COD4 running slow?

MadMacs · 2 Jan 2008 at 20:58

Yes my cpu appears to be overheating, not sure what to do about it. sitting at 63 atm

it seems to go very high under load then it will cool down to say 42.

And i'm not even overclocking.

pegasus1 · 2 Jan 2008 at 22:30

I didnt think the A64's throttled, thought it was a straight shutdown.

Fr0dders · 3 Jan 2008 at 00:46

thats not throttling

one of my system fans on my Core 2 Duo rig fell of, as a result there was no push / pull of the air over the cooler

things were running fine, but it was dropping to about 15fps in TF2, which isnt a very demanding game. Did some digging and my CPU temp was showing as 83

and that was throttled back to 2ghz from 2.4ghz

thats overheating

the_worrier · 3 Jan 2008 at 06:06

pegasus1 said:
What Res are you running at cos if its 1600x1200 or above your Gfx Card will struggle with all settings to max.

1024 x 768

pegasus1 · 3 Jan 2008 at 08:16

pattojones said:
1024 x 768

That would explain it, CPU limited at that Res.

the_worrier · 3 Jan 2008 at 11:36

What! You think an X2 4800+ is limiting Cod4 at 1024 x 768?

pegasus1 · 3 Jan 2008 at 13:27

pattojones said:
What! You think an X2 4800+ is limiting Cod4 at 1024 x 768?

There is always a limiting factor.
Its generally both the Res you play at and the game you are playing that will play the part. An RTS will be heavily CPU dependant where as a FPS like COD4 is GPU dependant.Supreme Commander will hammer a CPU at 1280x1024 but a 8800GTX will be fine, if you run the game at 1920x1200 then the 8800GTX will take more of a hit. The Fight Sim LOMAC saw a massive boost when i went from a AMD 3700SD@ 2.6 to a C2D [email protected] but only a marginal improvement when i added a 8800GTX (replacing a 7800GTX).
If you game at over 1600x1200 (im at 1920x1200) and have loads of AA/AF then you are taxing your GFX card a lot.
A CPU does the same work irrespective of the Res but as the Resolution rises and the graphical quality required increases then the GFX card will become the limiting factor.
This is not strickly true of absolutely all games but generally correct.

the_worrier · 4 Jan 2008 at 07:47

pegasus1 said:
There is always a limiting factor.
Its generally both the Res you play at and the game you are playing that will play the part. An RTS will be heavily CPU dependant where as a FPS like COD4 is GPU dependant.Supreme Commander will hammer a CPU at 1280x1024 but a 8800GTX will be fine, if you run the game at 1920x1200 then the 8800GTX will take more of a hit. The Fight Sim LOMAC saw a massive boost when i went from a AMD 3700SD@ 2.6 to a C2D [email protected] but only a marginal improvement when i added a 8800GTX (replacing a 7800GTX).
If you game at over 1600x1200 (im at 1920x1200) and have loads of AA/AF then you are taxing your GFX card a lot.
A CPU does the same work irrespective of the Res but as the Resolution rises and the graphical quality required increases then the GFX card will become the limiting factor.
This is not strickly true of absolutely all games but generally correct.

I don't believe you answered my question!

pegasus1 · 4 Jan 2008 at 11:32

At 1024 x 768 your CPU will be the bottleneck.

the_worrier · 4 Jan 2008 at 13:28

The demo played beautifully maxxed out on the highest reso. I think it was 1280 x ??

pegasus1 · 4 Jan 2008 at 16:33

pattojones said:
The demo played beautifully maxxed out on the highest reso. I think it was 1280 x ??

A Demo is exactly that.
Raise and lower your CPU speed and see if the Min FPS are any different.

the_worrier · 4 Jan 2008 at 17:02

Well, i didnt accept what you said about me being cpu-bound so i rolled back the nvidia drivers to the latest WHQL one on their www. instead of the beta one.

Awesome! Silky smooth with all on max and at 1152 x 864!

Sorted.

pegasus1 · 4 Jan 2008 at 19:58

pattojones said:
Well, i didnt accept what you said about me being cpu-bound so i rolled back the nvidia drivers to the latest WHQL one on their www. instead of the beta one.

Awesome! Silky smooth with all on max and at 1152 x 864!

Sorted.

If you had a faster CPU the game would run even faster at that (low) res, stick in a 8800gtx and it probably wouldnt at that res.

If you had 2 8800 Ultra's in SLI and a Q6600@4ghz but only 1 gig of RAM then COD4 would be limited by the RAM.

If you run at 1920x1200 then your CPU would be fine cos your 7900GTX would be getting smashed.

MadMacs · 4 Jan 2008 at 20:55

pattojones said:
Well, i didnt accept what you said about me being cpu-bound so i rolled back the nvidia drivers to the latest WHQL one on their www. instead of the beta one.

Awesome! Silky smooth with all on max and at 1152 x 864!

Sorted.

Hey could you please tell me what drivers you used. Still having problems here

the_worrier · 4 Jan 2008 at 21:52

v.169.21 are in now....workin' great!

the_worrier · 4 Jan 2008 at 21:54

pegasus1 said:
If you had a faster CPU the game would run even faster at that (low) res, stick in a 8800gtx and it probably wouldnt at that res.

If you had 2 8800 Ultra's in SLI and a Q6600@4ghz but only 1 gig of RAM then COD4 would be limited by the RAM.

If you run at 1920x1200 then your CPU would be fine cos your 7900GTX would be getting smashed.

I take your point. But it is rather stating the obvious!! Thanks anyway.

pegasus1 · 5 Jan 2008 at 00:09

pattojones said:
I take your point. But it is rather stating the obvious!! Thanks anyway.

Well, i didnt accept what you said about me being cpu-bound

fraps · 5 Jan 2008 at 00:31

pattojones said:
What! You think an X2 4800+ is limiting Cod4 at 1024 x 768?

I don't think it is the CPU, I get about 30 min fps going up to 100 odd fps and that is 1280 x 1024 high settings (but I have shadows off, dynamic lights low no AA and I think one or more of these options took a fair amount of pressure off the 7900 GTO)

Try the above and see what you get, your card is even faster along with your CPU so you should be able to run it with a good amount of eye candy.

I use 169.25 drivers

pegasus1 · 5 Jan 2008 at 02:08

fraps said:
I don't think it is the CPU, I get about 30 min fps going up to 100 odd fps and that is 1280 x 1024 high settings (but I have shadows off, dynamic lights low no AA and I think one or more of these options took a fair amount of pressure off the 7900 GTO)

Try the above and see what you get, your card is even faster along with your CPU so you should be able to run it with a good amount of eye candy.

I use 169.25 drivers

I dont think you understand what im saying. As long as you have enough RAM, either your CPU or your GPU will limit your performance unless you are using a realy old App.
Lower Res will tax the CPU, higher Res will tax the GPU.
To be honest, id say in MTW2 my 3.4ghzC2D is holding me back.
in COD4 my 8800gtx is holding me back.
Thats at 1920x1200 of 24 inch goodness for < £240 baby :cool:

fraps · 5 Jan 2008 at 02:47

pegasus1 said:
I dont think you understand what im saying. As long as you have enough RAM, either your CPU or your GPU will limit your performance unless you are using a realy old App.
Lower Res will tax the CPU, higher Res will tax the GPU.
To be honest, id say in MTW2 my 3.4ghzC2D is holding me back.
in COD4 my 8800gtx is holding me back.
Thats at 1920x1200 of 24 inch goodness for < £240 baby

yes, I understand the point you are making about bottlenecks - the question is to what degree the CPU (or GPU) is a bottleneck.

I suspected that for my old system the 1.7ghz P4 processor was a bottleneck for the 6600GT that was coupled with it.