Next to no difference in FPS after increasing overclock

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

So I finally got a cooling unit for my cpu, decided to push it back to 5.0ghz (was 4.5) which I knew it could do since I'd tested it earlier...it just overheated.

No difference (or very little, like 5-10 average) in fps at all. I have 0ms waiting on gpu, and I STILL sit on 90-120fps depending on where I am in the map. Rarely it does go above or below that, I get 150 in Data Core.

Wtf man.

|strofix| · May 2013

What were you expecting for 500mhz? Do you think if you doubled your clock speed you would double your FPS?

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

I thought I'd get SOMETHING instead of nothing.

|strofix| · May 2013

You said 5-10 average? That is like a 5% performance increase. Which would be expected I would think.

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

I said I didn't see any increase, but there may have been a small amount I missed.

Res · May 2013

you should go back to 4.5ghz and overclock your northbridge and the like and see the difference, then try 5ghz again. The point im making is that at some point, the throughput of other aspects of your computer can't keep up.

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

Yeah I figured something else was bottlenecking that wasn't the cpu or the gpu, but I have no idea what it is.

wiry · May 2013

I'm noticing a big difference between 4.1 and my old 4.5 clock. probably about 20-30 important fps. :l

Roobubba · May 2013

Did you have to slacken off the RAM timings to get the extra clock? Is it purely a CPU multiplier difference between your 4.5 and 5.0 settings?

Roo

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

I don't believe I changed any settings that affect the RAM, I was also unaware you could change the timings from what's written on the side of them!

Roobubba · May 2013

Check them out in CPUZ and compare with the SPD table. There should be a set of possible timings for which the RAM is 'rated' and by default, it should have picked one of these. Without knowing your mobo/system specs I can't really say more than that, though!

Also I should qualify that I'm on Lynnfield here and haven't experience with OCing Sandy/Ivy systems (though plenty with Lynnfield and older!).

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

Gotta be honest, not sure how to "compare" the timings with the SPD table, but they are 9-9-9-24

Steve123MC · May 2013

Your FPS sounds similar to mine although i'm unsure what your hardware is, maybe a 2500k or a really good 2600k? But yea the biggest problem we are all aware of is the way the spark engine talks to the cpu/gpu. IMO the game engine is the biggest bottle neck.

2600k 4.8ghz

2133mhz mem

pair of evga classified 680 4GB sli

My 2 cards are working @ 50-60%.

I built this system specifically for ns2 and so far not at all impressed. I'll get the new haswell chip next month or so and hope it helps.

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

2600k 5.0ghz
1600mhz DDR3
GTX570

EDIT: Forgot to mention

Res wrote: »

you should go back to 4.5ghz and overclock your northbridge and the like and see the difference, then try 5ghz again. The point im making is that at some point, the throughput of other aspects of your computer can't keep up.

I have no northbridge, it was eliminated in the P67 chipset, which I have.

Also this new message box sucks, white and no code!?

Mellow1123 · May 2013

Yeah, this game got some major performance issues.

I got an i7 3770K 4.9 GHz with GTX 680 and at times my fps can go down to as low as 45 in a 6v6 game if there are a lot of entities nearby like macs and such...

Obraxis · May 2013

90-120 fps, congrats but really this is more than high enough to play the game on. Why complain?

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

It's less complaining, more asking why I got no improvement.

SquishpokePOOPFACE · May 2013

Check out the profiler, maybe your GPU is bottleneckin'

DC_Darkling · May 2013

why risk potential hardware damage for more fps you will not notice?

the hell?

rmbrown09 · May 2013

Imagine if they had used the source engine. Just that alone would have doubled NS2's popularity because normal people with normal computers could run the game.

Mige · May 2013

Squishpoke said:

Check out the profiler, maybe your GPU is bottleneckin'

- logic thread. CPU only, increases with number of entities (players, MACs, Crags etc ..). Changes the state of the game. Lua.
- render thread. CPU only, increases with graphics complexity (number of models, map geometry, lights, graphics options). Produces data for the graphics card (GPU). C++
- GPU - Graphics card. increase the same way as the render thread basically. Draws stuff on your screen.

logic is the biggest bottleneck in this game, you should wait new performance fixes .. even 120fps is feels laggy (while crysis feels fine with 30+fps), only solution to play this game is the 200fps

Deadonstick · May 2013

Alright, I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to computer hardware and I can tell you the following.

1: Sometimes other components of your computer are bottlenecking your CPU, your CPU might be like "GIVE ME MORE", but your Graphics card can shout back "DUDE, chill out, I'm still busy with this pixel, then you can have it".
2: Clock speed and FPS rarely scale 1:1. If you double your clock speed this will rarely mean double FPS.

As a sidenote, 90-120 FPS is fine, more than fine, most screens can't even go that fast. And as a last sidenote, higher FPS does not always mean smoother gameplay, unfortunately NS2 can "hiccup" quite a bit.

Steve123MC · May 2013

Deadonstick said:

Alright, I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to computer hardware and I can tell you the following.

1: Sometimes other components of your computer are bottlenecking your CPU, your CPU might be like "GIVE ME MORE", but your Graphics card can shout back "DUDE, chill out, I'm still busy with this pixel, then you can have it".
2: Clock speed and FPS rarely scale 1:1. If you double your clock speed this will rarely mean double FPS.

As a sidenote, 90-120 FPS is fine, more than fine, most screens can't even go that fast. And as a last sidenote, higher FPS does not always mean smoother gameplay, unfortunately NS2 can "hiccup" quite a bit.

I agree, the biggest problem is the hiccups between min avg and max fps. I can go from 200fps down to 50-60fps. My min comfortable fps is 100 anything lower and it messes me up which is why i went balls to the wall at the time with my graphics solution, only to find out the game is heavily cpu dependent.

Locklear · May 2013

Obraxis said:

90-120 fps, congrats but really this is more than high enough to play the game on. Why complain?

Because everyone knows that doesn't last long outside of the ready room.

ijustpwnedu96 · May 2013

90-120 fps in Ready room and you're complaining? Man you guys are spoiled. I get 40 fps in the Ready room and 10-20 late-game.

xDragon · May 2013

Theres also the point that 120 fps in NS2 is similar in feel to 30 in other games. From the testing I did NS2 only started to 'feel' responsive at 200 fps, which is hardly obtainable consistently.

IMO input delays and other issues need to be looked at.

BentRing · May 2013

With the way some folks ( no offense meant to anyone in particular) talk about FPS, if I ever get a PC that will sustain higher than 30 FPS after 5 minutes nothing will exist other than Mmm-ma ma ma monster kill kill kill kills. :P

ScardyBob · May 2013

@Ghosthree3

The general rule of 'higher clockspeed = better fps' is more relevant for people going from stockclocked to overclocked then it is for overclocked to amazingly overclocked ones. Once you are getting into the really high overclocks, there is a good chance your getting bottlenecked by something else like your RAM or motherboard.

Also, I'd suggest doing a benchmark in the manner prescribed here. I suspect you may be either overestimating the framerate you actually got before or underestimating the framerate your getting now if you just trying to eyeball the results from the fps or r_stats command.

Obraxis said:
90-120 fps, congrats but really this is more than high enough to play the game on. Why complain?

For just playing, that's more than enough. However, I can tell you for recording/streaming, you can't ever get enough fps.

PaLaGi · May 2013

xDragon said:

Theres also the point that 120 fps in NS2 is similar in feel to 30 in other games. From the testing I did NS2 only started to 'feel' responsive at 200 fps, which is hardly obtainable consistently.

IMO input delays and other issues need to be looked at.

I agree with this. The input lag or delay feeling you get is just as much of an issue. I don't know how to quantify it for the devs, but I played NS1 briefly the other day and couldn't believe how much more responsive it felt.

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

Locklear wrote: »

Obraxis said:<br />
90-120 fps, congrats but really this is more than high enough to play the game on. Why complain?<br />
<br />
<br />
Because everyone knows that doesn't last long outside of the ready room.

I get 200 fps in the ready room, I'm getting the 90-120fps in game play.

Squishpoke said:

Check out the profiler, maybe your GPU is bottleneckin'

Shouldn't the r_stats have shown a greater than 0ms waiting on gpu if that was the issue.

Deadonstick said:

Alright, I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to computer hardware and I can tell you the following.

1: Sometimes other components of your computer are bottlenecking your CPU, your CPU might be like "GIVE ME MORE", but your Graphics card can shout back "DUDE, chill out, I'm still busy with this pixel, then you can have it".
2: Clock speed and FPS rarely scale 1:1. If you double your clock speed this will rarely mean double FPS.

As a sidenote, 90-120 FPS is fine, more than fine, most screens can't even go that fast. And as a last sidenote, higher FPS does not always mean smoother gameplay, unfortunately NS2 can "hiccup" quite a bit.

Yes I suspect that it's being bottlenecked by something else, or the 0ms waiting line is lying.
Also yeah, I do stutter a noticeable bit, micro freezes whenever something appears for the first time etc (really often early game).

EDIT: I should note that turning on occlusion still rapes my fps, drops to like 60-70, I thought occlusion was cpu related?

Next to no difference in FPS after increasing overclock

Comments