• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Am I expecting too much?

J

jbltecnicspro

[H]F Junkie
2FA
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
11,597
So right now I'm rocking a Radeon HD-7750. I recently broke out my old CRT monitor to get some game on. Right now my resolution is 1600x1200, and the games look fantastic. Problem is, they're not performing as well as I thought they would.

The games I'm talking about are Far Cry (the first one) and Doom 3. Looking at the specs, wouldn't the 7750 be enough for these resolutions? I'm not using AA on the games, just AF (8xAF). I mean - 32 texture units, 16 ROPS, and 512 shader cores - shouldn't that be enough to power the games at a solid 60fps? Or maybe I'm just expecting too much?
 
I think you are expecting too much. Crysis 2 1680x1050 high settings Farcry 3 Benches

What settings are you expecting to get at or near 60fps with that card? The only way is pretty much gonna be with low/medium settings at 1280x720p. I'm guessing only in the 40-50s with your native resolution and same settings.
 
yep your expecting too much. games like farcry 3 and crysis have way too much post effects going on for a 7750 to handle at that resolution.
 
Samson4EiT said:
I think you are expecting too much. Crysis 2 1680x1050 high settings Farcry 3 Benches

What settings are you expecting to get at or near 60fps with that card? The only way is pretty much gonna be with low/medium settings at 1280x720p. I'm guessing only in the 40-50s with your native resolution and same settings.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the first Far Cry, from 2004. I'm running all settings at Very High except for lighting, because anything above High causes the game not to start in Windows 7 apparently.
 
Core i3 2100. Do you really think it can be holding my card back in such old titles? I never considered my CPU would actually be the bottleneck here.
 
I dont suppose so, thats a rather decent processor, i dont see what your having problems for. Sorry i couldn't help. :(
 
Your CPU is not a bottleneck for either of those two games.
 
JTC428 said:
I dont suppose so, thats a rather decent processor, i dont see what your having problems for. Sorry i couldn't help. :(
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking a crack at it. I've uninstalled the Catalyst 12.11 betas and went back to 12.10. I'll see what happens.
 
I like how the first poster gives benches for the completely wrong games then the second poster agrees with him. :(

OP what settings are you running these games on? If its on the highest settings far cry should tank your card, as Cryengine 1 is still quite demanding on older/lower end cards.

Also looking around I can see benchmarks for older games (at maxed settings) in 1680x1050 are usually around 30-40 fps avg for your card.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

The benchmark list in the link might not be totally accurate but for a general idea where your card ranks its enough. Right now I'm seeing that it is roughly equal to a last generation mid-range mobile GPU. Yikes :p time to upgrade.

Edit: Also CPU is definitely a bottleneck at your resolution, keep that mind if you are upgrading to a new video card. If you are not upgrading then do not bother, your weak card outbottlenecks (is that a term? =P ) your cpu.
 
Blue.chord said:
I like how the first poster gives benches for the completely wrong games then the second poster agrees with him. :(

OP what settings are you running these games on? If its on the highest settings far cry should tank your card, as Cryengine 1 is still quite demanding on older/lower end cards.

Also looking around I can see benchmarks for older games (at maxed settings) in 1680x1050 are usually around 30-40 fps avg for your card.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

The benchmark list in the link might not be totally accurate but for a general idea where your card ranks its enough. Right now I'm seeing that it is roughly equal to a last generation mid-range mobile GPU. Yikes :p time to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Lol. I wasn't going to make a huge deal about the whole wrong games thing. ;) I'm running Doom 3 at Ultra settings, and Far Cry is on the highest settings with everything except for the lighting. If the lighting is set to "very high," it hangs at the splash screen. Apparently it's a Windows 7 thing.

So then - I AM expecting too much. It makes sense then that 1600x1200 would knock the card off of its 60fps lock. I forget that it's almost at 2 megapixels, whereas 1280x1024 is 1.3 mpixels. Huge difference.

EDIT: I'm actually going to purchase a GTX-660 with some of the money that I get from selling my electronics stuff. Thankfully, it looks like Far Cry 3 (I plan on getting this game soon) will be satisfied with the i3-2100.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Lol. I wasn't going to make a huge deal about the whole wrong games thing. ;) I'm running Doom 3 at Ultra settings, and Far Cry is on the highest settings with everything except for the lighting. If the lighting is set to "very high," it hangs at the splash screen. Apparently it's a Windows 7 thing.

So then - I AM expecting too much. It makes sense then that 1600x1200 would knock the card off of its 60fps lock. I forget that it's almost at 2 megapixels, whereas 1280x1024 is 1.3 mpixels. Huge difference.
Click to expand...

If you want higher performance for cheap- alot of used 6970's / 580's going for sub 200$ atm. Hell some dude is selling 3 480's for 350$ on OCN- and 7970's are going for 300$ if you want a this generation flagship.

I would not buy new in box gpu until the 8000 series come out.
 
Blue.chord said:
If you want higher performance for cheap- alot of used 6970's / 580's going for sub 200$ atm. Hell some dude is selling 3 480's for 350$ on OCN- and 7970's are going for 300$ if you want a this generation flagship.

I would not buy new in box gpu until the 8000 series come out.
Click to expand...

Noted. Unless I can score a sub $200 new GTX-660? Or would the HD-6970 still beat it? Off the top of my head, I want to think that the GTX-660 would be faster.
 
Blue.chord said:
I like how the first poster gives benches for the completely wrong games then the second poster agrees with him. :(

OP what settings are you running these games on? If its on the highest settings far cry should tank your card, as Cryengine 1 is still quite demanding on older/lower end cards.

Also looking around I can see benchmarks for older games (at maxed settings) in 1680x1050 are usually around 30-40 fps avg for your card.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

The benchmark list in the link might not be totally accurate but for a general idea where your card ranks its enough. Right now I'm seeing that it is roughly equal to a last generation mid-range mobile GPU. Yikes :p time to upgrade.

Edit: Also CPU is definitely a bottleneck at your resolution, keep that mind if you are upgrading to a new video card. If you are not upgrading then do not bother, your weak card outbottlenecks (is that a term? =P ) your cpu.
Click to expand...


good grief at the nonsense in this thread. his cpu is NOT a bottleneck at all for these old games. do you not realize these games came out when a Pentuim 4 and Athlon 64 were top notch? anything more than a Pentium D or Athlon 64 X2 is not going to really help much in such an old game and his 2100 would not even be a limitation by any means.

and a 7750 should easily max those old games at 1600 and maintain way over 60 fps. a 7750 is a fast as a gtx260 or 4870 which are many times more powerful than the fastest gpus back when these games were coming out. the OP is not even using AA so its beyond silly to think he would have trouble staying above 60 fps.

EDIT: I just lowered my gpu to 581 mhz and ran the Doom 3 timedemo on ultra settings and no AA at 1920x1080 and averaged 206 fps. his gpu would not be much slower than my gpu at that lowered speed. plus he is at a slightly lower res. and please dont bring up the cpu as even running it lowered to 2.0 on my E8500 made no real difference when I tested it in the past and gave a 120 fps average with a gtx260.

and for Far Cry, I never saw it dip below 180 fps on max settings with no AA. again that is with my gpu at a lowly 581mhz which is only about half as fast as it is capable of.
 
Last edited:
So then, should I be concerned? Your post mirrors my original thinking behind my expectations. Surely, Far Cry and Doom 3 should be good on my system, even at 1600x1200?
 
jbltecnicspro said:
So then, should I be concerned? Your post mirrors my original thinking behind my expectations. Surely, Far Cry and Doom 3 should be good on my system, even at 1600x1200?
Click to expand...
all I can think of is that it must be driver issues or AMD has trouble with those old games as you should be tearing through them.
 
cannondale06 said:
all I can think of is that it must be driver issues or AMD has trouble with those old games as you should be tearing through them.
Click to expand...

Alright, I ran timedemo demo1 again, and man - what a difference. Night and day. All this with just a stupid PC restart. I'm now sitting on the 12.10's with the latest CAP's.

FPS was 170 - which is the same as 640x480, so even at 1600x1200 I'm CPU limited. Even with AA enabled, my FPS was still 150 fps.

But there's something else going on that's annoying, and hard to put my finger on. Doom 3 stutters every now and then. It seems to happen whenever a door opens to another room. It's like a very small version of texture swapping. If you've ever had a 64MB video card and used any texture quality higher than "low" settings, then you'll know what I'm talking about. It's kind of like hitching, but just ever so slight. And it's annoying as hell. Happens whenever I enable AA on games (4x AA is usually what I do if I use it). Now... My card's 1024 MB of RAM should definitely be handling Doom 3 just fine. So I wonder what's up?
 
I hope you are always running the demo twice as the first time is really only for caching. and I dont see how your cpu could possibly be holding this game back. my E8500 lowered to 2.0 did not even make much of dent in the benchmark. I can run just one core of my 2500k and still get 183 fps.
 
cannondale06 said:
I hope you are always running the demo twice as the first time is really only for caching. and I dont see how your cpu could possibly be holding this game back. my E8500 lowered to 2.0 did not even make much of dent in the benchmark. I can run just one core of my 2500k and still get 183 fps.
Click to expand...

Yes, I always do that. :) I'm not talking about the demo with the stuttering. And as for being CPU bound, my i3 has a lower stock frequency, which would explain the discrepancy. I mean - 170 fps versus 183 fps isn't that big of a difference.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Yes, I always do that. :) I'm not talking about the demo with the stuttering. And as for being CPU bound, my i3 has a lower stock frequency, which would explain the discrepancy. I mean - 170 fps versus 183 fps isn't that big of a difference.
Click to expand...
your i3 is dual core at 3.1 so it should smash just one core of my 2500k which is of the same architecture if the game was really cpu limited. again even my old E8500 did not limit the framerate much even when lowered to 2.0.
 
cannondale06 said:
your i3 is dual core at 3.1 so it should smash just one ocre of my 2500k if the game was really cpu limited. again even my old E8500 did not limit the framerate much even when lowered to 2.0.
Click to expand...

Well, not necessarily. Whenever I play Doom 3 or Far Cry, I only see maximum of 50% CPU usage, with one core pegged at max. Is there a way I can distribute the load between the cores, or does the software have to be strictly coded for multiple threads?

BTW - you've been a HUGE help so far. :) I really appreciate it.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Well, not necessarily. Whenever I play Doom 3 or Far Cry, I only see maximum of 50% CPU usage, with one core pegged at max. Is there a way I can distribute the load between the cores, or does the software have to be strictly coded for multiple threads?

BTW - you've been a HUGE help so far. :) I really appreciate it.
Click to expand...
your i3 has ht for 4 threads though so if its fully using two cores than it would be around 50%.

I just checked cpu usage on my 2500k for both games. for Far Cry it was around 30% most of the time but the core that got used the most would vary. for DOOM 3, cpu usage was only about 15-20% tops which was surprising.
 
cannondale06 said:
your i3 has ht for 4 threads though so if its fully using two cores than it would be around 50%.

I just checked cpu usage on my 2500k for both games. for Far Cry it was around 30% most of the time but the core that got used the most would vary. for DOOM 3, cpu usage was only about 15-20% tops which was surprising.
Click to expand...

At the moment, I have HT disabled. So I'm sitting at only 2 threads. This would explain it too. I'll check and see what my Far Cry usage is.
 
Are you running Doom 3 on a SSD or standard HDD? I'm thinking the stuttering maybe from texture load time, especially if you are running Ultra settings.

If it isn't a hard drive problem it might be the video card. I was reading something a few days back about how AMD cards seem to have a inherent stutter problem. It would appear that AMD GPU's will skip frames for some unknown reason.

Other than that good to know you got the games working!
 
Doom 3 will stutter like that on occasion. It was designed for a time where most users had 128-256MB, and the engine had to be aggressive to keep texture loads as low as possible. Doom 3 BFG feels a little better in this respect.
 
JoeUser said:
Are you running Doom 3 on a SSD or standard HDD? I'm thinking the stuttering maybe from texture load time, especially if you are running Ultra settings.

If it isn't a hard drive problem it might be the video card. I was reading something a few days back about how AMD cards seem to have a inherent stutter problem. It would appear that AMD GPU's will skip frames for some unknown reason.

Other than that good to know you got the games working!
Click to expand...

Thanks man. I'm also glad that the games are working.
 
wonderfield said:
Doom 3 will stutter like that on occasion. It was designed for a time where most users had 128-256MB, and the engine had to be aggressive to keep texture loads as low as possible. Doom 3 BFG feels a little better in this respect.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So even if you have the texture memory, it all depends on what the games will actually use. Sort of like having an 8-core CPU. If the game only uses 2 cores, then that's it.
 
Your hardware should easily handle those games. I remember playing Farcry on a socket 754 CPU and a Radeon 9800XT on the highest settings (no AA) and the game ran very well. It must be a driver issue or something else that is causing the problem.
 
TheCommander said:
Your hardware should easily handle those games. I remember playing Farcry on a socket 754 CPU and a Radeon 9800XT on the highest settings (no AA) and the game ran very well. It must be a driver issue or something else that is causing the problem.
Click to expand...

I solved the Far Cry problem. I was having a driver issue. I reinstalled 12.10's and restarted the PC and it's cranking out 1600x1200 like it's nothing. :)
EDIT: And the Doom 3 stutter is rare and hardly worth attention.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Interesting. So even if you have the texture memory, it all depends on what the games will actually use. Sort of like having an 8-core CPU. If the game only uses 2 cores, then that's it.
Click to expand...
The engine will use what it can, but texture loading is also sectioned by portals, such that entering a portal may trigger a load of texture data and a flush of existing texture data no longer in use. This is no longer really necessary now, with 1GB and 2GB cards, but it was at the time.
 
wonderfield said:
The engine will use what it can, but texture loading is also sectioned by portals, such that entering a portal may trigger a load of texture data and a flush of existing texture data no longer in use. This is no longer really necessary now, with 1GB and 2GB cards, but it was at the time.
Click to expand...

Well I'll be. Man, I love this forum. I learn something new every day it seems! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top