DiRT seems to be capped to 30fps..?

iv-tecman

iv-tecman

iv-tecman

Soldato
Joined
12 May 2005
Posts
8,384
Anyone got DiRT the first game, not DiRT 2? I’m quite surprised my rig isn’t pumping this title out at 60fps at 1920 x 1080 considering DiRT 2 tends to max out at 60fps v sync’d with triple buffer in radeonpro enabled..

No matter what I try, game runs at 30fps, even if I disable v sync and everything, even at 1024 x 768 its like the game is capped at 30fps..

Damn shame, as it’s a bit more rally based then DiRT 2. How bizarre that the second title runs quicker then the first title with better looking graphics..??

How can I check if the GPU is being utilised correctly? Even F1 2010 runs quicker, and that’s a poorly optimized racing game from codemasters since patch 1.01 was released and the track puddle fix is applied..

I’m using the Steam version of DiRT, but then all my codemaster racing games are Steam versions…. I just find it odd that codemasters newer games run quicker then their older titles.. with better graphics.. How odd.!!

Still 30fps is ok ish, but 60fps is better..
 
GPU utilisation isn't a great indicator but if you really want it, its in the bottom radeon option in the new driver control panel with temperature. 30FPS sounds like it's clamping rather than anything else which mostly is a result of vsync options. Did you disable vsync then restart the game? Did you turn it off in the catylst control panel (or set to off, unless application says override)?
 
I'll double check to ensure v sync isn't turned on anywhere... But wont disabling v sync cause tearing?

not a big fan of screen tearing, its the reason I play F1 2010 on PC, as the PS3 version has too much screen tearing... I don't like screen tearing in racing games - not good. lol

Anyhow, I'll try it and see what happens. But I'm sure I did turn v sync 100% off... I did restart the game as well, quite a few times.
 
i thought the human eye can only see at 30 fps ? so doesnt really matter along as it dont drop below that
 
Before it starts - no, the human eye does not "see" at any level of "Frames Per Second"

If you're truly interested into why, there have been hundreds, if not thousands of threads on these forums, explaining exactly why.
 
Nope.... can't get it past 30fps. Menu rockets to 60fps, game drops to 30fps..

How odd. 60fps is always fine by me with v sync but 30? This is my PC now a PS3.. lol

oh well... DiRT3 is out soon.. lol

Weird.. Never had that before. V sync is off, as F1 2010 is tearing badly if I try CCC with V sync set to app control or forced off and shut down radeon pro etc...

*puzzled*
 
Problem appears to be driver issue. Updated to 11.1a AMD drivers and truly horrific set of drivers if you ask me..

Rolled back to 10.10e and problems went.. I did think why Metro 2033 was screen tearing. All DX 11 games wouldn't sync, yet all DX9 games had forced v sync no matter what I applied..

Guess AMD are concentrating on 6xxx and forgetting about 5xxx owners.. Hmmm nice.!! anyhow sorted with downgrade of ATI drivers to 10.10e - to be honest about the most stable set of ATI drivers I've used so i'll stick with these...

They still have MLAA options and the older CCC panel doesn't bother me, as I use Radeon Pro to control my game profiles...

Thanks..
 
The first DiRT doesn't like X-FI cards too much under Windows 7, so if you have one, try changing to software sound. Made 10-15fps difference to me. Also seems to run far better on Nvidia hardware in my experience. Runs 2-3 times better on my 460 than it did on my 5850. Some of the levels are pretty stunning still I reckon and look better than DiRT 2.
 
hdpcgamer said:
Oh not this again lol...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
lol I know, these posts make me so angry.
How did any body ever come to the conclusion that our eyes have a refresh rate :confused:

But if he's looking for an answer, the human eye can clearly see the difference between 30fps and 1000fps, in fact its more like 10000.

I think the 30fps rumour has materialized from the fact that consoles are locked in at 30, and PC gamers also claim 30fps is the bare minimum frame rate for a decent experience. But in no way does it mean our eyes can only see 30.

Sorry for the off-topic post.
 
stopper said:
lol I know, these posts make me so angry.
How did any body ever come to the conclusion that our eyes have a refresh rate :confused:

But if he's looking for an answer, the human eye can clearly see the difference between 30fps and 1000fps, in fact its more like 10000.
Click to expand...
err... I don't think that's true either though.

I mean obviously you can see the difference between 30 and 60fps but I'm almost certain the human eye can't tell the difference between say 200 and 400fps. I'm sure there's a test they did with fighter pilots at some stage too and it is CERTAINLY is nowhere near 10000; you'd have vision like a fly. If we had a visual refresh rate (or whatever the correct terminology of it is, it obviously doesn't refresh but there's a period whereby things become indistinguishably fluid as opposed to there being any sort of "image judder") of 10000 ALL strip lights would be permanently flickering like a strobe as they start refreshing at 6000hz if memory serves.

bit of info: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

B@
 
I thought that i have used an ingame benchmark in dirt for testing my FPS when i first bought it a few years ago ....

But i don't see any ingame benchmark option now :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom