Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help with incresing FPS

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

  • replied
    Originally posted by Jack_Move01 View Post
    Yes I have the newest ATI drivers out 7.11 .. Are you using windows vista? I was running on older ATI drivers before & it seemed to run better, so I took 7.11 out & put the old 1's back in, but to my dismay it still ran the same like the newer drivers were still in.
    I use XP (see my sig).

    There have been people on the forums who have found that low FPS like yours is caused by something else running on their system. It's pretty easy to check. Follow the "How to run a Clean Setup" link off of the Troubleshooting FAQ. It has directions for how to boot your system with a Clean Startup to make certain that no other software is hogging system resources. Once you have booted try the game and see if it plays better.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Yeah. My Dad didn't buy me mine; I'm the Dad That's why I bought the MSI 8600GT OC edition for my son's computer (listed above) after I saw how well the 8600GTS ran on mine with UT3. I run the 8600GTS at 1400x1050, 4/4, and generally stay in the 50's high 40's. I'd recommend that 8600GT for anyone that wanted a good upgrade but didn't want to spend $275 for an 8800GT. The average gamer just doesn't "need" an 8800 series video card to play this game well at average resolution LCD's. It's a luxury, nothing more.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by cel4145 View Post
    Something has got to be screwy. I've got two systems, AMD 4200+ with 8600GT and AMD 5600+ with 8600GTS, which both do much better at 1280x1024, 4/4, then you are doing. The slower of the two stays in the 40's on average and dips into the 30's some. The faster is more often in the 50's and some 40's with very rare dip into 30's (acid pit on Deck). Your vid card is better than both of those.
    Yes I have the newest ATI drivers out 7.11 .. Are you using windows vista? I was running on older ATI drivers before & it seemed to run better, so I took 7.11 out & put the old 1's back in, but to my dismay it still ran the same like the newer drivers were still in.
    Wonder if Vista could be causing the problems, not liking the 2900xt or something, though as I said before I can run other high games like Bioshock with no issues once so ever.
    I also have the Beta patch installed.
    I also can not get it to play online, it can see the servers & games being played & shows the number of players, but it will never connect. It just sits there saying Connecting & does'nt give any kind of error message.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Ran well 1/1 1680x1050 with my 8600GT IIRC. Certainly adequate..

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    How is the 8600's inadequate to playing UT3? You know, not all of us need to play UT3 max settings at 1920x1080 res or whatever.

    My friend has a 8600GTS with a Athlon X2 4200 and he can play at max settings at 1440x900 with 40 fps.

    I have a 8600GT and a Pentium D and I play at 800x600 with settings 1/1, and I get 30 fps, which is fine and dandy for me. There is only like a 8 fps difference from 1280x1024 and 800x600, but I like to have 30+ fps.

    I am pretty sure it is just my processor that is the bottleneck.

    But anyways, 8600's are adequate to play UT3, its like a Honda Civic is adequate to drive; it's no Ferrari/8800 but it gets you where you want.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    IMO the 8600 series are inadequate when playing UT3. I almost panicked when my dad ordered our Dell XPS with dual 8600 gts' but afterwards we made a new order and now we have the 8800 gtx. I rather buy an 8800 gt (or even go SLI if you have the money) or try the new ATI card.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Jack_Move01 View Post
    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?
    Something has got to be screwy. I've got two systems, AMD 4200+ with 8600GT and AMD 5600+ with 8600GTS, which both do much better at 1280x1024, 4/4, then you are doing. The slower of the two stays in the 40's on average and dips into the 30's some. The faster is more often in the 50's and some 40's with very rare dip into 30's (acid pit on Deck). Your vid card is better than both of those.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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 ?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    RedSteels_Fury: most new SLI capable boards.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Lacunaa View Post
    Buy 2 8800 Ultras and run them SLI

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

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by cel4145 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by KriLL3.8™ View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by cel4145 View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X