Really low fps ~5 , unplayable
Desmond
Join Date: 2013-09-08 Member: 187998Members
Join Date: 2013-09-08 Member: 187998Members
Hi i bought Natural selection 2 on the weekend that it was 75% off and im really excited to play, but its unplayable at such low fps~5
I have no problem running other games such as Starcraft 2 on high settings, so im not sure whats causing the problem.
I have no problem running other games such as Starcraft 2 on high settings, so im not sure whats causing the problem.
Comments
NS2 Ran of your integrated Intelcard and not off your Nvidiacard you have to force NS2 to use your Nvidia card.
How to do that you can find out in the forum search as I don't really remember it
But also your dedicated video NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 it only 468 MB main memory the other comes from the mainboards memory as it is shared and that is really slow so you may only see 20-30 fps unless you get a better performing gpu.
There a few things should check first before you go run out buy a video card. You will need find out how powerful you power supply is and if and it has 6 or 8 pin power connectors needed for today power hunger card. Second you need to find out if your PC has a PCI-E 16x slot on it otherwise you are sadly out of luck.
With that out of the way there a few cards that are out that wont break the bank at all and are under $150.
If you want a AMD card you can get 7850.
If you want a Nvidia card you can get 650 ti.
You buy these cards online at sites such as newegg or tiger direct.
If he doesn't already have a card, I don't see the point in suggesting an ATI card over nVidia, perhaps I'm a bit ignorant but aren't nVidia cards better for gaming?
Uh guys... it's a LITTLE more complicated than just buying a new card. If his mobo is old enough to have a 240 in it... PROBABLY should check to make sure he's got at least a PCI-e 3.0 port (which these cards don't necessarily require, but otherwise you won't get the full performance out of them).
If you get it running, cool. if you get playable, smooth fps, even better!
But no, that is incorrect.. he may be able to play with it, but that doesn't change the fact that it does not actually meet the minimum requirements set by the company.
So.. dont be surprised if..
B-)
This is actually not true according to the latest edition of MaximumPC magazine. Theoretically yes theres a huge bandwidth difference, but in practice..
"We had heard previously that there was very little difference between PCIe 2.0 and PCIe 3.0 on current systems and our tests back that up."
Using a Titan GTX, 2.0 vs 3.0 results:
Crysis 3 31 / 32 fps
Shogun 2 60 / 62 fps
far cry 3 38 / 42 fps
Metro last light 22 / 25 fps
Tomb raider 22 / 25 fps
So yeah... i wouldn't even factor that 3.0 in the equation, especially given the price hike that's generally associated with it. And considering we are recommending budget cards..
*AMD, ATI has gone quite some time ago
Nvidia and AMD are fairly equal in the long run.
Sometimes one has an edge over the other, then it turns the way around and so on.
The only major differences are technologies supported only by 1 brand, like Eye-finity, Physx, CUDA etc... most people don't need /care about these though.
Some might prefer Nvidia drivers (I do, despite having an AMD card, due to better profiles management).
In my experience, AMD cards offer better price/performance especially for mid-tier cards, greater overclocking potential and sometimes nice little surprises...
like the 6950s being able to be "unlocked" via a bios mod to 6970s, similarly to their (now old) Tri-core CPUs having an unlockable, dormant, 4th core.
AMD has an edge (at least up until series 6xxx, I don't know about latest cards) in Xfire scaling vs SLI too, although recently it's been shown that some frames generated in Xfire situations are "wasted" (runt frames) and microstuttering occurs.
If you have an unlimited budget and you want the best SINGLE card performance to avoid multi-gpus compatibility issues, your best bet is the Nvidia Titan.
About optimization, I've noticed more Nvidia optimized games (TWIMTBP) than AMD ones.
Lately, AMD has been offering amazing bundles (Never Settle) with its mid - high end cards... 3-4 recent games, an amazing deal if you're after those games,
and also claims to have a partnership to optimize its cards for the upcoming BF4... so it might catch up with Nvidia there.
Long story short, both are good choices.
Personally, more than the AMD/Nvidia debate, I'd pay more attention to manufacturers/3rd party heatsinks to get a cool&quiet card.
No, AMD has no equivalent... well, only one recent technology, TressFX, which is implemented in Tomb Raider 3 to provide more physically realistic hair.
I think the problem is that games supporting Physx are veeery few.
And some of them, like Metro:Last Light, are already very heavy to run.
Running Physx too, which is quite taxing, means coming to a compromise with other settings or getting a high end card.
What does AMD offer?
Usually best bang for the buck.
For instance, in early 2011 I could snatch a 6950 2GB for 200€ or a 560ti 1GB for 220€.
6950 is marginally faster than the 560ti, has better Xfire scaling, more VRAM and the ability to mod it to a 6970.
I went for AMD, better value to me.
Oh, forgot to mention that AMD cards perform MUCH better than Nvidia ones in computing with OpenCL.
This is especially important for people using Folding@home, Bitcoing mining and similar activities.
On a side note, I'd also add that I'm happier to financially support AMD than Nvidia,
because it's also the *only* competitor to Intel in the CPU market, which has been stalling since 2011 in terms of performance.
Improvements from Sandry Bridge, to Ivy and then Haswell have been ridicolous.
In some cases, they are even worse: i'm talking about cooling... Sandy Bridge has more expensive, welded internal cpu heatsinks,
while Ivy and Haswell use cheaper thermal paste, thus running hotter.
I bought my 2500k in February 2011 for 170€. Now it costs 200€, that says it all.
We really need AMD to be competitive once more, like it did back in the days with their FX CPUs stomping Pentiums 4.
I will say though that I don't care for AMD cpus, Intel has done great recently with the one exception of haswell being awful for overclocking (which is why when I upgraded I went from a 2600k to the 3570k instead of the 4570k). I guess a competitor means prices can't be too high though.
(and is the frame delays/latencies finally sorted?)
looking at prices on newegg the 650 (non-ti$100) is cheaper than the cheapest 5xx card (550 t $120) and you can get the 650 ti ($130) for a few bucks more than 550Ti on the nvidia side of things.
On the AMD side the 6xxx they have 6850 for $150 or 6970 for $170(power supply might become a issue), or you can get a 7790 ($120) or a 7850($130).
The only card cheaper than the nvidia 650 is the 7750 by amd($75). At that point you need to start looking out for versions of the 7750 with DDR3 memory instead of GDDR5.
Even though the both cards under $130 are still overkill they are better than the other options.