|
Why Do I Have Very Low Frame Rates When Running New Games?
|
|
|
hyrukante
Newbie
|
18. November 2007 @ 14:37 |
Link to this message
|
Hi, I really could use some help with my PC and running games, its a 2 week old Dell Inspiron 531 with the following specs:
- AMD X2 Processor 6000+ (3.0GHz)
- Memory Dual Channel 3072MB DDR2 667 [2x1024 + 2x512]
- Hard Drive 1TB Serial ATA Non Raid (2x500GB) 7200Rpm Dual HDD Config
- Video Card 256MB nVidia GeForce 8600GT
- Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio
- English Windows Vista Home Premium
So far I have tried running Crysis, Company of Heroes, Bioshock (all demos) and World of Warcraft. They all seem to run with lower frame rates than what I expect I should be getting. Warcraft is the only game that seems to work fine.
I?m very sure my PC should be able to run Company of Heroes at full settings without any problems, but it is just super choppy, on the performance test I did the average frame rate I got was 10fps, this game was tested on Gamespot with a 7900 card and had frame rates of 45fps or so? surly an 8600GT should run it even better.
Crysis will basically not work at all, as soon as the game starts running I get about 1fps on low/medium settings, I think my PC should be able to run this ok with the setting on high (not on very high though)
Bioshock will not even start it just crashes right away L
I don?t understand why none of these games are running correctly, Surly someone has had this problem and solved it?
Maybe I?m missing some important updates or drivers or compatibility fixes or something?.
Any ideas?
I really would be so grateful for any help at all, I have to get this sorted its beginning to get quite irritating. :)
Edit: forgot to mention when playing CoH some parts of the background and textures on the moving characters would go black or see through very often, like it was not able to proccess the textures or somthing, not exactly sure what it is, but it looks bad.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. November 2007 @ 14:52
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
18. November 2007 @ 22:21 |
Link to this message
|
It's your graphics card. The 8600 isnt that great for gaming. It's more of a mainstream card for browsing the web and stuff like that. Although it could probably play older games, Crysis on high is out of the question.
A 8800GT will fit your system fine. Much better than a 8600, and it will run Crysis on max with no problems.
|
|
hyrukante
Newbie
|
19. November 2007 @ 17:02 |
Link to this message
|
I?m not really sure its mainly down to the graphics card, I mean I can?t even play Crysis on low settings without the frame rate being so low it looks like I?m looking at pictures not a video, must be running at something like 0.5 frames per second. My friend has a Geforce 7900GS and I have heard lots of people saying they thought that card was bad too, but he can run Crysis on medium and that card is like a year or so old now, 8600GT should run it close to high if that card can do it on medium.
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6164940/p-5.html
Noticed on Gamespot a Geforce 7600GT ran Company of Hereos at 45 Frames per second at 1024X768 on their test.
I was getting about 10 or so FPS :(
|
|
DMW
Member
|
19. November 2007 @ 17:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree with Waymon3X6 and would definately say it is your graphics card.
The 7600GT and 7900GS beating it do not surprise me in the slightest.
The 8500GT and 8600GT only sell beacuse they are cheap and DX10. The fact is when they are used for DX10 games, they are not good at it!!
It's a bit like the FX series from nVidia, the 5200 was DX9, but it was not a fast enough card to proove it's worth.
You could either sell your 8600 and buy a high end 7xxx series card for faster rates and a cheap move, but at the obvious cost of no gaming in DX10, or buy a 8800GT 512MB and get one of the best mid-range cards on the market (which push hard at the top end cards.)
The other option is low detail and resolution to get you by.
|
|
hyrukante
Newbie
|
19. November 2007 @ 18:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Grim... :( guess that may explain why I can't seem to fix it, but at least I can get it off my mind for a while until I try a new card.
Thanks for the replies
|
|
hyrukante
Newbie
|
19. November 2007 @ 20:08 |
Link to this message
|
Small update. I just got 'Regcure' and scanned my PC and found 867 problems :S. I tried running Bioshock after this and it no longer crashes and now runs, although not well.
if I increase the resolution to any more than 1280 x 720 The Frame Rate drops massively, at first I was trying to play the game with the settings on 'Low' (instead of High) and resolution on 1920 x 1200 (max monitor setting) and it made no difference, but as soon I reduced the resolution to 1280 x720 it ran smoother, so I put everything back up to 'High' and the frame rate seemed to hold at the same as it did when everything was on ?Low?...
so it seems to be some kind of resolution problem, I know my GPU can support much higher resolution than that and so can my monitor.
could this be a compatibility problem of some kind?
Also I got Crysis to run too, but once again it ?s only playable with the resolution set near what I was using for Bioshock, changing the texture or shading details etc don?t seem to effect the frame rate too much.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. November 2007 @ 20:10
|
|
Killjoy34
Newbie
|
19. November 2007 @ 22:21 |
Link to this message
|
you know i just bought an 8600gts 512mb and it is fantastic battlefield is on high the crysis demo is mostly high call of duty 4 is all highest...rome which doesnt have the best graphics but takes alot alot alot to run will run fantastic i dont have any problems
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
DMW
Member
|
20. November 2007 @ 20:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
@hyrukante
Glad you found a semi-cure for the issues.
With regards to your resolution, running lower will certainly improve your frame rates as you are basically asking the card to fill less space with the textures. So a trade off with low res and higher details may help for a while.
@Killjoy34
Not often you hear an 8600 card called fantastic, although the GTS is a faster version than the GT so I would expect you to be happier.
Not viable in my eyes, but the only reason being is over here (UK) the 8800GT 521MB is only about £40 more and a much better option.
Regardless, if you enjoy the game the eye candy can always wait, no matter how good they look.....no-one would believe how long my Geforce4 MX440 lasted me lol.
|
