Probably to save system resources in all cases, as an fps greater then 200 would not be required. Every game should at the very least have a hardcoded FPS limit in the menu, so that systems won't get coil whine at 200+fps scenarios, and laptop hardware won't over work itself for no reason.
corsair h70 core with xigmatech fans push-pull. 3770k at 4.5ghz maximum temperature in prime 95 being 65~c. A weak ass gtx 560 non-ti superclocked card from stock 850mhz core to 930mhz core OC. I get 110 frames per second running the game in 1366x768 resolution, with some graphical features on, like full infestation, slight other things. I had the exact same graphics card and a 2.8ghz phenom 1055t 6 core processor, and only got 30-40 fps, sometimes lower in fights.
I have i7 CPU , with 2 SLI GTX 670's...get little over 60 frames (everything maxed out tho at 1080 res) So...not likely maxed out, unless your running 3 GTX titans or something crazy. Turn AA/AF first, then Lighting and Infestation...which account for ALOT of the FPS. Start working you way down after that. I'd rather have 60 frames maxed then 120 looking like krap tho.
Of corse you get 200, most of the graphics settings are turned off
Yeah, I asked him to do that. Still, he's the first person I've seen to get 200 fps on the menu screen. Maybe it is more common than I think; I don't know. I can only get 160 with everything off and on low (i7 2600k @ 4.6Ghz w/ GTX 480 @ Stock Clocks).
It is absolutely not possible to get 120fps in this game. Insanely overclocked 2500ks and 3570ks sometimes can't even maintain 60 during very large fights. This game is entirely CPU limited. I have a 3 year old $100 budget GPU that runs the game fine (at low settings), and at every point in the game it's my AMD @ 4 GHz that bottlenecks the game. There's simply no CPU out there that can maintain 120fps throughout the game. No setting in the game except for shadows reduces the CPU bottleneck.
It is absolutely not possible to get 120fps in this game. Insanely overclocked 2500ks and 3570ks sometimes can't even maintain 60 during very large fights. This game is entirely CPU limited. I have a 3 year old $100 budget GPU that runs the game fine (at low settings), and at every point in the game it's my AMD @ 4 GHz that bottlenecks the game. There's simply no CPU out there that can maintain 120fps throughout the game. No setting in the game except for shadows reduces the CPU bottleneck.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bottleneck" in regard to shadows, because Ambient Occlusion, Atmospherics, and Bloom all affect the CPU load in what I would call significant ways - especially Ambient Occlusion. It's a real resource hog, but of course that's true of almost every game from BF3 to Skyrim. Sure does make games pretty though.
Ive been fiddling a whole day with settings and god damn am I bored now!
I have an i7 3770k, Gtx680 and 8gb ram. 120hz monitor (Benq xl2420t)
Ive been playing via HDMI so I could only have 60hz HD but I switched to Dual Link and 120hz now to see the difference.
Anyways I cant seem to get to a stable 100+ fps, best I could do was 90 but it still dipped to 70-80 sometimes. 0 stable ms on gpu and a 1-2 ms on thread rendering.
Buy the way, I have a GPU Tweak, how much can I tune it up without damagin anything?
No it's not possible to KEEP above 120 fps, you can get it and above for short periods of time but you can't play a full match with it.
Only option is to lower your resolution/oc your cpu, my cpu is already oced to 4.2 ghz but I don't want to not play in my native res. I assume an oc of... 4.8-5.5 ghz would probably keep it above that at all times, but that's not realistic
We can hope for the best for future performance updates!
My fps at start is 140-170~ then it stays around 140~ ish and as the match continues drops down to 70-90-130 fps, however I haven't paid full attention to it so these are just estimates. It stinks but nothing I can do about it
specs:
1920x1080 @ 120
in-game: lowest/off
i7 3770k @ 4.2 ghz
gtx 680 2gb oced
8gb ram @ 1600
and a regular 7,200 rpm WD hard drive (great hard drive by the way, I'm almost always the first to load!) :P
Just did the update on it recently, in love with everything. This is the only game where I can't really get my desired performance, bioshock infinite and far cry 3 on their ultra give me similar performance to ns2 mid/late game haha!
I'm running a 3770k at 4.6Ghz, 8GB 2133Mhz RAM and a GTX Titan at 980Mhz. Late game my Titan usage is sub 75%. Yeah, the game is ridiculously CPU limited. Hopefully we get builds in the future that reduce the CPU load.
It is absolutely not possible to get 120fps in this game. Insanely overclocked 2500ks and 3570ks sometimes can't even maintain 60 during very large fights. This game is entirely CPU limited. I have a 3 year old $100 budget GPU that runs the game fine (at low settings), and at every point in the game it's my AMD @ 4 GHz that bottlenecks the game. There's simply no CPU out there that can maintain 120fps throughout the game. No setting in the game except for shadows reduces the CPU bottleneck.
Though, for people with 120Hz monitors, I'm not sure its possible to always stay above 120fps (maybe something like a 3970X @5.0+GHz with a GTX 680 or Titan could do it).
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
EDIT #2: To be honest, I am pretty shocked that you aren't getting higher FPS than me. Your GPU is comparable, and your CPU is newer, even if it is an i5 rather than an i7. But NS2 isn't optimized for multiple cores or hyperthreading to my knowledge, so I have heard that the i5 can sometimes outperform the i7 in single-core and unthreaded games and apps.
Actually, NS2 is reasonably well multi-threaded. I've seen it use upto 2.5 cores (though normally its about 1.8-2.2), so a 4+core i7 should have a SLIGHT advantage over a same-frequency 2-core i5.
Depends on how balanced the load is between logic and rendering thread, and the latency (the prediction thread uses more CPU the higher the latency).
...so a 4+core i7 should have a SLIGHT advantage over a same-frequency 2-core i5.
Just FYI:
The topic-starter's Intel Core i5 3570K is a quad core CPU. The majority of the i5 range have 4 physical cores. The i7 processors have the addition of Hyper-Threading, which gives them 8 threads on their 4 cores. It's the i3 range that's all dual core (although they have Hyper-Threading like the i7s so they have 4 threads).
The reason the cpu is the bottleneck is because for some unknown reason, unless you get 120+fps, you're disadvantaged in the game. I have played at 140fps, it's another experience, I can actually wall jump for example. Anyway, yes, gpus will hold fps at about 70 for the very high end ones (7970 for example) but the cpu holds the fps below the mythical 120 fps which I have no deemed "playable". I used to believe it was 50fps, then 35 fps... well, now I think it's 120fps.
Unfortunately I can't go past 60 hz with my monitor but I can't even sustain a constant 60 fps with a 7970 and 3.4 ghz quad-core (965 BE) - but can't NS2 only use one core anyway? I guess 3.4 ghz isn't enough to sustain 60 fps on a 7970 at 1920x1600 at max settings.
What are your settings at? I usually get around 45 fps down to 25 or so fps when in the thick of it.
It can use more than one with multi threading, also OC that cpu (if possible and appropriate) to over 4ghz at least.
Guess I'm pushing it pretty hard already then, I mean with hyperthreading it's got at least two 3.4 ghz cores.
I was actually just looking into water cooling since when not gaming the 7970 works as a mighty fine Bitcoin miner. OC'ing with watercooling could really kick up my hash rate I believe. This is what I wrote up on my watercooling idea if you're interested in reading about it, Ghostthree3. Obviously I have no real numbers or even hard proof but I imagine with peltier cooling I could probably OC the CPU from 3.4 ghz to something like 4.3 ghz! O.O
Comments
(although i didn't have to change a setting as I play with them on low anyhow)
Yeah, I asked him to do that. Still, he's the first person I've seen to get 200 fps on the menu screen. Maybe it is more common than I think; I don't know. I can only get 160 with everything off and on low (i7 2600k @ 4.6Ghz w/ GTX 480 @ Stock Clocks).
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/
I'm not sure what you mean by "bottleneck" in regard to shadows, because Ambient Occlusion, Atmospherics, and Bloom all affect the CPU load in what I would call significant ways - especially Ambient Occlusion. It's a real resource hog, but of course that's true of almost every game from BF3 to Skyrim. Sure does make games pretty though.
I have an i7 3770k, Gtx680 and 8gb ram. 120hz monitor (Benq xl2420t)
Ive been playing via HDMI so I could only have 60hz HD but I switched to Dual Link and 120hz now to see the difference.
Anyways I cant seem to get to a stable 100+ fps, best I could do was 90 but it still dipped to 70-80 sometimes. 0 stable ms on gpu and a 1-2 ms on thread rendering.
Buy the way, I have a GPU Tweak, how much can I tune it up without damagin anything?
Cheers
Only option is to lower your resolution/oc your cpu, my cpu is already oced to 4.2 ghz but I don't want to not play in my native res. I assume an oc of... 4.8-5.5 ghz would probably keep it above that at all times, but that's not realistic
We can hope for the best for future performance updates!
My fps at start is 140-170~ then it stays around 140~ ish and as the match continues drops down to 70-90-130 fps, however I haven't paid full attention to it so these are just estimates. It stinks but nothing I can do about it
specs:
1920x1080 @ 120
in-game: lowest/off
i7 3770k @ 4.2 ghz
gtx 680 2gb oced
8gb ram @ 1600
and a regular 7,200 rpm WD hard drive (great hard drive by the way, I'm almost always the first to load!) :P
Just did the update on it recently, in love with everything. This is the only game where I can't really get my desired performance, bioshock infinite and far cry 3 on their ultra give me similar performance to ns2 mid/late game haha!
My options setup on a i5-2500k oc'd for 4.5 ghz and 2x6870's clocked at 775/1050.
I manage to achieve the desired 120 fps in game.
Though, for people with 120Hz monitors, I'm not sure its possible to always stay above 120fps (maybe something like a 3970X @5.0+GHz with a GTX 680 or Titan could do it).
Actually, NS2 is reasonably well multi-threaded. I've seen it use upto 2.5 cores (though normally its about 1.8-2.2), so a 4+core i7 should have a SLIGHT advantage over a same-frequency 2-core i5.
Depends on how balanced the load is between logic and rendering thread, and the latency (the prediction thread uses more CPU the higher the latency).
Just FYI:
The topic-starter's Intel Core i5 3570K is a quad core CPU. The majority of the i5 range have 4 physical cores. The i7 processors have the addition of Hyper-Threading, which gives them 8 threads on their 4 cores. It's the i3 range that's all dual core (although they have Hyper-Threading like the i7s so they have 4 threads).
Intel processor comparison
What are your settings at? I usually get around 45 fps down to 25 or so fps when in the thick of it.
I was actually just looking into water cooling since when not gaming the 7970 works as a mighty fine Bitcoin miner. OC'ing with watercooling could really kick up my hash rate I believe.