Aller au contenu

Photo

Absolutely atrocious performance on high-end rig


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
32 réponses à ce sujet

#1
XenoAlbedo

XenoAlbedo
  • Members
  • 892 messages

I have a GTX 780 ti and an i7-4770k and 16 gigs of RAM. Yet, even with tessellation off, I get around 40-50 fps most of the time and in places with people, such as towns and camps, I get about 30. My rig generally runs most high end games at 90-100 fps or higher. I keep seeing sites saying this game is a great PC port, so is there something wrong on my end?



#2
Cyonan

Cyonan
  • Members
  • 19 369 messages

Calling 40-50 FPS "atrocious performance"? This'll be a fun thread.

 

Turn off MSAA by the way(or at the very least, turn it to 2x). It's got some performance issues on even the best of machines.


  • Roses aime ceci

#3
XenoAlbedo

XenoAlbedo
  • Members
  • 892 messages

Calling 40-50 FPS "atrocious performance"? This'll be a fun thread.

 

Turn off MSAA by the way(or at the very least, turn it to 2x). It's got some performance issues on even the best of machines.

It is off. The fact that I have seen people playing on the same rig I use and getting 80-90fps on average does indeed label this as "atrocious performance." 60 is my bare minimum. 



#4
Fredvdp

Fredvdp
  • Members
  • 6 186 messages

It looks like I'm getting a better performance with an AMD Radeon R9 270X and i5-4690k. I play with some sttings on ultra and most on high, and I'm usually north of 50fps at a 1920x1080 resolution. Anti-alias is disabled.

 

I'm using Mantle, but the performance increase shouldn't be that significant.



#5
Cyonan

Cyonan
  • Members
  • 19 369 messages

It is off. The fact that I have seen people playing on the same rig I use and getting 80-90fps on average does indeed label this as "atrocious performance." 60 is my bare minimum. 

 

If people are using the same hardware with the same settings with better performance, then it sounds like you need to do some maintenance on your machine. Update your drivers, make sure everything is clean, etc.

 

Also it may seem obvious but I should still mention it: Make sure vsync is off.



#6
XenoAlbedo

XenoAlbedo
  • Members
  • 892 messages

If people are using the same hardware with the same settings with better performance, then it sounds like you need to do some maintenance on your machine. Update your drivers, make sure everything is clean, etc.

 

Also it may seem obvious but I should still mention it: Make sure vsync is off.

Vsync is off and drivers are up to date.



#7
luism

luism
  • Members
  • 547 messages
My system isn't as good. I7 12gb ram nvidia 650 to card and everything on low. I have to lower my gpu core speed by 49 percent just so the game doesn't crash constantly. I think frostbyte and nvidia just do not play nice.

Also be sure to use the 344.75 drivers I tried updating the drivers and the new ones do not work as well as these.

#8
DemGeth

DemGeth
  • Members
  • 1 657 messages

Could be a lot of things look through this thread here

 

http://forum.bioware...the-pc-version/



#9
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages
This game is considerably more demanding than other FB games.

I just barely maintain 60 fps on my rig (with MSAA off), and I'm running a liquid cooled R295x2.

#10
Chaos17

Chaos17
  • Members
  • 796 messages

I have a GTX 780 ti and an i7-4770k and 16 gigs of RAM. Yet, even with tessellation off, I get around 40-50 fps most of the time and in places with people, such as towns and camps, I get about 30. My rig generally runs most high end games at 90-100 fps or higher. I keep seeing sites saying this game is a great PC port, so is there something wrong on my end?

Nah, but try instead those threads, you might find some help or support :

http://forum.bioware...unity-concerns/

http://answers.ea.co...ce/td-p/4126271

http://answers.ea.co...105959#U4105959

 

I'm suggesting you this because technical staf don't usually work outide of their forum so better go directly at the source.



#11
arkngt

arkngt
  • Members
  • 317 messages

You don't say which resolution you're running at. I get between 30-45 FPS on 1920x1080 with everything maxed out, except MSAA which is at 2x, so 30 FPS with your rig and tessellation and MSAA off sounds a bit low.



#12
XenoAlbedo

XenoAlbedo
  • Members
  • 892 messages

Could be a lot of things look through this thread here

 

http://forum.bioware...the-pc-version/

If this is accurate, it looks like it's time for me to get Windows 8.1



#13
xrayspex73

xrayspex73
  • Members
  • 188 messages

The game runs far better in Windows 8.1 because DA:I leverages aspects of the directx 11.1 API that Windows 7 does not support. 



#14
XenoAlbedo

XenoAlbedo
  • Members
  • 892 messages

Well, Geforce experience just now decided to notify me that new drivers were actually available, despite that I checked earlier. After performing a clean install, I'm finding that I maintain 60+ outdoors 90% of the time and get 50-60 in NPC crowded areas. I still intend on getting Windows 8.1, however, if games are going to start utilizing Dx 11.1 as gilgamex said.



#15
Rhayne05

Rhayne05
  • Members
  • 22 messages

http://forum.bioware...mance-increase/

 

I started the above forum about my experience with Windows 8.1. It was a big difference, even resulted in me being able to raise a few settings, including tesselation. Similar setup, just an older processor.



#16
Scoobydooby

Scoobydooby
  • Members
  • 108 messages

Calling 40-50 FPS "atrocious performance"? This'll be a fun thread.

 

Turn off MSAA by the way(or at the very least, turn it to 2x). It's got some performance issues on even the best of machines.

 

For PC, it is pretty atrocious actually.. the game is definitely not optimized as I am running SLI 970 and still get only around 60-70FPS in areas of Hinterlands.. poor, when in other areas I'm locked at 100. 

 

This is with no MSAA, no post process AA and tesselation at high instead of ultra. Also, even when it is at 70fps for me, it still fairly stuttery and unsmooth until it goes back over 80fps. 

 

I don't see how people can play this game at 30-40 fps.. that is console quality. Dreadful. Not why you play on a PC so that you can get console framerates.. please. 

 

 

Windows 8 definitely plays better by a long shot.. even with the newest drivers, Windows 7 plays like **** in comparison. 



#17
Eelectrica

Eelectrica
  • Members
  • 3 774 messages

I've noticed Nvidia have just released new drivers 347.09

No mention of DA in release notes, but still could be worth a try?



#18
Cyonan

Cyonan
  • Members
  • 19 369 messages

For PC, it is pretty atrocious actually.. the game is definitely not optimized as I am running SLI 970 and still get only around 60-70FPS in areas of Hinterlands.. poor, when in other areas I'm locked at 100. 

 

This is with no MSAA, no post process AA and tesselation at high instead of ultra. Also, even when it is at 70fps for me, it still fairly stuttery and unsmooth until it goes back over 80fps. 

 

I don't see how people can play this game at 30-40 fps.. that is console quality. Dreadful. Not why you play on a PC so that you can get console framerates.. please. 

 

 

Windows 8 definitely plays better by a long shot.. even with the newest drivers, Windows 7 plays like **** in comparison. 

 

I'm not going to dispute that the game isn't that well optimized for PC, especially for Nvidia cards.

 

However I was more anticipating the "30 FPS is fine" crowd to show up at the mention of anything under 60 FPS being atrocious.

 

Admittedly they haven't shown up.



#19
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

I'm not going to dispute that the game isn't that well optimized for PC, especially for Nvidia cards.

However I was more anticipating the "30 FPS is fine" crowd to show up at the mention of anything under 60 FPS being atrocious.

Admittedly they haven't shown up.


30-60 FPS is a real debate. Saying 60-70 FPS is not OK is getting into bizzaro world.

#20
UniformGreyColor

UniformGreyColor
  • Members
  • 1 455 messages

Really depends on resolution. Even with 2x980s I will likely not be getting 60+FPS with settings maxed at 2880p resolution. It would be closer to 30 fps I think. Just so people know a 780Ti and a 980 are very similar in terms of performance before overclocking them. Right now I'm getting 40fps+ at 1440p with a single 980 and everything maxed except MSAA turned off; one of them is coming back from RMA.



#21
Etragorn

Etragorn
  • Members
  • 559 messages
I'm still not sure how I'm pulling so much more performance out of my card compared to just about anyone else in this thread. I'm using a single EVGA 980 GTX with every single setting maxed out at 2160p and I never see a dip below 60 FPS. If I took off the V-Sync I'd probably be getting more than 60.

#22
Serenade

Serenade
  • Members
  • 783 messages

I'm still not sure how I'm pulling so much more performance out of my card compared to just about anyone else in this thread. I'm using a single EVGA 980 GTX with every single setting maxed out at 2160p and I never see a dip below 60 FPS. If I took off the V-Sync I'd probably be getting more than 60.


With both post-process AA and MSAA x4 at ultra settings? On a single 980? At a constant 60 frames per second? in 2160p (4k) resolution? That's impossible sir. Yeah, I have no idea how you're pulling that off, maybe magic?

#23
DemGeth

DemGeth
  • Members
  • 1 657 messages

Yeah they don't push FB as hard in BF cause you have to have 60 fps really.  That's with all the destruction jets flying overhead etc.  DA looks a lot better than BF 4 imo. 


  • Sylvius the Mad aime ceci

#24
Etragorn

Etragorn
  • Members
  • 559 messages

With both post-process AA and MSAA x4 at ultra settings? On a single 980? At a constant 60 frames per second? in 2160p (4k) resolution? That's impossible sir. Yeah, I have no idea how you're pulling that off, maybe magic?


Sorry about that, major typo, I'm at 1620p (2880x1620p, so 1.5x Full HD [1080p]), not 2160p. But yeah, other than that typo, everything else I said is correct, I have absolutely everything maxed out, getting a solid 60 FPS, @1620p. It's a superclocked card (1266 MHz Base Clock/1367 MHz Boost Clock, 4GB @ 7010 MHz effective clock), and beyond that I have it set to dynamically overclock all the way up to 124% above the Boost Clock if necessary to maintain 60p, but I still don't see how it is able to do this if everyone else is having so much trouble.

#25
UniformGreyColor

UniformGreyColor
  • Members
  • 1 455 messages

Sorry about that, major typo, I'm at 1620p (2880x1620p, so 1.5x Full HD), not 2160p. But yeah, other than that typo, everything else I said is correct, I have absolutely everything maxed out, getting a solid 60 FPS, @1620p. It's a superclocked card (1266 MHz Base Clock/1367 MHz Boost Clock, 4GB @ 7010 MHz effective clock), and beyond that I have it set to dynamically overclock all the way up to 124% above the Boost Clock if necessary to maintain 60p, but I still don't see how it is able to do this if everyone else is having so much trouble.

 

OK, so first question. Is your power limit up to 124% or is your core clock up 124%? There is no way you can OC your card 24% over stock. It is not possible to run a game stable at those clocks. *thinks* What would that be? 1600+ Core? I suppose its possible but very unlikely without increasing the voltage past 1212mv. I still think something smells fishy about this though.