so if I pump out 120 frames in half a second and do nothing for the other half a second.... its still 120fps. but I think you'll notice. Is the game running 120fps? Not for the other half second.
The time it takes to render the frame, is crucial. If it takes longer to render evert...
Thought so, I'm finally at home looking at it.
Even on medium settings there is a lot more memory being used on Battlefield 3 than I expected.... If I were the OP I would double check that make sure its the memory cap that he's hitting.
EDIT: At ultra settings I'm only using about 895mb...
this is what I was thinking. I can't justify paying 549 for a processor that I may only run for a year... but I've gotten everything I could out of what I currently have lol.
I agree with this. was the os reinstalled with the overcolocked settings?? That has happened to me before and it ended up being corrupted. ah how we learn lol.
Can someone merge these two threads together?
On my q9550 Im getting about the same FPS you are 45 average @1920x1080 with all settings low / ambient occlusion is off, no motion blur etc etc.
Right now I'm currently running only a GTS250, so I cant imagine will be too big of a jump in FPS.
EDIT: This is on MP on 64 player maps btw...
+1
"That is to say, it will focus less on processors for PCs and pay more attention to the mobile market."
So the article contradicts its own title.... Well done Softpedia! I've seen more well written articles on Arstechnica than this garbage. lol