• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Getting lower FPS on Crysis Warhead compared to reviewers

C

Compddd

Golden Member
How come when I try the same settings as HardOCP did on Crysis: Warhead, I get noticably lower FPS then them? Is my CPU holding me back? I have a 280 and 4GB Ram, can't think of anything else. Oh I'm on a PCI-E 1.0 motherboard as well.
 
You need to look at the difference, overall, compared to your system and the test sytem of the review. The video card, cpu and RAM are not the only things that can affect the system's overall performance. The souncard can make a difference, beleive it or not. The MCH latch setting, the mem divider of the chipset, the FSB and Trd settings, as well as many other memory sub-timings can all have an impact on performance and should be fine tuned for maximum performance.

 
Yes, your GTX280 is being held back somewhat by your processor. They were running a QX9770 @ 3.6 Ghz. They were also using DDR3, which doesn't help alot, but every little bit counts. Mostly, it's because they had twice as many cores, running ~400 Mhz faster than your cores are running.
 
Quad-core seems like the main difference between your system and HardOCP's test rig. But whether or not a quad-core is really going to help you that much... I'm not sure.
 
quad makes minimal difference if not at all with Crysis. CPU doesn't make a dramatic difference with Crysis but it does help.

You are running 2560x1600 are you not? That can cripple the fastest video card not to mention you are running the most GPU intensive game there is in PC gaming.

 
Originally posted by: Azn
It could just be cache difference or FSB differences. Not necessarily has to with quad cores.
Click to expand...

Umm, those two processors have identical amount of L2$ per core, and identical FSB's.😉
 
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Azn
It could just be cache difference or FSB differences. Not necessarily has to with quad cores.
Click to expand...

Umm, those two processors have identical amount of L2$ per core, and identical FSB's.😉
Click to expand...

I hope you are joking.

Q9550 has 2 dual cores sharing 2 6meg cache per core.. 1 core could be using 6meg cache while another could use up the other 6meg cache. Totaling 12meg cache in a dual core optimized game.

E8400 has 6meg cache to share between 2 cores.
 
I changed it to DX9 rendering, and put it on gamer everything, with sound and textures set to enthusiast and shadows to mainstream, like they had. Now I'm getting FPS decently close to what they got. I guess DX9 makes a big difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top