FPS reports! - Page 2

SteamWake · 08-21-07, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cali03boss

secret to running SH4: multi core processor.

The multi threaded aspects of SH4 are the main reason it runs slow. Taking too much time to process information before sending it to the video card...which then has to process it again. I'm no computer whiz, but I noticed an immediate change with a new processor and no other changes.

....heck Half Life 2 said it wouldn't run on my multi-core processor since it had a low Ghz (2.333)...but since its quad core it is irrelivant.

What ???

It was my understanding that SH4 did not make use of multi core threading.

cali03boss · 08-21-07, 04:29 PM

really? I was told the exact opposite by my computer guru.

I don't think he is wrong though, because I went from a 3.2 ghz AMD to a 2.33 ghz quad core and it runs bitchin fast.

AVGWarhawk · 08-21-07, 06:00 PM

I'm thinking SW is correct. Upon release, many with dual cores were having some issues. I believe they had to assign one core only to the game to prevent studdering. The other core was assigned to other background programs.

Lancey · 08-21-07, 07:22 PM

My fps are usually around 60 or above, have had them up to 160/190.
My question is when I use the navigation map and accelerate time the fps drops from 60 to 5 fps for about 10 to 30 seconds.
This only happens once or twice during my missions and only when I'm in the navigation map scene. Is there a way to stop this, If I adjust my AA or AF on my video card will this help, I noticed in other forum topics that some members set their AA/AF to 2X or 4X on their video card to produce better game play, will this help if how do I do this?

My computer Specs:
CPU: AMD 64x2 5200+
MOBO: Asus mv2
RAM: 3 gig ddr2 6700
VIDEO: GeForce 7600GT 256mb gddr3
HDD: 250gig SataII
Op SYSTEM: Window vista home premium 32bit

cali03boss · 08-21-07, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I'm thinking SW is correct. Upon release, many with dual cores were having some issues. I believe they had to assign one core only to the game to prevent studdering. The other core was assigned to other background programs.

Must be a fluke on my part then. Cuz everything got better with a new processor.

AkbarGulag · 08-22-07, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by switch.dota

Well that system will be stressed out for sure but you WILL be able to play the game smoothly if you give up most of the eye candy.

A less potent rig than the one posted will run SH3 without ANY issues, hands down. SH4, just move those detail sliders left and uncheck the left-side checkboxes. There.

I'm thinking it will run as posted above. The Radeon 9600 is supported by the product. 768 RAM will be the clincher... pretty tight. But you have enough processing capacity with that 2gig IMO. Be prepared for slow down when running time compression and let your OS increase its paging file when it see's fit.

I run a single core AGP board with a 9800XT Radeon, and with most the candy on, its running 25fps solid at 1280*960 when in external view. Over 35fps when underwater and max frames inside the Sub.

Option 2: listen to people with better machines and get a better rig :rotfl:

AVGWarhawk · 08-22-07, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cali03boss

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I'm thinking SW is correct. Upon release, many with dual cores were having some issues. I believe they had to assign one core only to the game to prevent studdering. The other core was assigned to other background programs.

Must be a fluke on my part then. Cuz everything got better with a new processor.

Probably not a fluk really. I have run into things of this nature after installing a new part and such. For example, my machine claimed to have PC2700 ram when I purchased it. When I opened the case it was PC3200 yet my computer in the bios was reading it as PC2700 and making the machine run like it was PC2700. Once I changed the bios and the machine recognized it as PC3200, the machine ran faster. Crazy stuff!

cali03boss · 08-22-07, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Once I changed the bios and the machine recognized it as PC3200, the machine ran faster. Crazy stuff!

Someone forgot to reset the CMOS batt.......heh

Always undo that circular batt, start computer, turn it off, then put the batt back in after new parts. Need to reset everything.

AVGWarhawk · 08-22-07, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cali03boss

Quote:

Once I changed the bios and the machine recognized it as PC3200, the machine ran faster. Crazy stuff!

Someone forgot to reset the CMOS batt.......heh

Always undo that circular batt, start computer, turn it off, then put the batt back in after new parts. Need to reset everything.

Well, no. It is a Emachine with the AU31 motherboard. The BIOS is worthless. The original set up recognized the factory installed RAM as PC2700 but the stick installed was PC3200. Less than a handfull of things you can changed to correct this. I found a modded BIOS to use. The original BIOS would not allow any adjustments so the PC3200 would be recognized. I flashed the BIOS with the new modded BIOS and was able to tweek a bit more. Then and only then could the mobo recognize the PC3200 RAM. Even then I can not adjust the FSB above 200 yet the board is rated at a 400 FSB...so I'm still really clipped here

As far as the battery, I only pulled it when it would not boot after a few adjustments with the new BIOS.

Snuffy · 08-22-07, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Well, no. It is a Emachine ...

There's yer first mistake.

Everyone I know who has ever bought one of those things has trouble galore with the thing after about 6 months worth of running the system. Keep the case and maybe the power supply, trash everything else.

Don't install the Emachine licensed OS either, go buy a real version of the OS from Microsoft.

I buy all my stuff as parts from Tigerdirect and build from scratch. I've never had a problem with any home built system.

AVGWarhawk · 08-22-07, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snuffy

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Well, no. It is a Emachine ...

There's yer first mistake.

Everyone I know who has ever bought one of those things has trouble galore with the thing after about 6 months worth of running the system. Keep the case and maybe the power supply, trash everything else.

Don't install the Emachine licensed OS either, go buy a real version of the OS from Microsoft.

I buy all my stuff as parts from Tigerdirect and build from scratch. I've never had a problem with any home built system.

Well Snuffy, I have had only two Emachines. My first was an Emonster 550. My two girls still play their games on this old P3. It was a great computer. As a result of great success with this computer I went and got another. This is the one I have now. Three years old and no problems at all. In fact, my wife said to go get another and give this one to our girls. Guess what, I'm pricing another Emachine. Every computer company has their nightmare stories. You will always hear the bad news and never the good on most things in life.

Capt. windh · 08-24-07, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MobyGrape

You could most likely run sh3..I think?

SH3 works just fine, graphics at max.

Capt. windh · 08-24-07, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by switch.dota

Well that system will be stressed out for sure but you WILL be able to play the game smoothly if you give up most of the eye candy.

A less potent rig than the one posted will run SH3 without ANY issues, hands down. SH4, just move those detail sliders left and uncheck the left-side checkboxes. There.

Ok.. well I´ll still be buying a killer rig this fall.

Any hints for a good sys?

Bathrone · 08-24-07, 06:49 AM

Penryn, X38, G92, DDR3

08-21-07, 04:29 PM	#17
cali03boss Machinist's Mate Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 123 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	really? I was told the exact opposite by my computer guru. I don't think he is wrong though, because I went from a 3.2 ghz AMD to a 2.33 ghz quad core and it runs bitchin fast. __________________ Sargo Class USS Sargo

08-21-07, 06:00 PM	#18
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,265 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	I'm thinking SW is correct. Upon release, many with dual cores were having some issues. I believe they had to assign one core only to the game to prevent studdering. The other core was assigned to other background programs. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

08-21-07, 07:22 PM	#19
Lancey Watch Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: country NSW, australia Posts: 18 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	Concerns about FPS My fps are usually around 60 or above, have had them up to 160/190. My question is when I use the navigation map and accelerate time the fps drops from 60 to 5 fps for about 10 to 30 seconds. This only happens once or twice during my missions and only when I'm in the navigation map scene. Is there a way to stop this, If I adjust my AA or AF on my video card will this help, I noticed in other forum topics that some members set their AA/AF to 2X or 4X on their video card to produce better game play, will this help if how do I do this? My computer Specs: CPU: AMD 64x2 5200+ MOBO: Asus mv2 RAM: 3 gig ddr2 6700 VIDEO: GeForce 7600GT 256mb gddr3 HDD: 250gig SataII Op SYSTEM: Window vista home premium 32bit

08-24-07, 06:49 AM	#29
Bathrone Ensign Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 234 Downloads: 82 Uploads: 0	Penryn, X38, G92, DDR3