• 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.

How do you get 60+ minimum FPS?

Cyber-Mav said:
iv not seen vegas run on the xbox, im assuming it would be very good since the xbox hardware is quite beefy with its 3 cores etc.


xbox 360 hardware isn't very beefy, 3 cores doesn't mean anything. would a 8 core via 800Mhz cpu be better in games than a 3Ghz dual core c2d? just because originally an engine used is pretty good does not in any way mean every use of that game ever will instantly command great code writing and people getting licence to use the engine is a great coder.

microsoft claim dx10 is 6 times faster, it probably is, in one small area under very specific circumstances. like maybe it can do a certain shader effect 6 times faster, but added in to the rest of a scene being drawn that won't be noticable.


theres really no proof and nothing to indicate or suggest that the first dx10 game, of even the 50th dx10 game will suddenly bring gfx cards to their knees. i had a 9700pro when they came out, there weren't any dx 9 games from what i recall and there wasn't a sudden 50% drop in performance when dx9 games came out, why, it was designed to do all the extra things dx9 could do. the 8800 series is designed to do dx10 stuff. for instance sm2.0 and sm3.0 some games that you could choose the version due to what the x800 cards not supporting sm3.0 while the 6800 series did and the 6800 would run faster with sm3.0 because, why, it was designed to use optimised code so it was faster. however, sm3.0 was the "newer" thing, but did it look hugely better than sm2.0b no not really at all.
 
james.miller said:
yes rainbow 6 is a tragically poor effort. it has nothing to to with the cards so lets not use it to make any comparisons

I disagree - the reason for a game performing badly is irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that people have to play it with poor fps. The benchmarks clearly show that the game benefits from faster hardware, even if the "bling-to-bux" ratio is exceedingly poor. I can understand people not wishing to use 1 game as an example of hardware requirements in general, but it still shows that there is a benefit from faster hardware if you want to play certain games. Someone with 2*8800GTX in SLI is obviously a lot better off than someone with say a x1950xtx when it comes to R6V.

Moving back on topic, if you genuinely want 60+ MIN fps in all modern games, then you need obscenely fast hardware and play at fairly low settings. People forget that a game scoring say 100fps average in a benchmark will likely have a min fps of below 60fps. Yes it may run at over 60fps 90% of the time but when the going gets tough it will likely be running at say half of the average framerate. Some games (e.g. FEAR) do quote min fps so you can see this for yourself.

It's one reason when I get annoyed reading people's analysis of benchmarks and saying stuff like "scores over 60fps so will be smooth on silk on that card". Yes if it literally ran over 60fps all the time it might be but min fps is what matters.
 
Last edited:
HangTime said:
Moving back on topic, if you genuinely want 60+ MIN fps in all modern games, then you need obscenely fast hardware and play at fairly low settings. People forget that a game scoring say 100fps average in a benchmark will likely have a min fps of below 60fps. Yes it may run at over 60fps 90% of the time but when the going gets tough it will likely be running at say half of the average framerate. Some games (e.g. FEAR) do quote min fps so you can see this for yourself.

It's one reason when I get annoyed reading people's analysis of benchmarks and saying stuff like "scores over 60fps so will be smooth on silk on that card". Yes if it literally ran over 60fps all the time it might be but min fps is what matters.
So there you have it people, 60+ minimum fps CANT be done on new games with new cards. Not with a single card, not with 2 cards (for obvious reasons).

Nobody can claim a game runs smooth as silk, ok so it will sometimes.. but as you said once the action gets going you can expect a drop 30-40fps with a lot of stuff going on. Hardly smooth as butter is it?

Basically, you need to buy the game you want not when its released, but after a refresh of a graphics card is released.. otherwise anything less wont be good enough to keep it smooth.

This is the thing that really gets up my nose.
 
bfar said:
1) 3dfx Voodoo II
2) Nvidia Geforce 2
3) Nvidia Geforce 8800

(By all accounts I should probably include ATI 9700, but I never had the pleasure of owning one myself :) )

The saphire 9700pro was an amazing card for its time and lasted a long time too, i was amazed by its performance levels back then, ahh memories memories.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
Basically, you need to buy the game you want not when its released, but after a refresh of a graphics card is released.. otherwise anything less wont be good enough to keep it smooth.

This is the thing that really gets up my nose.

Depends on the game and what settings you use. Occasionally I've found a game will run well maxed even on my (usually) modest hardware when released, such as Fahrenheit. Whereas others cannot be run maxed out even on hardware released much later (take Oblivion for example - even a 8800gtx isn't fast enough).

The major problem is some people seem to think they have a divine right to run games at MAX settings just because they have a €500+ video card. You just have to be sensible with settings.

However I do tend to play quite a few older games due to the increased performance (due to having faster hardware), reduced bugs (due to having the final patch) and lower price (due to time since release). Examples of games I have completed more than a year after their release include Chaser, KOTOR, CoD, Red Faction1/2, C&C Renegade, FS2, NOLF2, Deus Ex, Halflife, Jedi Outcast/Academy, and MOH:AA.
 
Some people expect way too much. You want 60+FPS all the time. No chance. Sorry, but we have nice hardware here. And below 50 and it gets laggy? What have you been eating/smoking? Try upping your refresh rate to 75 so you don't get flickering that makes your eyes go funny (although that doesn't really affect lag as such). 40 FPS is when it starts to smooth for most games. Also, if you try to run 3DMark06 at max settings, there's not much that can run it at 60+ FPS all the time (except maybe an 8 series). Even at 1024x768, it's still not gonna be 60+ all the time.

You should try and be happy to get 45+ FPS all the time, instead of striving for too much. Try changing your drivers to TweaksRUs XG series. These give a substantial boost. Try to abide by your FSB or HTT speed (so 1000Mhz for A64 or opty 939, or 1066Mhz or whatever it is for the Intels) rather than raw clock speed. HTT speed is a lot more important and it provides speed and stability under most circumstances. Make it as fast as possible and you'll get trouble. You can still overclock your CPU and memory, but just set the HTT multi lower, and if required, use a memory divider such as 183 (if your board supports it). You see, my HTT link is 1.17Ghz. That's very unstable and at 1000Mhz, it's a lot more stable and there's an improvement in speed, if not the same, but there's certainly no loss of speed.

Now lets talk memory timings. Memory timings are much more important than memory clock speed. By having memory timings as low or tight as possible, with the highest clock speed you can get and still be stable, you'll find the sweet spot. It's kinda like injecting Nitrous into your system if you get it just right. So for example, i'm currently running 2.5-2-2-5-1T at 175Mhz (i haven't updated my sig yet). Admittedly, my memory can run at 234Mhz with 3-3-3-7-1T and still be stable. But, i've noticed that things are a lot faster with the better timings and worse clock speed. However, you have to have a decent clock speed to be able to get any gain. Again, there's a sweet spot for this as well. You have to get the balance right to be able to get the most from your system. So don't just go all out and set a 100 divider just to get 1.5-2-2-5-1T, there's no gain to be made, you're more likely to make a loss. So experiment with timngs. To test, use 3DMark03, it's usually the first thing to crash (even moreso than 3DMark05 or 06). If it crashes, loosen the timings or lower your clock speed. If it locks up, loosen them a little bit.

Next, drives. Hard drives play a big part if you don't have much ram. For example, they work at ~1million times slower than memory. And whenever something is needed that isn't in memory, the HDD is used to either load it, or add it to the pagefile. If you can't afford more memory, increase your pagefile by 512mb. This is usually the best option to be effective while using as little space as possible. If you have more than one drive, install Windows and everything else on one drive, and then all your games on another. 2 Sets of read/write heads are better than one, even without RAID. Are they all too loud for you? Get Samsung Spinpoint drives. They're the quietest you can get and i guarantee that you won't be able to hear them unless you have it right next to your ear.

Now, cooling. Cooling is one of the cheapest performance boosters you can do. Got fans? Well, you think you have. Invest in some new ones. They don't need to be those £15 quiet ones. No, some £1 e buyer (i didn't want to post it but it is to help other people) fans will do. Too loud? Well let's fix that by modding them down to 7V (google should help you, just search for "7V fan mod"). The placement is also important. You should have one on your CPU Heatsink. One at the front to cool the HDD's (even at 7V, it's good enough - see below). Once on the side taking air in. If it's in the middle of the side panel, even better, it'll cool the memory. And then one at the back near the CPU Heatsink, also at 7V. But you don't need just fans. You should invest in some VGASinks. The Zalman ones are good. You should also consider an aftermarket cooler for your GPU. The Arctic Cooling ones are the best and they are very quiet (inaudible). They're also effective in what they do. Lastly, thermal paste. Don't bother with AS5. Get some Thermalright The Chill Factor. I've found it just as good, if not better, it's cheaper and you get more of it.

Next, optimisation. This is free performance that you might be missing out on. For this task, you need to download a program called Tune-up Utilities 2007. There's a free trial available. Basically, go through all the different sections and run each program. Choose to let it optimise it all. This often gives a substantial boost in both Windows load times, and games. Next thing to do is defrag. I can't state how important this is. If you don't defrag, you're gonna get trouble and increasing load times and possibly slower FPS (see above for HDD info).

Lastly, patching. When patches are released, you are better getting the full patch, as opposed to the incremental patches. Incremental patches add a lot of crap to the games whereas the full patch overwrites the files with new ones without all the gunk. This alone increases FPS.

This concludes the newbie guide to optimisation. :D
 
Chaps,

I am trying something right now which will almost guarantee 60FPS+ performance for all games I play. It will also guarantee that I save a lot of money on PC upgrades. My proposed approach is pretty straightforward but requires a little bit of self discipline.

I'm skipping a year of buying / playing PC games and upgrading the PC. In January 08 I plan to build a new PC which will be specced to spank the games of 07.

Why?
- high current cost of of top-end hardware vs what I expect equivalent / better kit will cost in 10months time
- gives a chance to actually see whether potentially expensive upgrade options are worth it (e.g. I haven't yet benefitted in games from my Oct 2005 dual core CPU purchasing decision)
- provides opportunity for irritating issues to be resolved (e.g. bios & drivers)
- relative lack of compelling game titles right now
- can't be arsed wasting time to re-play old games just to show how my new hardware handles them
- opportunity to spot bad / unfinsihed games (despite hype / rave reviews)
- opportunity for some of the above games to be patched and fixed before I waste my time on 'em.

I understand that this may not be for everyone but its one sure way to "get 60+ minimum FPS" in the games you choose to play; without resorting to playing at low image detail / quality (what kind of a solution is that?!).

BTW I accept that I'll probably still end up spending a significant ammout of money but my view is that it will be less than it would have been when constantly chasing acceptable framerates in the latest titles.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
DJKahuna, you've been saving that post up for a while haven't you? It could have been timed and/or placed better, but I am sure that any of the uninitiated who read it will much appreciate your wisdom.
 
Gregster6 said:
- gives a chance to actually see whether potentially expensive upgrade options are worth it (e.g. I haven't yet benefitted in games from my Oct 2005 dual core CPU purchasing decision)
- provides opportunity for irritating issues to be resolved (e.g. bios & drivers)
- relative lack of compelling game titles right now


I can see where you are coming from (see my previous post), however there are some flaws in your logic.

First of all, what is to say that an expensive upgrade option you choose in 2008 will be worth it? And how do you know that there won't be bios/driver issues, unless you buy older kit (which, pricing aside, kinda defeats the object of waiting and likely won't be fast enough for 60+fps)?
As for the lack of compelling titles, will it really be so much different come 2008? And supposing some complelling titles do turn up, do you really think a January 2008 PC will be able to run them all at 60+fps minimum in high quality? Games coming out in the 2007 holiday season will likely need a rig from 2009 to be genuinely smooth in high detail.
 
so, though i can have a rig, without buyign the very top kit, that plays all new games with very few problems, mostly no slowdown and nothing is unplayable in any way you can't. is that the point?

firstly games take years to develope, delays in hardware releases, delays in software releases mean its hard to know exactly what hardware will actually be available when the game might be finished when you start making a game. so apparently you want guys 3 years ago to magically know what date the game will be finish added to the exact release dates of all hardware right now, asking to much, of course not?

also, 60fps, its an arbitrary number, you plucked it out of thin air, or someone did at some point. theres nothing anywhere that states for fact that below 60fps = unplayable and above = superb magically quality where people are suddenly good at games and if they suck its because its a lower framerate.

not every game needs high framerates to be smooth. hl2 does, really, because its a fairly fast game, there are faster first person shooters that do better with higher framerates, then just due to gameplay F.E.A.R was very playable at 35-40fps, mainly because you can't move fast AND one of the very main features of the game was slowing down the action. while using the slowdown effect you can run 60fps but you only need 5-10fps at that point for it to be playable. my point being every single game is different.

supreme commander rarely breaks 60fps according to reviews at a decent res and decent map size, yet i can play it fine with no slow down and utterly playable.

console games have bits that slowdown too, games that can run at 150fps have faults that make them crash, or slowdown issues, faulty missions that can't be finished, COD2 had a load of issues with dual core and scripting in the game not working.


there are a hell of a lot of things that make games unplayable and framerates has never been an issue for me.

also, i upgrade more than most, more than almost all really, not hugely lately but in the past several years hardware reviews meant new kit, and keeping 2 computers up to date and available for new hardware. how is it i rarely if ever have bios issues, incompatibilities, problems overclocking, crashing from drivers. is it because i don't install huge amounts of crap in my system, keep it fresh clean and fast and have vast user experience. could it possibly, just possibly be that a lot of threads on issues with boards stem from user inexperience?


i just installed vista, with an 8800gts with(at that point) beta drivers, took a while to get sound working but that was it, no crashing, no effort, perfectly smooth, all games i've tried so far either work straight off or 20 seconds on google found an option i needed to change.

name the last game you installed that was unplayable due to framerates?

because R6V played with fairly low fps for me, yet, shockingly, was utterly utterly playable at 1680x1050 on a x1900 with a p4 prescott(yeah i was playing around with one).
 
drunkenmaster said:
name the last game you installed that was unplayable due to framerates?

"unplayable" is a phrase banded about a bit too readily for my liking... I'd say the last game I installed which genuinely meets my definition would be Serious Sam when played in Co-op mode, which dropped to around 1fps in places. I'm not entirely sure that wasn't down possibly to some dodgy network->framerate syncing though... in SP mode it was fine.

GTA:VC on a gf2mx was pretty horrendous, but I was only using that as a stop gap inbetween selling and buying newer cards.

In general I've always had a reasonably good PC for gaming and have found that by lowering settings things have at least been playable, even if unpleasant. The last singleplayer game I would say was genuinely unplayable due to fps on was Carmageddon 2 on a an old Cyrix 200+ with 48meg RAM and a Voodoo1 - dropped to around 3-4fps i think on the aircraft carrier level.
 
that was kinda the point i was making to be honest, having hl2 drop to 25fps once in a blue moon an unplayable game it does not make(yoda style ;) ) .

yes, some games have a couple of points where maybe the frame rate drops below what would be great in a perfect world, but such is life. is it only gaming and computers this happens with? did you ever buy some food that went off before expiry date, a car that brokedown, a stereo that sucks, a tv that blew or a girlfriend that didn't. why is suddenly something not being entirely perfect new, unexpected or surprising?


one of the constants in computing, and life in general is something motivating a push in technology. if all games ran perfectly at 100fps, why increase power of hardware, if hardware wasn't pushing forwards games wouldn't try new and better graphics and we'll still be playing stuff that looks like pacman.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom