Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

is the problem my computer or the gameFollow

#1 May 01 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
***
1,004 posts
ok sorry in advance, i know i post somewhat often about computer issues, but this new problem is a little discouraging considering i spent a nice chunk of money on my graphics cards.

my problem is, i have 2 HD 6970's in crossfire, however playing in full screen theres little or no difference if i was using one card or both.

my config settings are:

AA 2x , general drawing 8 , background drawing 3 , shadows max , textures max ,texture filter max , AO off , depth of field off (any other setting i forgot to mention is either on or max)

any higher than these settings and the game starts to lag, which is unfortunate because i was told 1 HD 6970 alone could run everything max with AO off, but the drawing quality i cant have higher than those settings, as well as AA.

my comp specs are:

2x HD 6970 (1 bridge) , i7-950 , 1333mhz ddr3 crucial ram (cpu-z says its running at 1033 or something) , dx58so mobo , antec cp-1000 psu , antec 1200 case , some crappy hdd , asus 1080p 60hz refresh 2ms response 10m contrast.

so my question is, is the problem with the game not using crossfire, eventhough the crossfire symbol appears when running full screen, or is there a problem with my computer that i need to upgrade?
#2 May 01 2011 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
**
266 posts
Keysofgaruda wrote:
some crappy hdd

This caught my eye, what are it's specs? Size, RPM, and cache. Your video cards should easily max this game, but if you have a ooold, crappy HDD you're HDD won't be able to keep up with your video card or processor.

Edit: Also you didn't state how much RAM you have, which could be the problem if you only have like 512mb of it. Though I doubt you're specs are that low because of the 1333MHz.

Edited, May 1st 2011 2:08pm by XenoKrates
#4 May 01 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,004 posts
XenoKrates wrote:
Keysofgaruda wrote:
some crappy hdd

This caught my eye, what are it's specs? Size, RPM, and cache. Your video cards should easily max this game, but if you have a ooold, crappy HDD you're HDD won't be able to keep up with your video card or processor.

Edit: Also you didn't state how much RAM you have, which could be the problem if you only have like 512mb of it. Though I doubt you're specs are that low because of the 1333MHz.

Edited, May 1st 2011 2:08pm by XenoKrates


ok i didnt think my hdd would effect it but i guess so. its 7200 rpm is all i know, and 500gb. i forgot to state my memory, but its 4gb.

as for the other poster, ya i guess my info was wrong then, the game looks amazing even not maxed out completely, i just though i screwed my build up somewhere which would have sucked. (except for the hdd i didnt buy a new one i used my old one)

ill consider buying a new HDD sometime in the future then. as for recomendations, which is better a ssd, or a 10,000 rpm velociraptor from western digital (this was a new hdd i had my eyes on)?

also, is there an easy way to send files from my current hdd to the new one?

Edited, May 1st 2011 5:19pm by Keysofgaruda
#5 May 01 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
**
266 posts
Keysofgaruda wrote:
XenoKrates wrote:
Keysofgaruda wrote:
some crappy hdd

This caught my eye, what are it's specs? Size, RPM, and cache. Your video cards should easily max this game, but if you have a ooold, crappy HDD you're HDD won't be able to keep up with your video card or processor.

Edit: Also you didn't state how much RAM you have, which could be the problem if you only have like 512mb of it. Though I doubt you're specs are that low because of the 1333MHz.

Edited, May 1st 2011 2:08pm by XenoKrates


ok i didnt think my hdd would effect it but i guess so. its 7200 rpm is all i know, and 500gb. i forgot to state my memory, but its 4gb.

as for the other poster, ya i guess my info was wrong then, the game looks amazing even not maxed out completely, i just though i screwed my build up somewhere which would have sucked. (except for the hdd i didnt buy a new one i used my old one)

ill consider buying a new HDD sometime in the future then. as for recomendations, which is better a ssd, or a 10,000 rpm velociraptor from western digital (this was a new hdd i had my eyes on)?

also, is there an easy way to send files from my current hdd to the new one?

Edited, May 1st 2011 5:19pm by Keysofgaruda

Ok, that HDD is pretty much what everyone has and it won't affect your gameplay (it's not crappy btw lol). Umm... you should be able to max this game as I know people that have a 6950 and max it. What's your internet speed like? Perhaps you could be mistaking bad framerates for bad latency. Other than that, I don't know... but you should be able to max the game. Maybe you don't have the correct drivers installed? Those are the only things I can think of atm.

Edited, May 1st 2011 5:51pm by XenoKrates
#6 May 01 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,004 posts
for drivers i went strait to the AMD website and got what they had including the profiles. my internet speed is 15 mb/sec.
#7 May 01 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
**
266 posts
Keysofgaruda wrote:
for drivers i went strait to the AMD website and got what they had including the profiles. my internet speed is 15 mb/sec.

Hmmm... well it is very strange that your computer isn't maxing it. I can't think of anything else, sorry!
#8 May 01 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
49 posts
Check out this link.

http://www.freefrag.com/gaming-discussion/6740-ffxiv-how-get-crossfire-sli-working-fullscreen-mode.html

FFXIV doesn't work in crossfire, or so I've read on several different sites. Apparently that guy got it working, however.



____________________________


#9 May 01 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
*
249 posts
i only have a 6950 but its unlocked to 6970 and running at 900/1400 mhz OC'd on a q6600 OC'd to 3.0 ghz. most of the time the game runs perfect initialy when i just turn the computer on ect. but i do believe there are memory leak problems or something cause as i said game runs everything maxed on a 6950 with q6600 ocd to 3.0 ghz on ddr3 1033 mhx ran cas 4-4-4-12

ambulent ocultion and depth of field off. everything else maxed and ffevo windower "fullscreen" 1080p ( it lets you alt tab out of fullscreen without crashing google it)

but after a few hours the game starts to stutter. like ill get that wierd line when i move the camera thats blurred and ill get stutters aka the screen freezes for a sec while running or w.e but then i suddenly jump forward 5 steps as if i never stopped running. like a frame skip or something

and loging out and back in doesnt fix it only a complete restart of the pc makes it run smooth again..



so imo its a mem leak or something similar. the machine is fine its the game thats messed up.

i remember when ffxiv first came out and everyone was proclaiming "ITS NOT THE GAME ITS YOUR CRAPPY PC"

well its not.. it IS the game.

sometimes i can play all day perfectly sometimes after 30 minutes it gets stutters. its entirely unpredictable
____________________________

Osarion = Red Mage
Mikhalia = Black Mage Evilwizardington
FinalFanXIV = Fighter McWarrior
All we are missing is Thief, Clan Khee'Bler and we will have the full Light Warriors party.
#10 May 02 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
24 posts
well that depends 7200 rpm is a standard for a HDD, you can get higher but I say the things are more likely to break) question is what kinda cache is is packing, speeds and whatnot. **** they have 64 cache now on those things in 6.0
#11 May 02 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
35 posts
The hard disk can be the problem when loading the towns, basically it does little stop motion when you run, especially in town, when there is loads to load in small time. But generally with SSD you will sure notice a fast load. Think of the map, when it does square by square, I am sure that won't happen with ssd. Maybe get the vertex2, its price has dropped recently. I think velociraptor at 10k RPM isn't as performing as an ssd, platters are slower .

To move the files to the new HD I did this (and this helps , when you will backup your pc too) : use winrar using "store" or "fastest" compression, then extract it to the new hard disk. Change the desktop shortcuts then.
When I ran the game on a old Sata1 drive it was slow, when I moved to my Sata 2 drive, I noticed improvements overall :)

I played around with the settings a lot at beginning, I have a ATI HD 5750 512MB, phenomII x4, 4gb ram so you know for sure that your pc is more powerful than mine :) I haven't had problems with my settings so far..
Be sure to tick off Ambient Occlusion, it is not that necessary and impacts a lot the performance. Also I'd say AA isn't that needed. I have the texture at the Highest settings, and the General / Bagkr drawing at standard, shadow at high all at 1080p. One major "glitch" I noticed is at cutscenes: when the camera moves and the NPC moves, they "alias" a little. But setting aliasing didn't improve it at all.
____________________________
Ffxiv name : Suzy Betlitt
#12 May 02 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
12 posts
you guys are failing.

First of all, the HDD isn't the problem, your HDD will not bottleneck your performance in-game, it might decrease load times though if you were to upgrade :P.

Btw, General Drawing Quality is maxed at 8, technically, because 9, 10 are just adding supersampling so it increases the effectiveness of AA at those settings but REALLY bogs down the computer.

Also, the game does support crossfire seeing as i don't even force it through radeonpro... just using CCC yet both my HD6950's (1 unlocked) get usage.. with everything completely maxed @ 1080p (minus AO only because it's bugged for ati cards...-.-"...anyways) with 2x SSAA and GDQ 9 or 4x SSAA and GDQ 8 which pretty much looks identical, i get roughly 50-60fps average but drops considerably around lots of people including npcs :P so mainly in like Linmsa or gridania or some camps.

SO, dunno why your crossfire is messed up but I'm using 11.4 preview drivers with xfire profiles up to date.

for reference, I get around 5800 on high for the benchmark with my current OC for my setup.

Edited, May 2nd 2011 5:20pm by MaybeImDreaming

Edited, May 2nd 2011 5:25pm by MaybeImDreaming
#13 May 03 2011 at 1:25 AM Rating: Good
****
4,149 posts
The majority of the issues that are graphics or lag related with FFXIV are due to coding to be completely honest with you. Your GPUs aren't the latest and greatest, but they should be tearing through DX9 like "insert nifty simile here". Since the testing phases of the game it has come a long way, but when you build an engine that doesn't use resources properly, it's gonna be the first thing you should look at.

I'd point at your monitor before I blamed your HDD for your issues. It's probably not the problem, but it's definitely a bottleneck in your system. In your situation I'd just play with one GPU until (if ever) SE decides to optimize this game to work correctly with the hardware. I really feel for you if you shelled out for this gear just to play FFXIV. You rig would really shine with about any other recent game available.

I shudder to think of just how fapworthy™ this game would be if it were coded as DX11...
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#14 May 03 2011 at 7:06 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
Avatar
*
150 posts
I think the RAM might be the problem, he said he has 4 GB of ram, and 2 6970s.
The 6970 I believe uses 2 GB of video memory, and if he has 2 that would be 4GB of video memory.
As I under stand it the last X GB of ram addresses up to 4GB are reserved for graphics memory where X is the total amount of graphics memory you have. So when using both his system might think he has 0 RAM. Or at least such is my understanding of the way RAM and graphics memory addresses work.
____________________________
FFXI 75 RDM Leane of Valefor (Retired)
FFXIV Thaumaturge Ancinda Soletree of Lindblum

#15 May 03 2011 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
12 posts
Leane wrote:
I think the RAM might be the problem, he said he has 4 GB of ram, and 2 6970s.
The 6970 I believe uses 2 GB of video memory, and if he has 2 that would be 4GB of video memory.
As I under stand it the last X GB of ram addresses up to 4GB are reserved for graphics memory where X is the total amount of graphics memory you have. So when using both his system might think he has 0 RAM. Or at least such is my understanding of the way RAM and graphics memory addresses work.


no.. the cards don't just use 2gb each, they HAVE 2gb of vram each, which is plenty even with all the high-res textures of modern games. Also, having more vram helps with AA performance and running games at higher resolutions;)!
#16 May 03 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
***
1,146 posts
The little lags you get are not from your machine. I have to agree with all who say that it's the game that's causing this problem.
I'm playing on a Core i7 860 with 8GB DDR3 RAM, a OC Radeon HD 5850 and the game and OS installed on a Corsair P128 SSD.
I've tried alot of settings but no matter what I do, there's always some micro freezes which are easy to spot when doing the gathering hot&cold game.
It's no big problem but it's annoying.
AO is off, depth of field is on.

Btw.
I have a question to the people using two displays with the latest AMD drivers. Does your screen flicker?
I tried updating to the latest drivers lately but booth screens would flicker like mad when opening programs or searching files in explorer and I've found no way to correct this.
When I only use 1 display it's running without any problems.
I downgraded to the previous version again for now.
____________________________

Final Fantasy XI
Server: Quetzalcoatl
Name: Kyana (retired)
Jobs: THF75 PLD70 BST70

#17 May 03 2011 at 8:15 AM Rating: Default
12 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
The majority of the issues that are graphics or lag related with FFXIV are due to coding to be completely honest with you. Your GPUs aren't the latest and greatest, but they should be tearing through DX9 like "insert nifty simile here". Since the testing phases of the game it has come a long way, but when you build an engine that doesn't use resources properly, it's gonna be the first thing you should look at.

I'd point at your monitor before I blamed your HDD for your issues. It's probably not the problem, but it's definitely a bottleneck in your system. In your situation I'd just play with one GPU until (if ever) SE decides to optimize this game to work correctly with the hardware. I really feel for you if you shelled out for this gear just to play FFXIV. You rig would really shine with about any other recent game available.

I shudder to think of just how fapworthy™ this game would be if it were coded as DX11...


this game isn't that badly coded, it's just too ahead of it's time for most current hardware to handle yet. No other dx9 game looks as good as FFXIV in case you didn't realize.. but i agree it would run smoother on new hardware with better eye-candy if it were made with dx11 in mind as well.
#19 May 03 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,530 posts
MaybeImDreaming wrote:
this game isn't that badly coded, it's just too ahead of it's time for most current hardware to handle yet. No other dx9 game looks as good as FFXIV in case you didn't realize.. but i agree it would run smoother on new hardware... if it were made with dx11 in mind


That's right: FFXIV is so far ahead of its time that it uses old tools to get the job done. Just like my patented coal-powered telegraph - why doesn't everyone understand!?
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#20 May 03 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
**
291 posts
Keysofgaruda wrote:
my problem is, i have 2 HD 6970's


I've certainly heard of worse problems....

Sorry couldn't resist :D
____________________________

#21 May 04 2011 at 1:47 AM Rating: Good
****
4,149 posts
MaybeImDreaming wrote:
this game isn't that badly coded, it's just too ahead of it's time for most current hardware to handle yet. No other dx9 game looks as good as FFXIV in case you didn't realize.. but i agree it would run smoother on new hardware with better eye-candy if it were made with dx11 in mind as well.


I thoroughly disagree. If you want my personal proof then shoot me a PM with an email address and I'll send you screenshots detailing what is wrong and why. If you'd rather, you can do the research for yourself but I will at least give an explanation...

Not only is this game poorly optimized in terms of graphics, but it is really inefficient when it comes to processor usage. This isn't something that can be fixed in an update either and I'm almost certain that it's the culprit in why they've had issues porting to PS3. The PS3 is definitely the reason why FFXIV is DX9. lolPS3limitations

FFXIV is a game where a dual core processor with high base clock speed will outperform the top of the line 6 core CPUs with slightly lower clocks. That doesn't exactly support your claim of "ahead of it's time". "Poorly coded" pretty much hits the nail on the head. /pinch
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#22 May 04 2011 at 5:38 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
65 posts
What i never understood is after the ps2 hindering ffxi how could they do the same thing with the ps3. From day one they should had have had the forsight to see the problem.

I am not a techie with computers like most here, but i will tell you this mush your GPU is not your problem at all.
From all i have read about this game its the fact its not optimize and really DX9.
#23 May 04 2011 at 10:05 AM Rating: Decent
**
557 posts
FFXIV is the hipster of video games. "DX11 is so plastic and cold, I prefer the warmth of DX9. It feels so much more real."
____________________________


#24 May 04 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
**
291 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
FFXIV is a game where a dual core processor with high base clock speed will outperform the top of the line 6 core CPUs with slightly lower clocks.


Nope...I had an overclocked E8500 that FFXIV was grinding to dust(95%+ usage all the time) - CPU was limiting graphics card - graphics card never would go above 50% GPU usage. Dropped in a Q9550 and now I have lots of breathing room on the CPU. FFXIV uses first two cores fully, third at about 70-75% and the fourth at 50%. Plenty of breathing room for background tasks to keep performing. Lets me push the older graphics cards to the limit, such that I bought a newer card, which I can also fully utilize. I would never recommend a high clock speed dual core as a good approach for building an FFXIV rig.
____________________________

#25 May 04 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,149 posts
Lacesus wrote:
What i never understood is after the ps2 hindering ffxi how could they do the same thing with the ps3. From day one they should had have had the forsight to see the problem.

The solution is pretty clear. Develop the game for PC or for console, but not both. The reason they decided to have console and PC communicating on the same servers is also the reason you have JP/NA/EU on the same servers. It saved them money. They are a business after all.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate consoles. PC might not always be the best platform for a game in terms of accessibility or what have you, but it will always be capable of more than a console. Console limitations are most often the rule and not the exception, or in this case, an excuse.

yfaithfully wrote:
FFXIV is the hipster of video games. "DX11 is so plastic and cold, I prefer the warmth of DX9. It feels so much more real."


lol


NayliaMR wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
FFXIV is a game where a dual core processor with high base clock speed will outperform the top of the line 6 core CPUs with slightly lower clocks.


Nope...I had an overclocked E8500 that FFXIV was grinding to dust(95%+ usage all the time) - CPU was limiting graphics card - graphics card never would go above 50% GPU usage. Dropped in a Q9550 and now I have lots of breathing room on the CPU. FFXIV uses first two cores fully, third at about 70-75% and the fourth at 50%. Plenty of breathing room for background tasks to keep performing. Lets me push the older graphics cards to the limit, such that I bought a newer card, which I can also fully utilize. I would never recommend a high clock speed dual core as a good approach for building an FFXIV rig.


Your CPU bottlenecking your GPU is a completely separate issue. Being that the OP is running pretty high specs, I really wasn't considering older equipment in the equation and I wouldn't think anyone building a rig for performance would either. I'm not sure what you have currently, but a pair of 6970s should barely be breaking a sweat with DX9. Proven beyond a shadow.

My point about CPUs was that FFXIV doesn't efficiently spread the load. That isn't a hardware issue. In my time playing FFXIV I used both a quad and hex processor. The quad outperformed the hex, main difference being the base clock speeds. Neither processor displayed the usage you stated above and I'm not familiar with the Q9550, but I'm a bit skeptic of that usage.

As for dual vs quad, I was merely using it as an example. I would never suggest a dual core in building any new rig. In the case of FFXIV, seeing as how it's based on DX9 and poorly optimized for hardware of any type, my suggestion would be a PS3 if/when that ever becomes a reality.

The term "FFXIV rig" just makes me shake my head. Here is a game that is basically a port from console that was never actually released on console because it had issues. Releasing it on PC was already a bad idea, but the issues with PS3 complicated it even further.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#26 May 05 2011 at 2:47 AM Rating: Decent
*
200 posts
lacesus wrote:
What i never understood is after the ps2 hindering ffxi how could they do the same thing with the ps3. From day one they should had have had the forsight to see the problem.

I am not a techie with computers like most here, but i will tell you this mush your GPU is not your problem at all.
From all i have read about this game its the fact its not optimize and really DX9.


its was space constraints that hampered 11, those constraints no longer exist. Sony only endorsed up to a 20GB drive to be used with the PS2 system, you could use up to 80GB but it was never officially endorsed.

there is nothing wrong with DX9 as a matter of fact they've broadened there audience by using it...in an optimized setting, a single 4770 or a GTX260 could run XIV all setting high save for AA which you really don't even need AA above 2x. the only thing DX10.1 or DX11 could do better than DX9 is shadow Depth, pretty Smoke, and water depth perception...which can all be done software wise anyway.

the only thing the newer directx bring to the table is laziness(DX11),unneeded overhead(dx10)and a monopolization (DX10 with Vista),(DX11 with W7)(DX12 with W8) etc.

the only reason i say laziness is because DX9 can do everything DX11 can if you code it in. DX9 isn't supposed to be able to do AO but there it is. with DX11 its as easy as throwing in a few lines of codes. you should never let a game engine do all the work for you, it leads to stagnation of creativity.

Edited, May 5th 2011 4:49am by FelixValmont
____________________________


#27 May 05 2011 at 4:10 AM Rating: Good
****
4,149 posts
FelixValmont wrote:
there is nothing wrong with DX9 as a matter of fact they've broadened there audience by using it...in an optimized setting, a single 4770 or a GTX260 could run XIV all setting high save for AA which you really don't even need AA above 2x. the only thing DX10.1 or DX11 could do better than DX9 is shadow Depth, pretty Smoke, and water depth perception...which can all be done software wise anyway.


I agree that there's nothing wrong with DX9, but there's also no reason not to take advantage of DX11... oh wait, yeah there is. It doesn't have anything to do with broadening their audience though. It's because they created a PC game that was meant to be a port from a console. They have no choice. The 'optimized setting' you're referring to isn't present in FFXIV. That's pretty much what this thread is about, so while you do make a good point here it doesn't really apply.

It's obvious they spent a lot of time on the graphics. Probably too much and it caused them to slack on the systems of the game. I really wouldn't expect them to do anything about graphics for a while, especially since they've already had issues with the PS3 version, but it goes beyond just graphics.


____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#28 May 05 2011 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,151 posts
Leane wrote:
I think the RAM might be the problem, he said he has 4 GB of ram, and 2 6970s.
The 6970 I believe uses 2 GB of video memory, and if he has 2 that would be 4GB of video memory.
As I under stand it the last X GB of ram addresses up to 4GB are reserved for graphics memory where X is the total amount of graphics memory you have. So when using both his system might think he has 0 RAM. Or at least such is my understanding of the way RAM and graphics memory addresses work.


Actually this could be the problem. You are running a 64bit OS? If so then skip to the link if not then your OS will be doing weird things with your memory pointers and that much ram.

If you went to amd website your are running 11.4? Here is a link from amd website that seemed to help someone running 6990x2. Just skip to the 3rd post.

http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=408&threadid=149359
#29 May 08 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,004 posts
nyopo wrote:
Leane wrote:
I think the RAM might be the problem, he said he has 4 GB of ram, and 2 6970s.
The 6970 I believe uses 2 GB of video memory, and if he has 2 that would be 4GB of video memory.
As I under stand it the last X GB of ram addresses up to 4GB are reserved for graphics memory where X is the total amount of graphics memory you have. So when using both his system might think he has 0 RAM. Or at least such is my understanding of the way RAM and graphics memory addresses work.


Actually this could be the problem. You are running a 64bit OS? If so then skip to the link if not then your OS will be doing weird things with your memory pointers and that much ram.

If you went to amd website your are running 11.4? Here is a link from amd website that seemed to help someone running 6990x2. Just skip to the 3rd post.

http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=408&threadid=149359


thanks for all the replies everyone i appreciate it.

i just downloaded the 11.4 and the game seems to be running more smoothly now, so if anyone is having the same issue as me i recomend trying this.

i was unaware that my memory and the card memory worked that way. i plan on increasing my ram now, to tripple channel, 12gb 2000mhz corsair ram. i know those ram specs arent neccessary, but would the increase in ram dramatically enhance my performance?
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)