Edit: I'm already way over my original budget so upgrading my CPU is out of the question. Edit: Why hate on AMD? Edited January 8, 2009 by smoot178 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noVa Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 just questioning something, shouldn't a benchmark run a set amount of frames each time? and therefore the further up the scale of fps you go the shorter amount of time it takes to render? so therefore howcome in gta's benchmarks the time it takes to render the entire scene changes and doesn't appear to be reliant on fps at all? is there something i'm missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 just questioning something, shouldn't a benchmark run a set amount of frames each time? and therefore the further up the scale of fps you go the shorter amount of time it takes to render? so therefore howcome in gta's benchmarks the time it takes to render the entire scene changes and doesn't appear to be reliant on fps at all? is there something i'm missing here? Wow, you have a good point there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSD T Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 just questioning something, shouldn't a benchmark run a set amount of frames each time? and therefore the further up the scale of fps you go the shorter amount of time it takes to render? so therefore howcome in gta's benchmarks the time it takes to render the entire scene changes and doesn't appear to be reliant on fps at all? is there something i'm missing here? Wow, you have a good point there. Slowly the penny may drop even for the most staunchest of disturbed liars here... Cue dear ol' Truxter with his new on-the-spot-made-up-theory© about it's more evidence for all the hard work Rockstar have put into this globally acclaimed pitch perfect port et cetera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noVa Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 the only thing i can think is that it has to do with the way the game compensates for lag inside multiplayer, but i'm still not sure how they calculate the average fps otherwise. Maybe a pm to that rockstar bloke on here may clear that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 I can't wait to get my 5gb of RAM tomorrow. The speed is also faster than what I had before. I had DDR2-667 before and now I doubled the size and now the speed is DDR2-1066. What do you anticipate the results will be once the RAM is in? SUPER FPS?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noVa Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I can't wait to get my 5gb of RAM tomorrow. The speed is also faster than what I had before. I had DDR2-667 before and now I doubled the size and now the speed is DDR2-1066. What do you anticipate the results will be once the RAM is in? SUPER FPS?! no, i was running my ddr2 1066 at 800mhz for a while due to my overclock made little or no difference when finally set the ratio correctly, also i was a spastic and previously when i had taken my ram out to clean dust i put it back in the wrong slot so it was running in single channel mode, made no difference in game when ran in dual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 I can't wait to get my 5gb of RAM tomorrow. The speed is also faster than what I had before. I had DDR2-667 before and now I doubled the size and now the speed is DDR2-1066. What do you anticipate the results will be once the RAM is in? SUPER FPS?! no, i was running my ddr2 1066 at 800mhz for a while due to my overclock made little or no difference when finally set the ratio correctly, also i was a spastic and previously when i had taken my ram out to clean dust i put it back in the wrong slot so it was running in single channel mode, made no difference in game when ran in dual. Sorry I meant 4* GB. I am replacing my old RAM, I am not putting the new one in with the slower memory as that would also lower the speed of the new memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoot178 Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 StatisticsAverage FPS: 26.38Duration: 37.49 secCPU Usage: 74%System memory usage: 68%Video memory usage: 88%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighRender Quality: Very HighView Distance: 32Detail Distance: 70HardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280Video Driver version: 181.20Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core ProcessorFile ID: benchmark.cli Hell yeah. The new RAM DEFINITELY helped. No more stuttering or freezing and the FPS is pretty good ingame. Thank you everyone! Now to get my hands on one of those GTX 295's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimboking Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I'd really like to see a benchmark with the same settings you benchmarked the 8800GTS. Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 Shadow Settings: 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) I'd really like to see a benchmark with the same settings you benchmarked the 8800GTS. Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 Shadow Settings: 0 Yep, would be better. For comparison, here it is my bench all maxed at 1680 x 1050: Edited January 9, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now