Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

low fps on GeForce 9600 GT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    low fps on GeForce 9600 GT

    hey people

    iam getting really low frame rates iam playing with ut3 on maxed out en at some places my fps drops down to 18 !!! i thought this is a pretty powerfull card

    here are my specs

    Intel P4 3.0 GHz
    2048 MB DDR2 (PC2-4300)
    NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT 512 MB (drivers from CD!!)(from Gigabyte!)
    OS:Windows Vista Ultimate (xp is also on 18 frames at some places but i think vista drops it lower!!)

    #2
    I think your CPU might be the problem.
    Vista is also not really UT3-friendly.

    Comment


      #3
      and at other games my fps is 90 at maxed out like ut2004 do i bottleneck my cpu or something

      Comment


        #4
        Yes.

        -tJev

        Comment


          #5
          thinking of getting an Intel Core 2 duo 3.0 ghz i think that would run fine

          Comment


            #6
            I don't think the processor has anything to do with it, as it passes the minimum requirements. If my processor is good enough to get 30FPS in Crysis with all the settings on high, then it's more than enough for UT3

            My processor is in my sig. I haven't updated it recently, but I also have a 9600GT (overclocked). I have the exact same problem as you. Great FPS in all games, except UT3.

            Some people with other cards like the 8800GTS also complain about low FPS in some areas. It's either a problem with UT3 itself, or a lack of drivers for the 9600GT

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Tomeis View Post
              I don't think the processor has anything to do with it, as it passes the minimum requirements.
              Minimum requirements aren't "minimum requirements for the highest settings" The 9600GT is nearly as powerful as an 8800GT, so the graphics card definitely isn't the problem. The processor though is single core only, and the Unreal Engine loves multiple cores, so I can well imagine that the CPU is the culprit.

              UT2004 by the way runs on an engine that's 4 years older than the one of UT3, so you can't really compare the two

              Originally posted by Tomeis View Post
              I don't think the processor has anything to do with it, as it passes the minimum requirements. If my processor is good enough to get 30FPS in Crysis with all the settings on high, then it's more than enough for UT3
              Crysis is different, the engine is less influenced by consoles (yes, the UEngine is, whether that's good or bad I won't go into here) and thus relies less on multiple cores being available. And ... do you get consistent, all-time 30 fps in crysis? As otherwise, you're comparing apples and oranges, it's not particularly fair to compare Crysis idle FPS with UT3 hitching FPS. The Cryengine is only about a year younger than the UEngine, so the two are pretty comparable in power hunger too.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by haslo View Post
                Minimum requirements aren't "minimum requirements for the highest settings" The 9600GT is nearly as powerful as an 8800GT, so the graphics card definitely isn't the problem. The processor though is single core only, and the Unreal Engine loves multiple cores, so I can well imagine that the CPU is the culprit.

                UT2004 by the way runs on an engine that's 4 years older than the one of UT3, so you can't really compare the two



                Crysis is different, the engine is less influenced by consoles (yes, the UEngine is, whether that's good or bad I won't go into here) and thus relies less on multiple cores being available. And ... do you get consistent, all-time 30 fps in crysis? As otherwise, you're comparing apples and oranges, it's not particularly fair to compare Crysis idle FPS with UT3 hitching FPS.
                Yes, I know minimum requirements doesn't mean minimum for the highest settings, but when the low FPS doesn't change when you lower the resolution or the graphic settings, then something is obviously wrong

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Tomeis View Post
                  Yes, I know minimum requirements doesn't mean minimum for the highest settings, but when the low FPS doesn't change when you lower the resolution or the graphic settings, then something is obviously wrong
                  Nope, nothing is wrong, instead it's a very, very clear sign that the problem isn't the graphics card but the processor

                  The problem is that UT3 doesn't allow you to lower physics settings or other CPU-specific tasks independently of graphical settings, so you're stuck with either lowering overall world detail (which also lowers realtime lighting and other processor-intensive tasks, but with that lowers graphic card tasks as well and thus lets your system perform fluently, but below what it could do), or upgrading the CPU.

                  (And another, last edit ) If you lower the resolution and the performance doesn't go up, this means very clearly that the problem is in the rendering pipeline before it reaches the graphics card - as the graphics card is the bit that's influenced by the resolution mainly. There's a lot of maths going on that prepares vector data, and the graphics card is responsible for juggling that vector data and producing actual images from it. Thus if the graphic card bottlenecks, it helps to lower the resolution - as then it has to produce less pixel data with the vector data it gets from the processor. On the other hand, if the bottleneck is the processor, lowering your resolution won't help, as the graphics card can easily produce pixel data from all the vector data it gets, but it doesn't receive said vector data fast enough. This is what you're seeing.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    How does that indicate it's a processor problem? If anything, it proves that it's not. If I've got a processor that's just about passes the recommended requirements, but can barely play the game on the lowest settings, then how does that make sense? To me, it seems like a problem with the game itself.

                    You've got Crysis, with physics all over, and amazing graphics. My FPS doesn't drop when I throw a barrel into a house, making it crumble (Which is CPU intesive, because I don't have a physx card, and even if I did, crysis doesn't support it). In UT3, just looking at something will drop my FPS to the low 20s

                    Well, haslo, then if that's the case (regarding your last edit), then this problem would have to be on any game on the UE3 engine, then, wouldn't it? Since each engine does the graphics differently, and obviously Crysis runs how it should, WiC runs how it should, CoD4 runs how it should. Again, I don't see how that works as FFoW (which is very buggy atm) runs at 50fps average on the highest settings. You can also blow down certain buildings and objects in FFoW. bioshock runs at 50fps average, same with gears of war and medal of honor airborne (the demo), so I don't see how UT3 is an exception. It's not like I'm playing on the physx maps or anything (which, btw, doesn't run that bad on my computer. I have that lego physx map and the FPS is great until all 31 of the bots starts shooting at the buildings. If I drop the bot count down to 5 or 6, then it's playable FPS throughout)

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Your comparisons to other games are valid and show that UT3 apparently requires a faster CPU than those do. Maybe it's even coded less efficiently. You're saying it's a game problem - yeah, the game wants more processor power than you have. In that way, it's the game's problem. Just like Doom 2 wanted more processor power than a 80286 had. Just ... back then, nobody went and blamed Doom 2 for that.

                      Physics are one part that wants processor power (and the lego map's physics are rather trivial, which is on purpose, to make it possible to run on everybody's system), dynamic lights are another, Kismet scripts come into play, AI if you play with bots, ragdoll effects and explosions with flying parts, character and vehicle animations, exchanging shaders and geometry when vehicles and stuff are being damaged, 3D sound processing (unless you have a sound card that can do that, like an X-Fi), and I'm sure there's more aplenty. All these things are solved differently in different games, requiring different amounts of processor power, and yes UT3 seems to want more processor power for those things than the other games that you rightfully pointed out.

                      I might point out that particularly the sound system is brilliant, even compared to other contemporary shooters such as TF2, and the animations are way more complex as well.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Tomeis View Post
                        when the low FPS doesn't change when you lower the resolution or the graphic settings, then something is obviously wrong
                        Yes, this is PROOF of what the others are telling you. The card is NOT the problem, it's the CPU. The resolution and graphics settings affect the GPU more than the CPU, so if it was a GPU issue, your framerate would increase if/when you turn down resolution and/or graphics settings. The problem is that the CPU is too busy processing physics, post-processing, particle effects, etc. to give the GPU any more instruction to actually raise the FPS when you change the other variables. A GPU like the 9600GT NEEDS a very good processor to do its job, as it, and most other modern high-performance cards are quite CPU-bound. Recommended hardware IS NOT, AND SHOULD NOT be taken as measurement of the system needed to run a game at max settings--if that were true, I could run two instances of Crysis @1920x1200 on two monitors @ max without issues--but rather a good indication of the hardware needed to run a game fairly smoothly at relatively low settings.

                        Comparing BioShock and UT3 is rather unfair because it uses a HEAVILY MODIFIED version of UE3. There's no Ageia Physx (as far as I know), and there's nowhere near the amount of post-processing, textural detail, etc.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Then isn't it pretty misleading to set the minimum system requirements at "2.0ghz single core processor"? Especially since my 2.1ghz dual-core barely plays the game?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Tomeis View Post
                            Then isn't it pretty misleading to set the minimum system requirements at "2.0ghz single core processor"? Especially since my 2.1ghz dual-core barely plays the game?
                            They also list the recommended specs. Anything between recommended and minimum will play, but not so well as recommended or above.

                            Not all 2.1GHz dual cores are the same. Many AMD chips have disadvantages, small L2 cache like 512Kb or 2x 512Kb, defects in AM2 EE L2 cache and phenom L3 cache. Only the AMD chips with 2x 1 Mb L2 cache play UT3 well.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Hm, I'm running an 8800gt and an E6750 overclocked to 3.22ghz and I have no problems with FPS at all. Runs better than I could have hoped.

                              You can try using Nvidia's latest beta drivers. Those fixed some hitching on a few levels for me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X