Wondering if my specs have anything to do with it. I tend to get about 30fps in med fights. [Rendering] GraphicsQuality=3 TextureQuality=2 ShadowQuality=0 RenderDistance=2044.000000 Gamma=0.170000 MaximumFPS=100 UseLod0a=0 VSync=0 OverallQuality=-1 LightingQuality=2 FogShadowsEnable=0 EffectsQuality=3 TerrainQuality=2 FloraQuality=1 ModelQuality=2 ParticleLOD=1 MotionBlur=0 VerticalFOV=74 and my specs. AMD Fx4100 @3.7ghz AMD Radeon HD7750 2ghz 8ghz DDR3 ram Does 30fps really sound right to you guys?
For a Bullzoder chip, yes that sounds about right. Everyone has poorer performance than they should. Having a comparatively bad (relative to newer Piledriver) processor makes it worse.
Thank you so much for your reply and time. So i was thinking of buying a new processor and came across this AMD FX-8350 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284 Think that would make a difference?
That certainly would make a difference. An i5 would be better, but I'm not going to tell you go to buy a new motherboard for it since you already have an AM3+ board. Just make sure your board supports 125w processors as finicky boards which only support 95w do exist. I can't recall if those are only some AM3 boards or include AM3+ ones, but it doesn't hurt to check first anyway. Don't expect 50+ in large fights at all times. Few people can manage to sustain that. It'll move you to the 35-45 range or so.
i5 3570k and getting minimum 20fps. Seriously, I wouldn't even bother upgrading right now with the state the game is in, you will be very disappointed with the results.
Huh? I upgraded, and it worked. If the result your looking for is more FPS I don't se why you'd be disappointed upgrading the cpu
Save some money and buy the FX-8320 chip. It is the same CPU, but with lower factory settings (easily adjustable with AMD overdrive). Before you do anything however check your in game fps counter (alt+f) and see if it lists CPU or GPU in the fights you get low fps. Your HD7750 is not a very good GPU and it could possibly be limiting your CPU. In other games it would be guaranteed to limit the CPU. Also if you want to save even more money, go for the FX-6300 which is the same chip as well, but with 1 disabled module thus cutting off 2 cores and 2 threads. Most games, PS2 is one of them, will see no performance difference between a FX-8350 and FX-6300 if they run at the same frequency, simply because they barely utilize anything over 4 cores and 4 threads. Stay clear of the FX-4300 though, they cut 2 modules on that one which also means a smaller L3 cache. This made the FX-4300 actually turn out to be a slower chip than the FX-4170 in many aspects, games being one of those. [source]
Wow double check your settings due. I have bought i5 3570 as well + GTX680-2GB and playing everyting on high settings and getting very a stable 60 fps since last updates. In Full Screen Windowed mode I am getting a massive boost and am over 100 fps most of the time.
m0nsta You are either misled or mistaken, I have 3 machines running the 3570K and GTX670 FTWs with lastest everything and when the the sh.t hits the fan FPS can drop to 25. Hatewmd, I didn't come here to tell you to buy the 3570K because it's good while giving you no info to back it up. That job if for the fanboys that puke whatever they reed on ****** websites and youtube videos created by imbeciles and intel sponsored maggots. All these reviews are ran with FX cpus running on windows 7 WITHOUT the hotfix patch for the FX chips, and obviously they underperform. You see, intel fanboys pushing i5s didn't tell you about that did they? Here is the info to back up my statements this is a video of Logan from Tek Syndicate. He ran multiple gaming benchs. And forget about synthetic benchmarks. Cinebench was caught red handed making Intel cpus show better performance than AMD with ones using gimmicks on their programming codes. The hotfix patch I talked about is well explained on the video I linked and the links for the download are on the video's description. Enjoy your performance boost. I'm buying an FX-8350 and Sabertooth 990fx to hard test the 3570K against it in Planetside 2 specially.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! You are forgetting a MAJOR impacting factor. Optmization. AMD may have more RAW power, but Intel clearly has the upper hand when it comes to software developers optimizing the software. This is why Intel wins, and will continue to win. Oh, and by the way, have fun wasting that money on buying AMD! My advice, don't do it. I had a 3570k @ stock speeds (like you I presume) and was dropping into the mid 20's. Now after OC'ing to 4.4ghz I drop to the high 30's. I myself bought a FX-8350 to try it out and I was dropping under 20 fps! Important life lesson: DON'T buy AMD CPUs
I'm going to safely assume that's bullsh*t (unless you have a tendency of staying away from big battles which may be why your FPS is so good).
.....and here goes the Intel vs. AMD fight. Of course. edit: it even escalated while I was typing! This one is growing fast. OP before this becomes a mess and gets locked as usual, some final words. Ignore the wonderful people who have to come in and throw our civil discussion off-topic by raging against either manufacturer and flinging personal insults around. The bottom line is that 3570k chips perform better in PS2 than an 8350 (I'll be flamed for that, watch). The 8350/8320 is cheaper, great for budget builds and people who already have compatible parts such as yourself. Is single-threaded the performance difference enough to switch motherboards if you already have an AM3+? Hell no. I agree with Irathi, an 8320 makes perfect sense for you. Get a decent cooler (Hyper212+ springs to mind, $30) and overclock it a bit if you want some extra performance or at least just get it to 3850 clock speeds. The 7750 might introduce a bit of a bottleneck then, but it's my opinion that the system will still perform better overall and certainly so during larger fights where the a poor CPU hurts much more than a weak GPU. As a minor note to the above "unbiased*" test, I get noticeably higher frame rates than that test in Far Cry 3 at max with a 3770k (aka a 3570k + useless HT) at a slightly lower clock speed than his i5. I also have a 660Ti instead of his 670FTW setup. Interesting.
If you look at the "Benchmarking Settings" link in the description it says the AMD was OCed to 5Ghz and the Intel was only at 4.5... great unbiased and methodically thought out comparison lol.
Kronic, 3570Ks don't like to go past 4.6GHz, don't say what you don't know. Intel cheaped out on the the thermal compound. It doesnt overclock nearly as well as Sandy Bridge.
And Dova, if you come with all this boasting and displays or K/D on a game forum such as Planetside 2. Your the exact person I discredit every word. Go back to your CoD cave. Funny how somehow I find it really had to believe such an intel fanboy went out of his way to buy an FX-8350.
I get 28 lowest in gigantic miller battlers. Currently downclocked (due to desync bug) with my FX-8350. The fact of the matter is, I could have paid depend on whether you factor in buying a new motherboard or not 20-120 pounds more for a i5 ivy system and gained perhaps 5 fps? In extreme load situations. Doesn't seem worth it really. What is the issue with Clock speed here, you sound like your falling into the mega hertz myth. Both I might add are actually fairly comparable overclocks. 4.2-5 and 3.3-4.5 I believe.
The majority of 3570ks get to that and quite a few can get to 4.8 but you need good cooling for that. Even my ****** 3570k is at 4.6Ghz and it's an awful overclocker. Dunno what myth you're talking about. Enlighten me and 3570ks have max default clock (turbo) of 3.8 ghz. What you're thinking of is the base clock which is 3.4Ghz. So no the OCs aren't comparable really.
Well the question is, what settings do you play on? I play on Ultra, so maybe that's why I got a lower fps?
