Help with incresing FPS

[cel4145]

overclocking an AMD Opteron 185 from 2.6 to 3.1 GHz doesn't yield any fps increase either.

gg with the "CPU-bound" excuse

If you have a high end video card, the "cpu-bound" effect would be improved by overclocking on the low end frame rates, not average or upper FPS.

[DHJudas]

nvidia 8600 = low end.... poor
Nvidia 8800
or
ATI HD3850/3870 = highend, excellent...

this game really need a machine to have 2gb of ram and a 8800 OR HD29xx/HD38xx video card to work at high quality/high resolutions.

[Contra]

WarTourist has already said that some systems are "cpu bound." 'Course this is a way of getting out of offering to better optimize their code and maps in terms of CPU usage. Maybe we'll get lucky and there are some hidden code optimizations in the patch coming out, although they haven't been listed in the release notes so far.

Sorry, but your crappy 2ghz pentium 4 just doesn't cut it, no amount of "code optimization" will change this fact.

[chicken-]

I found that lowering your USB polling rate or "refresh rate" of your mouse helps with FPS and smoother turning.

[KriLL3.8™]

I found that lowering your USB polling rate or "refresh rate" of your mouse helps with FPS and smoother turning.

It's the other way around actually.

[DeathmooN]

Take out 1G of your Ram and see what happens May not directly affect FPS that much but overall performance I would think most new games today need 2G to run smooth. I cant imagine only having 1G again

Loading times, yes. calculations-no.

It would make it less stuttery, depending on the game, but more RAM wouldn't improve general FPS.

[KriLL3.8™]

It would actually, RAM handles resources of the game, if it's not sufficient it has to swap out stuff using the HDD while ingame, that reduces FPS greatly and makes the game a lot less fluid.

[cel4145]

If you have a high end video card, the "cpu-bound" effect would be improved by overclocking on the low end frame rates, not average or upper FPS.

Later I realized this doesn't make sense. Ignore this. LOL

[cel4145]

It would actually, RAM handles resources of the game, if it's not sufficient it has to swap out stuff using the HDD while ingame, that reduces FPS greatly and makes the game a lot less fluid.

But there is a ceiling on this where additional memory makes no difference because the CPU is limited by its own performance speed doing calculations and it has everything it needs in RAM. The Gamespot data indicates this ceiling is around 1GB for XP and just above it somewhere for Vista.

[KriLL3.8™]

But there is a ceiling on this where additional memory makes no difference

True, 2GB is the new standard it seems with vista and some background stuff.

[RedSteels_Fury]

Buy 2 8800 Ultras and run them SLI

Problem solved.

lol, name one mobo that could actually fit them on there

[KriLL3.8™]

RedSteels_Fury: most new SLI capable boards.

[Jack_Move01]

So basically then it is going to run like poo on my system no matter what? Can not get above 20 FPS @ 800x600 which I do not under stand as I can play BioShock with everything maxed & stay over 60FPS. You think maybe Unreal does not agree with the ATI drivers?

AM2 FX-62 running 3ghz (Dual Core)
ATI 2900xt 800mhz gpu 2ghz gddr3
CORSAIR Dominator 1066mhz 4 gigs
DFI CFX3200 Infinity ATI Crossfire MB
Windows Vista 32

[KriLL3.8™]

Tried the latest ATI drivers? And sometimes a lower res doesn't increase FPS oddly enough.

[zirdox]

WOW - i got no lag and run in 1920x1200

My Rig is :

AMD Opteron 185 (2.6 Ghz)
4 GB Dual Channel RAM
Geforce 8800GTX 768MB
Windows Vista 64-bit

Don't get me wrong. This ain't exactly the newest hardware around - still it runs smooth.

Is this caused by the GTX card perhaps ?