Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

GTX 460 and FFXIVFollow

#1 Nov 03 2010 at 11:22 AM Rating: Decent
26 posts
Hello, I'm using an EVGA GTX 460 1GB with windows 7 64 bit 8GB RAM and a phenom II 965 @ 3.8GHz. FFXIV runs great with most settings maxed but I decided to monitor my GPU while playing last night and noticed that while running through towns my fps will drop to arround 35 and my GPU usage is only at 55%. This isn't cool. Anyone else notice this? (Using the latest driver)
#2 Nov 03 2010 at 12:38 PM Rating: Default
**
518 posts
overclock your 460: fixed
#3 Nov 03 2010 at 1:43 PM Rating: Decent
*
222 posts
I was planning on buying a 460, are you saying you are not using your cards potential and overclocking will fix that?
____________________________

[ffxivsig]1781845[/ffxivsig]
#4 Nov 03 2010 at 1:50 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
55 posts
it makes sense that fps would drop in towns since there are more details to load and more players to load, can't expect the same fps as it is in the field, especially if you are running the game on standard/high settings, i have the exact same cpu and gpu as you and experience the same problem although i don't think the gpu is running at 100% even when the game hits max fps (60hz monitor)... might be because parts of the gpu is reserved for other applications running in the background (like windows aero, especially if you are running at windowed mode), my other theory is that it might be running low to not overheat (the fan is pretty loud) and not to suck up all the power from the psu
#5 Nov 03 2010 at 2:02 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
Something in the last few drivers has caused my SLI'd 470s to do something similar. I used to get near or above 90% usage and higher FPS with max settings. The newer drivers have mostly similar FPS but alot lower usage percengantage and a lot more fluctuation to include frame spikes. Outside of town I'm still getting max 59/60 fps, in town it's completely random.

I'd try rolling back to 3 drivers ago (ignoring the Beta drivers). Personally it doesn't bother me, but it may fix your issues.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#6 Nov 03 2010 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
26 posts
I did overclock the 460 to 850/1700/2000 and outside im at a constant 60 fps (vertical sync on) and I understand the drop in fps while in town but I would expect to see a big jump in GPU usage with the drop in fps instead of it hanging arround 40% to 55%. I will do a full driver clean and install when I get off work, maybe something got buggy with it.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2010 4:24pm by psychoholick
#7 Nov 03 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
**
291 posts
How is your CPU usage in town?
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1808496[/ffxivsig]
#8 Nov 03 2010 at 8:30 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,431 posts
run the FFXIV benchmark

Benchmarks are very important when gauging your system. They provide synthetic evidence of how your system performs. We’re lucky enough that SE has provide a FF specific benchmark for FFXI and now FFXIV, otherwise you're stuck with 3dmark.

FFXIV is a beast! For example, I was able to run AION, a recent so call “graphic intensive” MMORPG on the Alienware m11x at a steady 40 FPS in town and 45~50 FPS elsewhere. The m11x stands NO CHANCE in FFXIV. Much of this is due to poor Japanese programming and don’t get your hope up that a driver will fix it all :)

However, I’m running a very similar setup, and from your post I think you’re getting about the right framerates. If you don’t like it, I’d just go for the GTX 480, or SLI your GTX 460.

Some notes: movies (including blu-ray) run at 24 FPS. Broadcast television (including cable and satellite) run at 30 FPS. “Most” human beings eyes are not advanced enough to see above 40FPS (if you insist you see better, you have a genetic mutation at best), however, 60FPS is the de-facto standard for “perfect” gameplay. Many PS3 and XBOX 360 games only run at 30 FPS.
#9 Nov 03 2010 at 9:08 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
*
86 posts
NayliaMR wrote:
How is your CPU usage in town?


my bet that CPU run around 95%+
that could do a bottleneck on the gpu in town

sideways wrote:


FFXIV is a beast! For example, I was able to run AION, a recent so call “graphic intensive” MMORPG on the Alienware m11x at a steady 40 FPS in town and 45~50 FPS elsewhere. The m11x stands NO CHANCE in FFXIV. Much of this is due to poor Japanese programming and don’t get your hope up that a driver will fix it all :)

However, I’m running a very similar setup, and from your post I think you’re getting about the right framerates. If you don’t like it, I’d just go for the GTX 480, or SLI your GTX 460.



You cant compare Aion and FFXIV
AoC and FFXIV would be a better comparison due to both use DX9 (Aoc now use DX10 but it was DX9 at launch) and DX9 is the main problem why that game is so damned hard to run.

As for the gtx480 is the baddest move you could possibly do $/performance even more that gtx460 x2 is like the best $$/performance you can get atm

#10 Nov 03 2010 at 9:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,431 posts
Quote:
As for the gtx480 is the baddest move you could possibly do $/performance even more that gtx460 x2 is like the best $$/performance you can get atm


I agree with you, and take a look at the GTX 470m (laptop) price differance!!! I ordered one anyway, $400 more than the 460m... but honestly if you cannot affort this, you cannot affort to play FFXIV at great frame rates yet.
To think in just 2 years we will laugh at this post and a $75 GFX card will play the game fine^^

PS: m11x palys AoC fine, but when i said "no chance to play FFXIV" i mean it scored 1000 on the benchmark. (i got it up to 1567 OC'd) it was 10 FPS in town or by a crystal, ~20 elsewhere... at least i can pull 30 FPS on AoC on this thing.

forgivers wrote:
and DX9 is the main problem why that game is so damned hard to run.

sideways wrote:
Much of this is due to poor Japanese programming and don’t get your hope up that a driver will fix it all :)

Ya, I think we agree on this!


PS: if you were running an i5 or i7 processor there are problems with getting turbo to enable stedy while gaming. this can be fixed by adjusting the TDP and TDC values. i only have i7 on my 2 (soon to be 3) laptops and this trick works well. but it sounds like you're in the same boat as i am with the desktop... i went for the 6 core AMD and it just fails when compaired to the i7... if you can still return the MoBo and CPU, i would ^^ Also, trying running at < 1080 or 1200p, SE "recommend" system config is based on 720p :(




Edited, Nov 3rd 2010 11:43pm by sideways
#11 Nov 03 2010 at 9:48 PM Rating: Default
**
608 posts
select the ffxivgame.exe profile in your nvidia settings, and depending on your monitor you might have to turn your v-sync & triple buffer on in the control panel, this driver sucks.

Quote:
As for the gtx480 is the baddest move you could possibly do $/performance even more that gtx460 x2 is like the best $$/performance you can get atm

i have to say BULLsh*t im running 2 my pc. gtx460 been striped way down compared to a gtx480. dont hate what you dont have, if you had one you wouldnt say that after seeing it first hand. gtx460 is garbage reason its so cheap. the stuff in bold if you want preformance vs price thats what ATI is for.



Edited, Nov 3rd 2010 11:49pm by mitmystria
#12 Nov 03 2010 at 10:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
421 posts
sideways wrote:
[quote]


PS: if you were running an i5 or i7 processor there are problems with getting turbo to enable stedy while gaming. this can be fixed by adjusting the TDP and TDC values. i only have i7 on my 2 (soon to be 3) laptops and this trick works well. but it sounds like you're in the same boat as i am with the desktop... i went for the 6 core AMD and it just fails when compaired to the i7... if you can still return the MoBo and CPU, i would ^^ Also, trying running at < 1080 or 1200p, SE "recommend" system config is based on 720p :(




Edited, Nov 3rd 2010 11:43pm by sideways


so what you're saying is he should spend about another $200 for a motherboard and processor when the card is only running at 55%. his cpu is not bottlenecking that card.

my 955 at 3.8 runs my 5870 at almost full load, the game's optimization is just messed up. it could be a driver problem or something he just overlooked.


Edited, Nov 4th 2010 12:36am by Lafaiel
____________________________

#13 Nov 03 2010 at 11:18 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
*
86 posts
mitmystria wrote:
select the ffxivgame.exe profile in your nvidia settings, and depending on your monitor you might have to turn your v-sync & triple buffer on in the control panel, this driver sucks.

Quote:
As for the gtx480 is the baddest move you could possibly do $/performance even more that gtx460 x2 is like the best $$/performance you can get atm

i have to say BULLsh*t im running 2 my pc. gtx460 been striped way down compared to a gtx480. dont hate what you dont have, if you had one you wouldnt say that after seeing it first hand. gtx460 is garbage reason its so cheap. the stuff in bold if you want preformance vs price thats what ATI is for.



Edited, Nov 3rd 2010 11:49pm by mitmystria


where did i said i hated the gtx480? let me explain it clearly so you might understand

gtx460 x2 in sli beat a single gtx480 in every bench. go out take a look and think about it

Now as for the $$/performance the gtx460 is alot better then gtx480 as you can get more performance for less $$$$

as for the gtx460 being garbage, its a nice try ... Not sure what was your point, but next time you want to rate down, be sure you know what you talking about !


#14 Nov 04 2010 at 12:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
55 posts
mitmystria wrote:
select the ffxivgame.exe profile in your nvidia settings, and depending on your monitor you might have to turn your v-sync & triple buffer on in the control panel, this driver sucks.

Quote:
As for the gtx480 is the baddest move you could possibly do $/performance even more that gtx460 x2 is like the best $$/performance you can get atm

i have to say BULLsh*t im running 2 my pc. gtx460 been striped way down compared to a gtx480. dont hate what you dont have, if you had one you wouldnt say that after seeing it first hand. gtx460 is garbage reason its so cheap. the stuff in bold if you want preformance vs price thats what ATI is for.



Edited, Nov 3rd 2010 11:49pm by mitmystria

it makes more sense for him to SLI another 460 rather thank dump the 460 for a 480, adding a 460=$200 vs getting a 480=$500, and im pretty sure 2 460s will be very similar performance to 480... normally on these forums i suggest single 480 if they can afford it, so they have an option to SLI later on, but since he already has a 460, no reason to throw it away... just because you are rich with your 480 doesn't mean 460 is garbage, its a great card and it'll perform just like your 480 in most of the game (besides towns) for $300 dollars less
#15mitmystria, Posted: Nov 04 2010 at 2:07 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) i know what im talking about, and you you do? well you havent said anything why. it a weaker card not just by speed or ram, its lacking cores. gpu & cpu's are rated by how much they can take before there locked into there safe operating speed, this was a 480 gpu that could of been but couldnt handle the stress so they made it over all weaker anytime you by a sub model of any chip your just buying stuff that they would of scraped 10 years ago, but now they know they can still sell it. you name it nvidia, intel, amd & ati thats why there are so many different chips per-architecture these days, and it not because they want you to have a computer.
#16 Nov 04 2010 at 3:42 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
421 posts
while you guys are talking about sli, you're forgetting that he's running an AMD cpu, if its an amd chipset on the board it does not support sli natively.
____________________________

#17 Nov 04 2010 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
55 posts
mitmystria wrote:
Quote:
as for the gtx460 being garbage, its a nice try ... Not sure what was your point, but next time you want to rate down, be sure you know what you talking about !

i know what im talking about, and you you do? well you havent said anything why. it a weaker card not just by speed or ram, its lacking cores. gpu & cpu's are rated by how much they can take before there locked into there safe operating speed, this was a 480 gpu that could of been but couldnt handle the stress so they made it over all weaker anytime you by a sub model of any chip your just buying stuff that they would of scraped 10 years ago, but now they know they can still sell it. you name it nvidia, intel, amd & ati thats why there are so many different chips per-architecture these days, and it not because they want you to have a computer.


just because it isn't as good as one of the best in the market doesn't mean its crap, do you go around telling everyone to buy a ferrari because all the other cars are not as good?
#18 Nov 04 2010 at 11:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
*
86 posts
mitmystria wrote:
Quote:
as for the gtx460 being garbage, its a nice try ... Not sure what was your point, but next time you want to rate down, be sure you know what you talking about !

i know what im talking about, and you you do? well you havent said anything why. it a weaker card not just by speed or ram, its lacking cores. gpu & cpu's are rated by how much they can take before there locked into there safe operating speed, this was a 480 gpu that could of been but couldnt handle the stress so they made it over all weaker anytime you by a sub model of any chip your just buying stuff that they would of scraped 10 years ago, but now they know they can still sell it. you name it nvidia, intel, amd & ati thats why there are so many different chips per-architecture these days, and it not because they want you to have a computer.


It true that gtx460 is gtx480 gpu that couldn't make it but in the end the $$$/fps is what i look at to claim garbage or not. For the gtx 480, that card consume so much energy and remain very hot, i wouldn't be surprise to see them break all of sudden after 1 years of use.

Hardware part of your post is true, it's your opinion that is garbage here not the card
#19 Nov 04 2010 at 1:27 PM Rating: Default
26 posts
Ok let try to answer some questions. My CPU in town never goes above 50%, my chipset is the nvidia 980a, my CPU is not bottlenecking the card. I always force Vsync on and I cleaned and re-installed the driver. I have not tried to mess with triple buffering yet. The game runs fine with no stuttering so I guess I'll just say ***** it and hopefully a game patch or next nvidia driver update will fix the GPU utilization.
#20 Nov 04 2010 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,431 posts
CPU / GPU utilization is not a good gauge, frequency and CPU efficiency is what you're after. Please run the benchmark and review your score. It will really help you figure how the game "should" run.
I run the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T and a single GTX 460 and have very similar results to you. I've concluded that OCing the GPU is almost pointless, but I so much as push the FSB at total of 150Mhz (X6 of course) and my benchmark goes up more than expected. The game is just a beast to run...
#21 Nov 04 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
421 posts
psychoholick wrote:
Ok let try to answer some questions. My CPU in town never goes above 50%, my chipset is the nvidia 980a, my CPU is not bottlenecking the card. I always force Vsync on and I cleaned and re-installed the driver. I have not tried to mess with triple buffering yet. The game runs fine with no stuttering so I guess I'll just say ***** it and hopefully a game patch or next nvidia driver update will fix the GPU utilization.


triple buffering, make sure its on, it can cause a large drop in fps as opposed to without, I read the explanation a long time ago but I can't remember the exact wording, but instead of just dropping a few frames it can drop by almost 50%.

(also, you should have gotten the 890FX chipset ... I know I know, it makes me as bad the the guys that say get an i7 but you can call me an amd fanboy.)


Edited, Nov 4th 2010 5:51pm by Lafaiel
____________________________

#22 Nov 04 2010 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*
140 posts
i only get 11-18 fps in town with a intel core 2 quad Q9400 2.7 ghz geforce 465 gtx 1gb OC'd 750/1760/1520 4gb DDR2 ram 800 mhz and windows 7 64 bit, i dont know why its so low. textures highest shaddws highest 1920x1080 res. i should be able to handle that easily i would think
____________________________
http://xivpads.com/?1337008
[ffxivsig]1790977[/ffxivsig]
i7 950 3.2 ghz, 6gb Corsair XMS3 @1600 MHZ, 580 gtx, asus sabertooth X58
#23 Nov 04 2010 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
421 posts
shady113 wrote:
i only get 11-18 fps in town with a intel core 2 quad Q9400 2.7 ghz geforce 465 gtx 1gb OC'd 750/1760/1520 4gb DDR2 ram 800 mhz and windows 7 64 bit, i dont know why its so low. textures highest shaddws highest 1920x1080 res. i should be able to handle that easily i would think


now that might actually be your cpu bottlenecking the gpu, the more powerful cards tend to like faster processors.

but still, 11-18 is a bit low even for that.
____________________________

#24 Nov 04 2010 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
42 posts
Lafaiel wrote:
shady113 wrote:
i only get 11-18 fps in town with a intel core 2 quad Q9400 2.7 ghz geforce 465 gtx 1gb OC'd 750/1760/1520 4gb DDR2 ram 800 mhz and windows 7 64 bit, i dont know why its so low. textures highest shaddws highest 1920x1080 res. i should be able to handle that easily i would think


now that might actually be your cpu bottlenecking the gpu, the more powerful cards tend to like faster processors.

but still, 11-18 is a bit low even for that.


Tom's Hardware would seem to agree with you (depending on how high-end the 465 is):

http://media.bestofmicro.com/G/I/246834/original/Total-FPS.png
____________________________
[ffxivsig]421396[/ffxivsig]
#25 Nov 05 2010 at 12:38 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*
140 posts
so then would putting my old 250 gts 512 mb back in be better?
____________________________
http://xivpads.com/?1337008
[ffxivsig]1790977[/ffxivsig]
i7 950 3.2 ghz, 6gb Corsair XMS3 @1600 MHZ, 580 gtx, asus sabertooth X58
#26 Nov 05 2010 at 1:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
*
86 posts
Nope that not your problem you arent bottleneck, town are **** even for high end pc

my friend have an i5 760 at 4.2Ghz, 4g ddr3, SSD raid, gtx 460x2 Sli and he get 35fps in town at max


Edited, Nov 5th 2010 3:06pm by forgivers
#27 Nov 05 2010 at 4:15 PM Rating: Decent
26 posts
When I ran the benchmark I scored somewhere in the 4100 range with my overclocks a few days before the general release. This is on low because my monitor will not go to 1080 anyway. 1680x1050
Oh, and I'm on a 10Mb internet connection.

Edited, Nov 5th 2010 6:16pm by psychoholick
#28 Nov 05 2010 at 10:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
421 posts
psychoholick wrote:
When I ran the benchmark I scored somewhere in the 4100 range with my overclocks a few days before the general release. This is on low because my monitor will not go to 1080 anyway. 1680x1050
Oh, and I'm on a 10Mb internet connection.

Edited, Nov 5th 2010 6:16pm by psychoholick


Psycho, did you try the triple buffer yet? at 1680x1050 it should not be that low fps with your setup.


@shady113, if you're thinking about putting your 250 back in, personally I would invest in a little better cooling and OC your cpu, begrudgeingly I have to say the intel cpu's overclock and perform like fiends. you should be able to get 3.2/3.4 on that cpu pretty easy with a good cooler. just check out overclockers.com or xtremesystems.com for some guides. I prefer overclockers.come because they are really helpful.

@ forgivers. as for the card not being bottlenecked, if I were to run 3dmark06 at 2.7 and then 3.2 with the same card. but got higher scores in the graphics section with the higher cpu speed, why would that even happen?




Edited, Nov 6th 2010 12:41am by Lafaiel
____________________________

This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)