i7 rig slow?

Associate
Joined
28 Jul 2009
Posts
1,549
I finnaly built my rig and it did not live up to my high expectations. I'm running on 32 bit Vista for the time being until I receive my windows 7. I loaded up CSS and ran a stress test and I acheived a ridculously slow 119.9 FPS. Which I thought was really low. I do not know why it is so low? I mean my settings are:
Intel i7 860
4GB Geil RAM
GTX 285

I do not understand why my system is not acheiving 'outstanding' performance. Am I missing something here? Can anyone confirm if anything is wrong here? I will test other games though.
 
Associate
Joined
27 Nov 2008
Posts
2,268
Location
Cambridge
Stick an older GPU in there like an 8800gtx if you want stupid fps like 200+. Overclocking will help too.

There have been a fair few reports over the last few months on these forums about newer cards not performing "well" (120+fps is still way better than anyone needs) with CSS.

Don't quote me on this but my educated guess would attribute it to the fact that newer nvidia cards seem to have a gazzillion shaders but lower clocks than models from a few years ago. So in older games which don't need as many shaders the card is limited by raw speed with half it's cores going empty. - Just to reiterate, I have no real knowledge of GPU arhitecture or 3d rendering methods, this is just what seems logical to my jet lagged mind.
What would you rather have, insane frames in CSS with mediocre performance elsewhere or nice performance across the board?
 
Associate
OP
Joined
28 Jul 2009
Posts
1,549
Thanks for the response, but I do not care if I have ridiculously HIGH frame rates on CSS, it's just a bit of disappointment really, I thought I would get higher regardless of an old game. But your guess may be true, I will have to test it at newer games to see the difference. At such a High end spec, I thought I would expect higher but I will test other games. Cheers.


If not I might overclock my i7.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
22 Dec 2008
Posts
10,368
Location
England
120 FPS? One hundred and twenty frames per second, when your monitor can show at most 60?

There are no stupid questions...
 
Associate
Joined
23 Jun 2005
Posts
2,495
Location
On the Edge*
120 FPS? One hundred and twenty frames per second, when your monitor can show at most 60?

There are no stupid questions...

120 FPS makes a huge difference to gaming regardless of the refresh rate of your monitor. I used to run 333FPS on RTCW, this enables longer strafe jumps and smoother than smooth gameplay!!!, but it was seen as a cheat so I use 120!!! which also improves strafe jumping, but is achievable by most modern graphics cards.

Edit: Geckovich, I think when people spend hundreds of pounds upgrading to the latest and greatest they expect massive improvement across the board and ENORMOUS improvement on older games, because that have always always been the case in the past...whats changed?
 
Last edited:
Associate
OP
Joined
28 Jul 2009
Posts
1,549
120 FPS makes a huge difference to gaming regardless of the refresh rate of your monitor. I used to run 333FPS on RTCW, this enables longer strafe jumps and smoother than smooth gameplay!!!, but it was seen as a cheat so I use 120!!! which also improves strafe jumping, but is achievable by most modern graphics cards.

Edit: Geckovich, I think when people spend hundreds of pounds upgrading to the latest and greatest they expect massive improvement across the board and ENORMOUS improvement on older games, because that have always always been the case in the past...whats changed?


I upgraded from a 939 system including 3200+ AMD , 512 RAM, I think i should deserve a VAST improvement over that.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Jun 2005
Posts
648
Location
Northants
What res you running? I have a slightly lower spec set up, i5 750 / gtx260be on vista64 so i expect you to get slightly better results than i do on the stress test, which i run at 1920x1200 maxxed out details etc and i get just shy of 250fps.

Have you tried reinstalling the newest driver from nvidia?

Never heard of newer cards struggling with older games due to lower clocks but unused shaders, but might be right i guess??
 
Associate
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Posts
419
Location
Nottingham
I think there is a slight misconception on the i5/7 range. They are fantastic cpu's admittedly and I wish I could afford one myself but throughout the various gaming benchmarks, they don't provide any real performance increase over most current quad core cpu's and even high end dual cores.

As for the low fps I think it must definitely be related to drivers and low gpu clocks, as ATi cards run on high gpu/mem clocks to nVidia cards and I hit about 270fps with my rig. nVidia of course have dedicated shaders and what not, so it's not a knock on the cards themselves; just architecturally how the two differ.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
28 Jul 2009
Posts
1,549
everything on very HIGH on 1680 resolution.


BTW - The game keeps cutting off after I've played like 10 mins or so. The game is on steam btw.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2009
Posts
11,973
Location
Cheshire
Crysis is a mad game, 20-40 FPS is a pretty good result - probably the best you will get with a stock i7/285.

I am slightly worried about it cutting out every 10minutes. Any indication of what it is? What are the CPU/GPU temps when you play it?
 
Associate
OP
Joined
28 Jul 2009
Posts
1,549
unknown
software exception (0xc000000d) occurred in the application at location
0x757627da.

Thats the error it's saying and it cuts out.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom