Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What kind of fps should I be getting?

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

    What kind of fps should I be getting?

    I have an e8500, 3.6ghz, 9800gt (slight overclock), 4 gigs of ram, and I am using vista sp1 64 bit and all the newest drivers and am running at 1440x900. I constantly drop to 35-40 fps on quite a few of the warfare maps I was just wondering if this was normal? because when the game came out I remember how everyone was saying their 8800's weren't dropping below 80 ever. I am running the highest settings from within the game (no ini tweaks besides min desireable fps to 60 and no vsync of frame smoothing).

    #2
    lol...Thats cause they probably wernt at the same resolution as you man xD.
    But that performance seems about right sense the 9800gt is practically the same
    as the 8800gt (so iv heard)

    Comment


      #3
      Your CPU is most likely the bottleneck. UT3 runs best on a quad core and even then you need a faster one. Try changing the following settings in the UTEngine.ini file

      [Engine.Engine]
      bUsePixelShaderComplexity=False
      bUseAdditiveComplexity=False

      [SystemSettings]
      DetailMode=0

      I have a Phenom 9950 BE and GTX 260 Core 216 found that changing those settings made my FPS completely stable.

      Comment


        #4
        Those frames are a little low, imo. You may be experiencing problems because of the portals in Warfare, which cause serious performance problems. The new patch coming out will disable the live picture feeding through for everyone, and as they say for performance issues.

        Comment


          #5
          dude i have i have 8800 gts, quad core 2.4 and 2 gigs of ram, when i playing in 1680X1050 fps never get below 60, so there is something wrong with your's system

          Comment


            #6
            ok, quadcores should be slightly better compared to a dualcore with same clock. but your cpu is more than powerful enough for this game. until now ut3 does not benefit that much from 4 cores ( the game!- the editor does a lot). mostly the min fps are higher not the average ones. your processor should get noticable higer fps than a q6600 e.g. due to its high amount of mhz

            i really do not think that your cpu is the bottleneck, especially with this graphicscard.

            but the latest drivers from nvidia are causing trouble with ut3.

            i agree that something has to be wrong with your system as the 9800gt is supposed to be able to run the game in 1680x1050 with good (not the best) fps.
            i think it`s not vista because meanwhile it is running almost as fast as xp with newer games.

            Comment


              #7
              Actually according to every benchmark on the net, UT3 is one of the very few games that really does take full advantage of a quad core CPU.

              Also until i made those changes I posted, my lowest fps on a map (which are all that matter) would dip below 60 on certain parts of DM-Deck and some other stock maps.

              Changing resolution and most video settings did nothing for the low FPS parts of the map, and my CPU was running close to 100% on 2 cores and very high on the other two as well. When 800x600 and 1920x1200 give the same low fps its not your graphics card.

              Finally, online benchmarks aside, upgrading for an AMD X2 6000+ to a AMD Phenom 9950 BE with a lower clock speed significantly improved the framerates in those low sections on my own PC.

              I'm currently running an Phenom 9950BE, a GTX 260 Core 216, 6gb of ram on vista64.

              If your not running AA or AF then your framerates should be just fine with a 9800 its most likely your CPU thats limiting your fps.

              Comment


                #8
                Definitively your CPU is not bottleneck.

                I never fall down bellow 60 fps in 1680x1050 high settings (Vsync and frame smoothing enable) with the rig you can see on my signature.

                You have a material conflict somewhere...

                Comment


                  #9
                  Check to see if you have any background stuff running on your computer eating up resources. You may have a virus or something else running you do not need.

                  If you want to test to see if it's your cpu or not, it's very easy. If you lower your screen res and the fps stays the same, then it's your cpu. Which I very much doubt is the case..

                  All systems have fps ups and downs on all maps. That is normal. I suspect your issue is vista related via the nvidia driver and maybe vista itself.

                  FYI, game benchmarks show the E8500 runs UT3 just as good as a quads, the actual differences are negligible. See benchmarks.

                  http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=15

                  Comment


                    #10
                    oldkawman:

                    So quad cores don't make a diffrence yet a 2.4 ghz quad core out performs the 3.12 ghz dual core on UT3? Looks to me like ut3 takes advantage of all 4 cpus. Also, that benchmark only shows average FPS and not minimum (which is all that really matters). Its fair to say that the quad cores will handle a greater load and result in a higher lower minimum framerate than the dual cores.

                    Sebastien-Nova:
                    One of the least constructive posts I've ever seen. You don't mention what operating system you are running. If its XP then your going to get higher FPS in UT3 than some one running Vista. Telling some one something is definitely not the problem when it very well could be is counter productive. UT3 has been giving different people with similar hardware configurations, different results, so his CPU might be bottle necking his system whereas yours is not. If I hurt your feelings by some how by saying that an E8500 might be the bottleneck then I'm sorry, but when troubleshooting you try to eliminate possibilities by testing, not by saying it couldn't be that so I won't even try it.

                    Quickest way to find out if your cpu is the bottleneck. Change your resolution to 800x600. If your fps go way up then its not your cpu. If your fps stay relatively similar, then it is your cpu. If thats the case then change the settings I mentioned, put your resolution back up and see if that fixes anything.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Random54 View Post
                      oldkawman:

                      So quad cores don't make a diffrence yet a 2.4 ghz quad core out performs the 3.12 ghz dual core on UT3? Looks to me like ut3 takes advantage of all 4 cpus. Also, that benchmark only shows average FPS and not minimum (which is all that really matters). Its fair to say that the quad cores will handle a greater load and result in a higher lower minimum framerate than the dual cores.

                      Quickest way to find out if your cpu is the bottleneck. Change your resolution to 800x600. If your fps go way up then its not your cpu. If your fps stay relatively similar, then it is your cpu. If thats the case then change the settings I mentioned, put your resolution back up and see if that fixes anything.
                      UT3 likes quad cores. It even likes the new Phenom II quads. Here is a set of benchmarks that show median lows.

                      http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147/5

                      This shows the C2D E8600 beating the Q6600 quad all around.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        or watch this one:

                        http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/pr...kern-test.html

                        well the question was not, if ut3 runs better with a quad core. it does - but i think that the difference is too small for upgrading (considering the price and power consumption/ heat production) and speaking of full advantage.

                        i still do not think that his cpu is not the bottleneck in combination with his 9800gtx. maybe if he had a 280gtx, 285gtx or a dual gpu. so i wont say, that his cpu causes the low fps.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Toms Hardware UT3 performance chart shows a distinct advantage for quad cores but I doubt if thats campbullards problem as I have no issues here even at 2560x1600 but then again my e8400 is OC'd to 3.6ghz and I have a 9800gx2 and that is most like the cause here. His video card on some of the warfare maps will perform poorly with all sliders on max but he should be able to beef his screen resolution up to 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 and get relatively the same performance.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            This is what I find odd. I only play at 1680x1050. I have a Q6600 at 3.4ghz, and a 4870x2 using 8.12 drivers in Vista x64. And in, say, Shangri La, I get dips to about 55 or so in certain areas by myself with no other players in the map. Add in bots, and the same view gets about 46fps or so.

                            Is there some magic fix I don't know about?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by ArcticZero View Post
                              This is what I find odd. I only play at 1680x1050. I have a Q6600 at 3.4ghz, and a 4870x2 using 8.12 drivers in Vista x64. And in, say, Shangri La, I get dips to about 55 or so in certain areas by myself with no other players in the map. Add in bots, and the same view gets about 46fps or so.

                              Is there some magic fix I don't know about?

                              I think Shangri La is just poorly optimized... at least, in the middle where you're looking at in that screenshot. My FPS goes down to about 30 in the same spot you're in with no bots.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X