• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Gigabyte 460GTX and COD black ops

basically graphicas aint the problem its cpu with this game.

90 percent who struggle have a dualcore

most who have quads or above are fine.
 
Kribby2006 said:
Tbh, I have the rig as per my sig, and whilst its not horrendous, I do get the odd bit of near 100% CPU usage and a bit of lag as a result.

Its not a game breaker for me but still a joke considering my CPU should be more than enough and shouldn't be going anywhere near 100%.
Click to expand...
So in a way Black OPs could be like GTAIV all over again...with the messed up CPU usage issue because of poor porting?
 
Seeing latter comments re i7 it's obv not just a dual core thing then
Fair enough there clearly are problems, it's just earlier no one seemed to be able/willing to quantify them
I stand corrected, I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, it just seemed to me to be another case of everyone jumping on bandwagon
As I've said I run [email protected] and 4890s CF on rampage board, I run 1920x1200 with all settings set to max except number of corpses which is left on small, vsync on, mine isn't fastest set up in world so if you've got better than me and having issues maybe try dropping that number of corpses or trying different drivers maybe
I agree marine this shouldn't be necessay, it should work right out box for vast majority, I don't think you can say all cos there's far too many variables, but it should be better than it is granted
 
I have the same CPU and GFX (gigabyte version ) as the OP but my CPU is clocked at 3.8ghz. Game runs fine with no stuttering for me. not sure what is was like at launch, as i've only started playing from last Friday but i've had a friend come over who plays on a dual core PC and he couldn't believe how smooth my game was compared to his jerk fest.
 
95thrifles said:
Ok fair enough, I'm running my [email protected], can run higher but find I don't need to, as I say I've not run fraps so don't know my actual fps but I do personally find it runs smooth, subbytna is 40-50fps not smooth or is it just you want a higher number?
Uvo sounds like it does in fact need a quad core then from what you're saying, have you tried playing round with some of the settings to see if you can reduce CPU load?
Click to expand...

i was trying stuff with the config file last night.

I cant remember the exact commands but there are two that relate to mutli GPU and multithreaded CPU
by default the GPU is set to 1 and the CPU set to 0

I had seen suggestions to basically reverse those as i only run 1 gpu and its a dual core CPU.
but i cant say i noticed any difference.

for me it just seems odd that on dual core it was 100% but on a quad it was 1%.

comments I've seen from a bad port point of few are suggestions that it's been designed with three cores in mind for the consoles and also that it is constantly moving things in and out of memory which is why CPU usage is high. This would be required on a console but there should be no need for it to do so on PC.

going to try a few more things tonight.
 
had a quick go and right at the start when you are moving through the streets in Cuba, my fps on a OC quad and a OC 460 dipped regularly under 20 fps despite MSI afterburner reporting only 25-30% GPU usage. F1 2010 seems to be the same - low fps but low GPU usage so clearly not optimised terribly well.
 
Last edited:
Just got the game today, good to see the 480 performing real well in it. Strange how there has been loads of reports of low FPS even with a 480 and other high end cards in single and multi, that performance review shows different.
 
I'm running a Gigabyte GTX460 at 800 on CODBLOPS and I'm hitting the standard 90fps cap in multiplayer, 1680x1050 everything maxed out except AA, which is at 4x.

Unfortunately due to the lagginess it feels like 20fps.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Just got the game today, good to see the 480 performing real well in it. Strange how there has been loads of reports of low FPS even with a 480 and other high end cards in single and multi, that performance review shows different.
Click to expand...

So long as you have a decent 3 or 4 core cpu. As that review shows, the gtx480 minimum framerates will be only a third of normal if you have a 3Ghz dual core processor.

That makes a big difference to how the game plays and feels.
 
Being able to run this game is nothing to brag about, its an ancient engine that wasnt particulary good at anything when it first came out nevermind now.

MW2 didnt have any PC performance issues on release, I ran that maxed out on a 2.4 AMD dual core and an 8800GTS and it ran perfectly so why does black ops need a top of the range graphics card and processor to run it smoothly? Makes no sense at all
 
black ops is a horribly hacked apart game engine , they took what was nice and made it eat resources for no reason.

that being said with my happy 460 @800 without a sweat it runs fine at 1650
 
Well had a blast on single player and it looks no different to MW2 yet there is a 90 FPS cap in single player and whilst GPU usage in MW2 was 99% all the time, in ops it hovers around 55-70%. Even in single player there is stutter moments which looks like lag, poorly optimized console port IMO.

Greebo said:
So long as you have a decent 3 or 4 core cpu. As that review shows, the gtx480 minimum framerates will be only a third of normal if you have a 3Ghz dual core processor.

That makes a big difference to how the game plays and feels.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think they are using CPU resources that do not need to be used IMO, my Bro could play MW2 on a single core p4, ops is unplayable for him, and it's not as if the game looks any different to MW2 or has special physics effects running. The low GPU usage confirms this is a shadow of a game performance wise compared to MW2.


GPU usage in black ops.




MW2

 
Last edited:
It's kinda vierd that your beasts with dx11 gpu's are strugling in this game, mine cf4850 runs smooth on 1080p with 4xaa. Maybe it likes old generation gpu's instead of new ones, as someone wrote that he's having no problems with his cf4890. The game feels a bit of cheap cr..
 
It's not struggling, it pretty much stays at the 90 FPS cap, I'm just confused how they could turn what is basically a MW2 clone in to a resource hog, the low GPU usage is causing the odd stutter and lag in single player as well, MW2 played like a dream.
 
Ejizz said:
Why else would people upgrade their GPU to something like a 580...
Click to expand...
Have you even been reading? The problem is with CPU, not graphic card. Now begone and take your hate toward Nvidia elsewhere...away from this forum as far as possible would be good.

If anything, it is a conspiracy theory on publishers/game developers having shady deals with Intel and AMD making people think their current CPUs are no longer capable, and need to upgrade to Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge next year :p
 
Last edited:
i wish that cpu chart was right for me, i'd say a [email protected] is comparable to a phenom [email protected], that chart shows average 70fps at a slightly higher resolution than i use, i get more like 30-40 with no aa, although that doesn't matter as its same performance with and without which does elude to a cpu bottleneck but come on, 30fps on a gtx 480 with 3 a year old graphics engine, game needs patching asap
 
I can easily hit the cap on COD4, with an Athlon X2 5600+ and a GTX 465 (I know, I know). I can also max Crysis and WaW fyi.

But NOT Black Ops. Defo software related problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom