Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Sli GTX580's 25FPSFollow

#1 Jan 30 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Decent
35 posts
I am getting some very disappointing frame rates. Can anyone give up some suggestions on how to get what I know this machine should be capable of?
I have all settings set to max settings with AO and DoF off. I am still getting only 25 fps.

2 GTX 580's .
AMD 965 black edition 3.4 ghz quad core (no overclock yet).
8 gb ddr3 1600.
MSI NF980-G65 AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a sli ready motherboard.
1200 watt power supply .
graphics drivers are current as of this morning.
Reinstalled FFXIV and still having problems.

I am going to try putting a slight overclock on my processor and see if that changes anything.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1808017[/ffxivsig]
#2 Jan 30 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
**
395 posts
The GTX 580 can -not- handle max settings at 60 fps.
You -need- to lower "General Drawing Quality" to about 8.

You can leave background drawing quality at 5.

I play with these settings at 60 FPS at all times:
Windowed
1920x1080
4xMSAA
8 General
5 Background
Shadow: Highest
Depth of Field on
Ambient Occlusion Off
Texture Quality High
Texture Filtering Highest


I really didn't notice a difference in graphical quality with higher than 4x AA at 1080p. You may notice it on an extremely large TV, but on a 24" the FPS drop was not worth whatever small update.

You may be fine with 8x AA though but don't expect 60 FPS with 16xQ CSAA.

The GTX 580s are just not powerful enough to go absolute max settings and maintain a constant 60 FPS, in sli in theory they should be, but no MMO is very SLI-Efficient, and while FFXIV does see a major benefit from SLI, it's not enough to run everything on absolute max settings.

Also, try making sure your running a 64-bit OS, like Windows 7 64-bit, and that you don't have anything open in the background, like Firefox. Internet Browsers use a lot more GPU memory than you would think, especially if you have a flash file in the background. (Yeah those youtube videos may have 80+ meg loaded into gpu memory).

Before you can expect to have all settings maxed out, and have a constant 60 FPS in ul'dah, I'd say your waiting for the GTX 780.

You can also try overclocking your CPU, it may reduce the bottleneck. I noticed that when I overclocked my i7 920 from 2.66 to 4.2ghz that I was able to score 7250 on the benchmark using SLI GTX 480s, whereas before that I had about 5900-6300 depending (it varies).

(Oh and I doubt your doing this but Nvidia 3D Vision halves your FPS. I go from 60 FPS to 30-35 when I turn 3d vision on)

Edited, Jan 30th 2011 3:25pm by Eadieni
____________________________
[ffxivsig]364659[/ffxivsig]
http://www.prismaticllama.com/
http://www.sologensystems.com
The Prismatic Llama - Peru's llamas got nothing on us.
#3 Jan 30 2011 at 2:31 PM Rating: Decent
35 posts
I appreciate the quick response. I will try tweaking my settings to something a lil more manageable and see what happens.

For the record setting my cpu at 3.74ghz didn't change anything.

Not 3D yet. Now questioning if my idea of going surround vision will work on this rig without a 3rd card.

Thanks again,
Grego.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1808017[/ffxivsig]
#4 Jan 30 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
35 posts
Getting 54-60 FPS with the settings you recommended (except general at 9). This is with the cpu oc. may take it up to 4ghz later.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1808017[/ffxivsig]
#5 Jan 30 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
You put SLI 580's in a machine with a Phenom II 965?

Seriously?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#6 Jan 30 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Good
**
415 posts
The GTX 580 CAN play the game at max settings and 60 FPS. Not consistent, as it'll probably dip down to about 40 FPS in town and crowded areas, but especially with an SLI setup, your cards can handle the game with all eyecandy turned to max.

The problem is your CPU. It's WAY underpowered for those two GPU's. Check your GPU usage and you'll likely see only around 30-40%, due to the CPU bottleneck. You'll want that at 90% for at least your primary GPU. Try running only one 580 until you upgrade your CPU or something.
#7 Jan 30 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
**
353 posts
The people posting in this thread is a joke. No IS CPU IS NOT THE BOTTLENECK. Wow, go do MORE research from Tomshardware please before u make false facts. To the last poster, the GPU is running at 99% on mine and oh guess what I have an AMD 1090T. The issue stems from the fact that sli isnt utilized well and because maxing settings in a game that isnt optimized will be impossible with stable fps at all times.
#8 Jan 30 2011 at 5:01 PM Rating: Decent
*
127 posts
Everything max except

General drawing at 8
Ambient occlusion off

You have 60 fps now
#9 Jan 30 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
35 posts

I am aware that my cards drastically overshadow my cpu. The system will be liquid cooled soon with a substantial OC. If necessary I can always get a new mobo and i7 later.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1808017[/ffxivsig]
#10 Jan 30 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
cdteurosport wrote:

I am aware that my cards drastically overshadow my cpu. The system will be liquid cooled soon with a substantial OC. If necessary I can always get a new mobo and i7 later.
Save the liquid cooling, you won't need it with a sandy bridge processor anyway.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#11 Jan 30 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
447 posts
I have 2 480s in SLI, and I found that turning Shadow Quality to High instead of Highest made more of a difference than turning general down from 10 to 8.

I have an i7 930 and OCing it does also make a big difference
____________________________
Djigga, please. Highland Hyurs can't jump.

[ffxivsig]1807250[/ffxivsig]
#12 Jan 30 2011 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
*
230 posts
Ok.. some input from people that overclock.

your 3.4ghz can't handle your 580's. You're bottlenecked.

I'm maxed out competely in game with all AA and everything 1920X1080.

I get 45-60fps

But my i7 920 is at 4.2ghz.

overclock your cpu ^_^
#13 Jan 30 2011 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
**
395 posts
Some of y'all don't understand that when you say a card can not handle 60 FPS at max settings, it doesn't mean there aren't conditions it can handle it, it's the average FPS.

For example, in Lotro if I go into my house, and look at the floor, I get 400 FPS, but if I go to town I get about 75 FPS. That does not mean I get 400 FPS. ****, at the title screen my FPS is over 3000. Again, does not mean during regular gameplay I should tell people they can expect 3000 FPS. It's the average normal use FPS.

Average normal gameplay FPS using his settings was 25 FPS, when he said that, I didn't assume he doesn't get 60 FPS in some small parts of the world when hes by himself with no NPCs, and I assume he meant during normal gameplay he averages 25.

Glad your settings improved, but do remember that more powerful GPUs use more CPU resources. A great example of this is Everquest II. That game is largely CPU dependent, and in fact, the more powerful your graphics card is, the slower the game runs. It's ideal for a 7900GTX but upgrading to a 8800GTX, GTX 280, GTX 480, my performance got worse each upgrade. (Yes I played EQ2, so what?)
55-60 FPS is definitely enjoyable settings.

If you had an i7 I think you'd be very happy with your results during gameplay.
Also, Imaboomer the Troll, just because the CPU usage is not 100% does not mean the CPU isn't contributing to lower FPS. As I said, even though my CPU usage isn't 100%, overclocking from 2.66 to 4.2 gave me an extra 1000 to my benchmark score. It won't double your FPS unless your CPU usage is actually at 100%, but it does seem to help. With that said, upgrading from GTX 280s sli to GTX 480s sli I went from a benchmark score of 4600 to in the 6000s.


As for 3D Vision, the game looks absolutely amazing in 3D. Every piece of the game is 3D, even the menus and names and damage above players head. It's great, and the best looking game I've played with it. If you have the means I'd strongly recommend it, but you -will- have to lower your settings a good deal to get enjoyable frames. I can't speak for everyone but I know my eyes got tired of watching it with the FPS at 30, I try not to run 3D unless I can keep the FPS above 60 while 3D is on (Usually 120 without it, but you also require a 120hz monitor :P). I've never tried surround vision, not because I don't have multiple 3D devices but because I always thought I'd hate seeing half a menu cut off on one screen and half on the other. Think it'd be weird to see your character split between two monitors :D If it works for you by all means take a picture and show us your setup and tell the community how you like it :)
____________________________
[ffxivsig]364659[/ffxivsig]
http://www.prismaticllama.com/
http://www.sologensystems.com
The Prismatic Llama - Peru's llamas got nothing on us.
#14 Jan 30 2011 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
35 posts
I am referring to 3 monitor surround. where you get ambient scenery on the sids with menus not impeding the view in the center monitor.

I am thrilled to hear that the 3d works so well though. I have not heard much about anyone running it, so that is great.

I do intend on going 3x sli when funds permit. is the i7 really worth it FOR ME considering i can get a 6 core AMD that runs 3.3ghz for $750 less than the 980x with the same stats. I would also need a new mobo for the I7. I know the I7 is the better chip but is it worth the extra $1000 it would cost me to convert?

I guess i should state that my long term goal for this rig is 3 monitors with the option for 3d if it continues getting endorsements like the one earlier in the post.

(Am I posting this stuff in the correct forum?)
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1808017[/ffxivsig]
#15 Jan 30 2011 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
**
395 posts
Oh that would be an interesting setup.
If I had the 3 monitors I'd probably move things like my chat window to the left side of the screen, have my hotbar in the middle, maps on the right, etc.

As for upgrading, well, if you can get the AMD 6 core with your same motherboard do that.
The Intel vs AMD thing is kinda pointless.

If you are trying to buy a whole new setup, I can't tell you which one is better, only that I am very happy with the performance of an i7, and that it overclocks very well.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]364659[/ffxivsig]
http://www.prismaticllama.com/
http://www.sologensystems.com
The Prismatic Llama - Peru's llamas got nothing on us.
#16 Jan 30 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
17 posts
I had a similar issue when setting up my rig op. Wish some one responded so fast to me about the drawing quality LOL. Took me some time to figure out and It fixed my issue and I am running 60fps with 470sli and a 955amd clocked to 3.8ghz. I got a lot of troll posts as well about going Intel. Is it seriously the only option? I know its better but I am seeing great results with my and rig.
No 7k scores on the benchmark though. :)
#17 Jan 31 2011 at 2:51 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
cdteurosport wrote:
I am referring to 3 monitor surround. where you get ambient scenery on the sids with menus not impeding the view in the center monitor.

I am thrilled to hear that the 3d works so well though. I have not heard much about anyone running it, so that is great.

I do intend on going 3x sli when funds permit. is the i7 really worth it FOR ME considering i can get a 6 core AMD that runs 3.3ghz for $750 less than the 980x with the same stats. I would also need a new mobo for the I7. I know the I7 is the better chip but is it worth the extra $1000 it would cost me to convert?

I guess i should state that my long term goal for this rig is 3 monitors with the option for 3d if it continues getting endorsements like the one earlier in the post.

(Am I posting this stuff in the correct forum?)
"The same stats" is a really loaded term, because they run on significantly different architectures. My laptop i7-2630QM can benchmark scores on par with the average i7-950 (a desktop processor) despite having a significantly lower clock speed, because there are many other factors involved despite both being Intel Core processors even. The 2630 is the second generation of Core processors featuring a new architecture (the 'Tick' in Intel's Tick-Tock development method). So you can't just look at cores and clock speed and think that they'll perform at the same level, or even that one will perform equally better in one scenario as it does in any scenario.

Also, now would be a good time to throw in the garbage any ideas of buying a 980x, and this really does apply to basically everyone. The i7-2600k runs very close to the i7-980x in terms of performance and it does it with fewer cores and a lower TDP, which is always a nice benefit because it overclocks well on air cooling alone. Not only that, but it's also about 1/3rd the price. I honestly would not recommend buying any Intel processor that is not a Sandy Bridge at this point, because the performance per dollar gap is massive and the performance gap is tiny even when comparing a performance 2nd gen i7 to the flagship extreme 1st gen i7. The best 1st gen processor in that price range is the i7-875k and the 2600k is definitively more powerful.

Sorry, just had to get that out. Unless the 980x drops in price about 60% there really isn't a reason to buy it over a 2600k if you need a new mobo either way. Maybe you're so rich that the marginal performance difference is worth throwing a large wad of DOSH at, but if that's the case, feel free to also mail me $700 because I'd like some extra money to help pay for my summer semester.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#18 Jan 31 2011 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
**
415 posts
Imaboomer wrote:
The people posting in this thread is a joke. No IS CPU IS NOT THE BOTTLENECK. Wow, go do MORE research from Tomshardware please before u make false facts. To the last poster, the GPU is running at 99% on mine and oh guess what I have an AMD 1090T. The issue stems from the fact that sli isnt utilized well and because maxing settings in a game that isnt optimized will be impossible with stable fps at all times.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

I guarantee the CPU is a bottleneck for those cards. I've tested the difference countless times with similar hardware. A quad core is unlikely to bottleneck a single card, but these are two high end cards running on a dated processor. Slap an i7 on and see for yourself.

****, I can see a 10-15 FPS difference overclocking a Q9650 using a single GTX 480 (denoting a bottleneck), and that CPU is no joke. I wouldn't fool myself into thinking it has the power to run two of them.

Edited, Jan 31st 2011 2:32pm by SoumaKyou
#19 Jan 31 2011 at 2:05 PM Rating: Decent
*
157 posts
No need to speculate.... get some logging done. i use Everest 5.0, but I'm sure there's a number of programs than can write detailed logs with voltages, cpu usage, %memory and gpu usage/temps.

I have a E8400 Core Duo and it is close to pinned. 2x HD3870s (VisionTek) that are 75-99% in use.

Had to use a custom profiler to get Xfire working right and tweak my OC a bit.

I run 4xAA and 8 Quality, rest maxed, no occlusion.

No framerate slow-downs .... unless theres a ton of people and its raining in-game >.>

Heading to Sandy Bridge real soon. Any advice on a kickass board for the socket 1155?
____________________________
[center][img]http://ff14sp.com/tools/lodestone_data/imgs/Aleister Crowley Bodhum 3 Legacy.png[/img][/center]
#20 Jan 31 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
SpelunkerOne wrote:
Heading to Sandy Bridge real soon. Any advice on a kickass board for the socket 1155?
There were a couple Gigabyte models I had scoped out a couple days ago on Newegg but they've since been marked as deactivated. In fact, they only have 9 LGA 1155 motherboards listed right now. Not sure what happened there. ASUS has been having BIOS issues on the 1155 boards from what I've seen so far, they look a bit too hit-and-miss for the moment until they can release a more reliable BIOS.

EDIT: This is the flagship Gigabyte board I was talking about on Amazon. It is extremely OC friendly and top of the pack of current LGA 1155 boards. If the price range is a bit too steep but you're still looking for a performance mobo I'd go with the UD4 instead. No idea why they and most other LGA 1155 socket mobos vanished from Newegg.

Edited, Jan 31st 2011 2:33pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#21 Jan 31 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
**
395 posts
Until recently I'd always been happy with Asus or Evga, now I'd say go with eVGA.

I had MAJOR issues with my P6T, and they weren't just my issues but the entire community, and from what I heard those same issues carried over into other mobos as well and took years to fix. (Well, beyond one year).

The issue I had was you could not boot with 12 GB of ram, Windows 7, and 3 PCIe slots used (Could be 2 graphics cards and an X-Fi), the OS wouldn't hang it would just move at glacial speeds, like, 6 hours to boot up. No joke.
You had to use 6gb of ram or take out a graphics card.

An oversight that bad, and it took 8 bios revisions to get it fixed, there were hundreds of threads complaining about it.

Also, Asus website is painfully slow, and often won't load because too many users. They've always lacked bandwidth for years, if you finally do get it to load driver downloads are often below 40kbps.

Lastly Asus warranty is 3 years tops, eVGA has lifetime warranties.

So, I'd say go with eVGA because you get the lifetime warranty, and if you ever do have problems, they Cross-Ship. So they mail you a new one before you send your old one back (and charge you full price if you don't send it back). XFX has quality boards too, but they do not cross ship.
XFX does however, have what they call a Double Lifetime warranty, which specifically says you can transfer the warranty to someone else if you sell your parts.

Gigabyte is slowly coming up in quality, but they tend to be slow with new driver or bios updates. I suppose another way you could look at it is they don't need them as often.

Edit:
http://www.evga.com/articles/00604/
That's the board I would buy if I didn't already have a 920 that I'm happy with.
That or the Classified version, but I think that's the right price range there.
If you don't already have an i7 920 or something definitely buy a Sandy Bridge series, they are cheaper, and way faster.


Edited, Jan 31st 2011 3:54pm by Eadieni
____________________________
[ffxivsig]364659[/ffxivsig]
http://www.prismaticllama.com/
http://www.sologensystems.com
The Prismatic Llama - Peru's llamas got nothing on us.
#22 Jan 31 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
157 posts
Wow that truly is a badass board. I haven't been happy with my last ASUS board, so I am willing to go Gigabyte!

Thanks man.
____________________________
[center][img]http://ff14sp.com/tools/lodestone_data/imgs/Aleister Crowley Bodhum 3 Legacy.png[/img][/center]
#23 Jan 31 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
SpelunkerOne wrote:
I haven't been happy with my last ASUS board
Kinda disappointed in ASUS lately myself. The ASUS mobo in my last desktop always performed admirably and was a breeze to OC, but after having issues with their other products and hearing systematic issues across their new mobos... just disappointed.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#24 Feb 01 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
***
1,606 posts
bsphil wrote:
SpelunkerOne wrote:
Heading to Sandy Bridge real soon. Any advice on a kickass board for the socket 1155?
There were a couple Gigabyte models I had scoped out a couple days ago on Newegg but they've since been marked as deactivated. In fact, they only have 9 LGA 1155 motherboards listed right now. Not sure what happened there. ASUS has been having BIOS issues on the 1155 boards from what I've seen so far, they look a bit too hit-and-miss for the moment until they can release a more reliable BIOS.

EDIT: This is the flagship Gigabyte board I was talking about on Amazon. It is extremely OC friendly and top of the pack of current LGA 1155 boards. If the price range is a bit too steep but you're still looking for a performance mobo I'd go with the UD4 instead. No idea why they and most other LGA 1155 socket mobos vanished from Newegg.

Edited, Jan 31st 2011 2:33pm by bsphil

Looks like a problem with some of the boards using the sandy bridge.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/31/intel-finds-sandy-bridge-chipset-design-flaw-shipments-stopped/

From article:
Quote:
Update: Jimmy sent us a chat log with an Intel customer service representative indicating that this recall only affects "some desktop boards based on Intel P67 chipset," that the H67 chipset boards appear to not be affected, but that the company doesn't have a comprehensive list yet. We've certainly seen cases where CSRs don't have all the info in this sort of situation, but still we'd advise waiting a bit before tearing your new mobo out and bringing it back to the store.

Probably just taking them down until it can be checked out.

Intel's Press Release

Edited, Feb 1st 2011 9:59am by MrTalos
#25 Feb 01 2011 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
*
79 posts
you better read the news

ALL sandy bridge boards have a faulty SATA controller and have been recalled.

DO NOT BUY SB NOW, I REPEAT DO NOT BUY SB NOW.

wait for the fix then buy a motherboard with working SATA controller that doesnt degrade over time

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/02/01/intel-sandy-bridge-chipset-flaw/1

____________________________

[ffxivsig]1812367[/ffxivsig]
#26 Feb 01 2011 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Can't go wrong with Gigabyte boards. They have some of the best boards on the market, especially when you wanna overclock.
#27 Feb 01 2011 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
SpelunkerOne wrote:
No need to speculate.... get some logging done. i use Everest 5.0, but I'm sure there's a number of programs than can write detailed logs with voltages, cpu usage, %memory and gpu usage/temps.

I don't speculate. I use Everest and MSI Afterburner to log my usage.
#28 Feb 01 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
*
157 posts
Need data from the OP ^.^

This game is a friggin CPU hog though, no debate really needed on that.
____________________________
[center][img]http://ff14sp.com/tools/lodestone_data/imgs/Aleister Crowley Bodhum 3 Legacy.png[/img][/center]
#29 Feb 01 2011 at 11:19 PM Rating: Decent
**
588 posts
Try setting config to 4x or 8x AA

Alot of people find that these settings are way better then not using them at all which is weird but i fount it to improove my play with a Nvidia 450 GTS.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]290155[/ffxivsig]

Cornyboob Funnyname Wutai Phys 50 Conj 49 Weaver 49 LW 34 Alch 28 Pug 22 Archer 20 Glad 19 Thaum 20 GS 11 Bot 9 Miner 8 Shield 44 Maur 3

#30 Feb 02 2011 at 8:22 AM Rating: Decent
35 posts
I have ordered an 1100t for now. It was cheeper than doing a full Intel swap since it will work in the motherboard I am currently running. I will get a few benchmarks and in game FPS from before and after the swap so we can see how much of a difference the extra 2 cores make.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1808017[/ffxivsig]
#31 Feb 02 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
cdteurosport wrote:
1100t for now
The performance difference isn't worth the extra $40 over the 1090t, imo.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#32 Feb 03 2011 at 11:25 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
32 posts
I'm running dual GTX460s and generally performance is at 60fps.

The main problem was the GPU usage while in town, GPU usage would drop to about 40-50% on each card. If I turn SLI off then one card would go up to around 100% GPU usage and no difference in frame rate.

The weired thing is I tested these frame rates with the resolution to lowest and all settings off.
Then tried it again with all settings on at highest resolution (except for AO and DoF) and there was no difference in performance or GPU usage.

Outside town GPU usage is around 80-100% on both cards so I'm a tad bit baffled.
Anyone have any ideas?
#33 Feb 03 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Junghwa wrote:
I'm running dual GTX460s and generally performance is at 60fps.

The main problem was the GPU usage while in town, GPU usage would drop to about 40-50% on each card. If I turn SLI off then one card would go up to around 100% GPU usage and no difference in frame rate.

The weired thing is I tested these frame rates with the resolution to lowest and all settings off.
Then tried it again with all settings on at highest resolution (except for AO and DoF) and there was no difference in performance or GPU usage.

Outside town GPU usage is around 80-100% on both cards so I'm a tad bit baffled.
Anyone have any ideas?

What's your CPU? Sounds like a bottleneck to me.
#34 Feb 03 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
32 posts
Sorry, forgot to give more details haha;

CPU: i5-760 2.8ghz (have also tested with it bumped up to 3.8ghz and saw slightly better results but still GPU usage in town was bad).
GPU: GTX460 SLI
RAM: 4gb DDR3
#35 Feb 08 2011 at 1:24 PM Rating: Decent
1 post
OK, so reading through this thread has made me feel quite inadequate with my single GTX 470. If I were to upgrade, would I get better results in this game with a 2x 470 SLI setup, or a single 580?
#36 Feb 08 2011 at 1:28 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
2x 470s, but SLI can be a bit spotty sometimes.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#37 Feb 08 2011 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
2 470s is nice, you CAN play at near max settings with AO off @1920x1200 but your fans will need to be at or near 100%. Turn your fan profile on your single GTX470 to 100% using MSI Afterburner and make the choice for yourself.

As to upgrading from a 470... At this point in time it doesn't make sense. The 5XX series are slightly more powerful, quieter, and cooler BUT aren't worth the price of upgrade if you're coming from anything in the GTX 4XX line. Wait til AMD comes out with their latest and greatest and Nvidia responds, that'll drop the prices of most of the 5XX line slightly but personally I'll be waiting til the true next generation cards come along.
____________________________
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


#38 Feb 08 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Default
31 posts
Ok, ive been a technician for years now and i know exactly whats the problem...

Its your monitor!!! If you upgrade your screen size to a 28.5" monitor, your fps will skyrocket. That will eliminate your bottleneck easily.

Oh.. possibly upgrade your DVD drive as well...
#39 Feb 08 2011 at 10:58 PM Rating: Default
*
93 posts
I dont have any problems running this at 60fps(45-60 in crowded areas) and I run it on a Dell.
I have AO off as well as depth of field I keep general draw quality to 8 and the other (forgot what it was called) to 5 but everything else set to highest
My Dell has a AMD phenom2 965 3.0ghz CPU and a nvida 460gtx 1 gig GPU with 8gigs of ram

EDIT: just thought I would add as this may be the reason why I can I run this game on a 32" HDtv at 1380/768

Edited, Feb 9th 2011 12:14am by Rankin657
#40 Feb 08 2011 at 11:43 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Rankin657 wrote:
EDIT: just thought I would add as this may be the reason why I can I run this game on a 32" HDtv at 1380/768
That's a pretty important difference. Also, if it's an HDTV you'd probably want to be running it at 1280x720 or 1920x1080. Running on a non-native resolution only results in the image being scaled.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#41 Feb 09 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Default
*
93 posts
Nope I tried 1280x720 and the image was blurry I think 1360x768 is the native resolution since the image is clear and crisp
#42 Feb 10 2011 at 9:30 AM Rating: Decent
35 posts
I have held off of the new processor and decided to see how bad the performance drop would be with a 3D setup. There was NO performance drop in 3d vs 2d.

With gen drawing at 8, 2xaa, ao and dof off I get 60 fps out in field and 42 fps in uldah. I can even turn up the settings to 4xaa, gen drawing 9 ao on and dof on and get 45 fps in the field and 32fps in the city.

I am assuming the lack of performance drop in 3d may be in part to the 3d using previously bottlenecked port ins of the card but I am curious t hear some of your opinions on this situation. Whatever the reason is I am thrilled with the results the 3d looks amazing.

I still will be going to 3 monitors sometime soon so will be sure to let y'all know what that does to my fps. I am assuming that they will drop to the point I I'll need to look into replacing my processor. If it does get to that point I will make sure to do some substantial pre and post swap benchmarking to see what effects the extra 2 cores will have on the bottlenecking situation.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1808017[/ffxivsig]
#43 Jun 29 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
6 posts
hey guys, i'm having the same problem!

my specs are..

EVGA Nvidia 580 GTX x2 SLI
CPU = Intel i7 930 2.80 GHz
6gb DDR3 Ram
Motherboard = Gigabyte X58-USB3
Windows 7 64bit

I ran everything at max and its choppy as heck..also I have 7 fans in my case and i run SpeedFan program to make sure nothing is overheated which could be causing problems, everything is cool and at a good temperature..
i got the 275.50 beta drivers from Nvidia so my drivers are all up to date..my windows updates are all up to date..

what in gods name do i need to run this game at max! also i'm running all this in fullscreen mode..
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#44 Jun 29 2011 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
**
383 posts
Rankin657 wrote:
Nope I tried 1280x720 and the image was blurry I think 1360x768 is the native resolution since the image is clear and crisp


Same here. If you're using DVI/HDMI, your resolution will default to 1080i rather than 720p, (at least with 720p capable televisions.) 1280x720 may be supported with maybe a VGA output, but not with DVI or HDMI.

Edit: Didn't even notice the necro.:(

Edited, Jun 29th 2011 3:40pm by TurboTom
____________________________
This is my sig; Enjoy.
FFXIV: Tom Carroll - Excalibur
FC: Sitzkireg (www.sitzkrieg.guildwork.com)
#45 Jun 29 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
812 posts
I didn't read all the posts here, but there are a couple tricks I use to get better performance. First, go into your nvidia control panel and add a profile for ffxivgame.exe. Once you do that you'll have several options available. Setting your pre-rendered frames to 0 will give a decent performance boost. I've also set my vertical sync to off.

Edited, Jun 29th 2011 4:51pm by Jefro420
____________________________
Abaddon Active Player Roster
- All your Fabul Sever are belong to us! -

[ffxivsig]1815754[/ffxivsig]
#46 Jun 29 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
AJSephiroth wrote:
what in gods name do i need to run this game at max! also i'm running all this in fullscreen mode..


1st, before people karma bomb you for the necro post... Thank you so much for using the search feature

2nd, to answer your question... NOTHING (affordable) will run this game in high resolution at max settings. I would like to think that the mid-range cards of the next generation in multi-GPU form will handle the game... but definately nothing that's currently out. Unless you're running a liquid cooled dual or higher GPU config.

I can run the game on max settings with 2x 470 and AO off, but fans have to be at 100% which is completely unbearable. I would assume the same of any of the current top end cards when OC'd to the point where you get 60ish fps. For me I average about 40 when OC'd and full fans, but only for a few minutes.
____________________________
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


#47 Jun 29 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
6 posts
i jacked up all the settings except i disabled ambient occulsion, depth of field and general drawing i made 8 and i'm getting 60fps everywhere!
all settings maxed except for those 3
try it out guys!, its not super maxed out but as maxed as maxed can be at least lol..
____________________________
-->(33 Dark Knight)<--
-->(30 Warrior)<--
Main Job=34DRK/17War
Server:Alexander
Username:Ajsephiroth
#48 Jun 29 2011 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
The game isn't worth running at max anyway. Cut general drawing quality down to the standard 8 and disable AO/DoF and you should be much better off.

Edited, Jun 29th 2011 6:42pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 22 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (22)