Hi, I have a GTX 780 and my FPS drop to 35 fps like when i had my gtx 560ti !! My i5 2500k @4.3GHz CPU work at 50%, and i am always CPU limited. Battlefield 3 use 100% of my CPU for exemple.
Welcome to Planetside 2, that's normal here. Your processor matters FAR more than the GPU. If that upgrade was purely for PS2, you have wasted money.
Bumb deal! You surely did not buy that 780 just to boost PS2 performance , right? I'm not going to harp on you because you bought a really nice card so look forward to a few years of high end graphics settings but everyone and their dog knows PS2 is CPU bottle necked. Between this work rig (Intel i7 3930k) and my game rig at home, neither play PS2 at nonstop 60FPS, Both are identical except of course the Mobo..oh and the work computers case is not the same. I am convinced that even with a high end CPU we will still experience slow downs due to the volume of server/client information transfering. Our PC's have a hard go keeping up with PS2 now imagine the server keeping track of all of us ontop of that ...ouch. Good news is they have mentioned recently that they are working on better multi core optimizations...we can thank the new PS4 hardware for that push, I am sure SOE will do all it can to ensure it's game runs on it's own (well Sony's) console heh.
it's the game inability to utilize modern hardware, welcome to the club. I suspect the hamsters in the current low end server hardware is a issue as well. I run this game on two GTX780's in SLI and a 2600K at 4.9 ghz.......if there's a firefight i am routinely sitting in the 30 FPS area with very little of my hardware being utilized. anyone who tells you they are getting more than 30-40 FPS in a tech plant or biolab either is not playing at 1080P or is just blowing smoke up your butt.
GTX780 meep meep. I have a gtx570 and I have never seen it go above 63% in ps2 running the standard game settings that the game has chosen for me, indeed physx off. The point is... if a card like mine doesn't go to the roof as you would expect, a monster like 780 it is just giggling while running this game, simply because it is badly optimized. Wrong. I run vsync on and I am on 50-60 fps all the time during big battles at biolabs, high settings, shadows and flora off. Yes I have tried ultras, but due to the nature of the game it crashes everytime, even so on ultra with flora and shadows off it was running between 35-60fps. That unless the game is crashing which happens lots of time since the gu10. Just because you have issues it doesn't mean the rest of us who have no issues are blowing smoke up your butt. In fact you are just doing it not having an idea of what you are speaking of.
This game uses a pretty pathetic DX9 engine, so it's easy for the GPU. The CPU has a huge workload, and can't do it efficiently because it doesn't even have proper multicore support.
OK ty all. I havent buy this GPU only for PS2, in the Warp Gate my FPS up to 120+FPS [GPU] and in the huge battles 35fps min, i hope Playstation 4 version will optimize the multi-core CPU usage, or why not a 64bit version or a DX11 one. I will activate v-sync and see the difference.
Same issue for most players. IF you want good frame rates with the game as it is, you need to get a socket 2011 cpu & overlclock. That is serious money though. Also have a 560 ti which is generally good enough to do the graphics for this game on my monitor/resolution. When GPU physx was enabled the fps was poor. Instead of getting an expensive new gpu, opted to get a gt 640 to do physx only. Much cheaper and it does the job well. To play planetside 2, it is better to invest in a good overclocking motherboard & possibly a liquid cpu cooler instead. Thinking about doing that myself. It would still be cheaper than a gtx 780. Can you maybe return it for some kind of store credit?
And here ends 50% of my plan to actually play PS2 on dandy fps. Idea was simple to buy 4770k and OC the crap of it, and supplement with GTX 780. Somehow a feel that I will join 40fps club, and its not worth it. Better stay in my 9-30 fps zone till they will fix optimization of the game.
Are you guys saying that it does not utilize the gpu properly? My msi afterburner says i run 99% all the way through most of the game. I may have misunderstood though.
Is it at 99% clock speed or power target, or actual load? If it's at 99% utilization/load, continuously, that's not right. The actual load on your GPU shouldn't be 99% unless you're rendering a really complex scene. Although the 2D menus do make it spike, which is why I set my power target to 80%. You can adjust your power target in your MSI afterburner. I have a Gigabyte card so I use OC Guru 2 to do it.
A socket 2011 CPU is generally much better, especially for the 40 PCI-E lanes. If you're using SLI you can run both cards at 16x PCI-E 3.0. However, for a single GPU, a high clocked LGA1155 is generally going to perform the same(the extra cache per core might help a tiny bit for PS2). This game engine doesn't scale well past one core, much less beyond four. I know people with LGA2011's that get maybe 5-10 fps better on average, but that's because my CPU is 3.2GHz max i5-2320 and theirs is 3.8 with an i7-3820. Even their quad channel memory doesn't seem to make a difference for PS2. I'm not sure if he even has flora and shadows maxed out like I do.
Also go into your Nvidia control panel and change the following options: Texture Filteriing: High Quality Texture Filtering-Negative LOD Bias: Clamp Transparency Antialiasing: Multisample Vertical Sync: Adaptive Triple Buffering: On In all your other games, you can run at least 8x MSAA. MSAA is better quality than CSAA or FXAA. Make sure FXAA is OFF in your Nvidia control panel, as it makes everything look terrible in most games, and is for low end graphics cards. You can definitely run 16x Anisotropic Filtering in all your games too. Go through all your other games' settings and put MSAA and Anisotropic Filtering on as well. Your games should look significantly better.
I have to agree that PS2 is CPU bottleneck, under intense conditions. No offense to the OP, but the 780 is a sub-par Titan on purpose. Logically design that way not to disrupt the sales of left over Titans in vendors' inventory... Simply put, the 780 is just the first Titan refresh for 60% roughly the cost of a Titan. I would have been more impressed if it had more CUDAs per core than a Titan. The frame Latency is the actually the only good thing about that card if you look at the nitty-gritty details. There was a growing concern in the Nvidia Base that the new 780s were going to be $1.0k cards. Before its arrival, it was believed to be a new Titan Refresh, and there was no competition to curve the price down... Nobody wanted to pay 1.0k dollars for a 780 version. That would also lead to the speculation that a dual 780 would be twice as much in price. Do you know anybody willing to pay 2.0k dollars for a dual GPU that isn't workstation designed? I doubt you would... The 780 is Nvidia's counter-move to the AMD 7990 release... Since the sales of AMD 7990 went up, Nvidia wanted a piece of that action too... This could explain why the new AMD 8000 Series cards aren't out yet. Personally, I think it's a betrayal to Nvidia, but Nvidia is getting some royalties out of the new PS4 and XBOX 720, so I guess it's not "all bad." Besides, it wasn't to long ago that Nvidia may have said that their real focus isn't AMD anymore, but the crosshairs was on Sony. I'm putting this in my own words... Making the game (PS2) more optimized for consoles use maybe in our benefit. Especially since the new AMD Jaguar Core excels at multi-threading, a field AMD CPUs and APUs excel; found in the new PS4 and XBOX. In addition, with the new Bulldozer refresh, the AMD FX9590 that can clock up to 5.0GHZ, going with AMD CPUs may start to seem ideal in the long run... Either way, we the customers and members of PS2 will still benefits with multi-threading optimization, Intel or AMD wise... I can see this being true if you run Fog Shadows. Especially with a CPU bottleneck is in affect. On the other hand, if you have max settings, max rendering distance, and even motion blur, but Fog Shadow is off, you should be able reach, easily, 40 to 60 fps in a tech plant or bio lab. I run on 1600p, and I am typically around the 60fps avg in a tech plant or bio lab. High 30s if there's a big brawl (50+) players in the area with ESFs and Armor too, but this is all CPU... In addition, with my graphic card, I hover at around 40 to 60% load. PS2 doesn't push my GPU to it's limits like Crysis 3 with max settings (8xMSAA + Very high specs) across the board with a wooping Mem1 of 2.8GB VRam per GPU at 30 to 50 FPS
Serpent, WTF are you talking about? The 780 is not a response to the 7990. The 7990 is a $1000 card that was released to attempt to compete with the 690, except that it fails miserably, since CrossFire doesn't work. AMD has finally got some software level frametime metering with their prototype drivers, but it's still not nearly as good as the 690, which has hardware level frametime metering. The Titan is actually the chip that would have gone into the 680, because the 80 series cards use the 100 or 110 series chips(the big chip with the compute capability and double precision, 384bit memory etc.) However, the GK104(small chip and successor to the GF114 560Ti) was actually competitive with AMD's big chip(the 7970), so they released it as a 680, and saved the GK110 for K20 accelerator cards and eventually released it as the consumer level Titan, since it performed so far above every other single GPU out there. Since they needed a performance boost, they used GK110 for 780, and at $650 it offers much of the performance of the Titan(though not the double precision of the Titan). Any way you look it, the performance you get from the current Nvidia cards beats AMD's current offerings, especially in terms of efficiency. You get totally ripped off if you use AMD multi-GPU, and I can't believe AMD sold 7990's as if they worked as advertised. They don't, and even with their attempt to fix it in software, they can't compete with hardware frametime metering.
No, it's the load of the gpu. It drops occasionally but consistently runs at 99% per the msi graph. and on another note i tried using ram disc and managed to lose my launchpad file and get C launchpad is not a valid win 32 application. Oh the joys of learning. Is it possible to only get that file without re downloading the whole game. Thank you for your expertise. If you ever want to braise osso bucco let me know.
I wouldn't run a RAM disk without ECC RAM, or you're probably more likely to corrupt data than using a standard HDD or SSD. It's also probably not going to give you too much benefit to run this game from one. Is your GPU at 99% in any other game for that much of the time? What are your temperatures at idling in Windows, and what are they in game at 99% load? Is your card an MSI? I thought you got a Gigabyte branded one. Maybe I confused you with someone else. I have no clue if you can get that file without the whole game, to be honest.
I have a 480, its a few generations old, however I get 99% usage on high settings with it OC'ed to 875Mhz / 2000Mhz. My CPU is at 4.825Ghz, I've never checked how much of the CPU is used during game play. The Framerate in game flickers from CPU to GPU limited every couple of seconds so I guess I have a good set up. I get around 45-70fps on high.
