Upgrade Video Card....Still Low FPS...Trolol?

[Classicalbor]

Yes, its currently outperforming the 590's in most games including bf3 and others.

 

Performance

NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti

768 CUDA Cores

850 MHz GPU

1700MHz Shader Clock

Memory

2048 MB, 512 bit

4008 MHz (effective)

256.6 GB/s Memory Bandwidth

 

 

SLI'ing 2 regular 560s or 560ti's would likely be better (and could dave you $20-50). This saves space and makes it easy not to bridge. Having all 768 cuda cores dedicated to essentially "ONE" Gpu is nice, but each individual gpu is throttled back. I believe the 850 mhz GPU clock is evident of both GPUs running which is not very ideal. I could be wrong though.

[AaronPenick]

Sorry to break it to you, you wasted your money trying to upgrade to make this game run better.

 

For newer games (SWTOR engine is not newer) I would expect the 550ti to give you a slight performance gain. For older games you are going to see no real difference, with the way SWTOR is coded you will not see a difference.

 

Thankfully this was NOT a upgrade for TOR. I usually play on my laptop while watching tv with fiance and get 30fps avg on it (2.8 quad core i7 if i remember correctly and 500m 3gb nvidia 8 gig ram)

 

The upgrade was just in general and figured I would do a test for TOR with the whole fps debate going on.

[stickyickytricky]

That doesn't change that the Phenom and even the Phenom II architecture is a few generations behind what Intel has to offer. Even Bulldozer didn't really push far enough. Bulldozer isn't bad, but still not on par with what Intel has right now.

 

funny how passmark rates the bulldozer higher than the 2500k and this is before the updates that microsoft is making to actually utilize the 8 cores, if you have a bulldozer you can request the hotfix from microsoft however it is a beta hotfix.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

[fredspekvet]

funny how passmark rates the bulldozer higher than the 2500k and this is before the updates that microsoft is making to actually utilize the 8 cores, if you have a bulldozer you can request the hotfix from microsoft however it is a beta hotfix.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

You really ought to check out different benchmarks then this synthetic one. Bulldozer gets trampled by intel's offerings in *any* real world benchmark out there.. It's just not as well designed as Intel products are....Passmark is a synthetic benchmark that's pretty far from real-world applications.

[ispanolfw]

funny how passmark rates the bulldozer higher than the 2500k and this is before the updates that microsoft is making to actually utilize the 8 cores, if you have a bulldozer you can request the hotfix from microsoft however it is a beta hotfix.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

8 Cores vs 4 Core.... hmmm. Guess all those games that use 8 cores will do better then... wait, what games?

 

Passmark is a good site, but games hardly use that many cores.

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/

 

They use Bulldozer, Nehalem and Sandy Bridge.

[Classicalbor]

funny how passmark rates the bulldozer higher than the 2500k and this is before the updates that microsoft is making to actually utilize the 8 cores, if you have a bulldozer you can request the hotfix from microsoft however it is a beta hotfix.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

Also funny how 8 cores doesn't mean crap when it comes to gaming, they aren't even recognizable. Bulldozer does not stand-up to Sandybridge already, and certainly not to Ivybridge in the near future. Read more than 1 benchmark website please.

[subrosian]

So yesterday I decided to finally update the video card on my desktop. I didn't go crazy and get top of the line but I think we can all agree that a nvidia 550ti is nothing to scoff at (i had a nvidia 9600 in there). Loaded up BF3 on ultra and Skyrim at max and got around 30-35 fps. Not bad, about what I was expecting since the card is about a year old. Now time to load up to and see if I can get above 20 fps....oh wow yea! now I have !22! fps while running around in quest areas (didnt check fleet and WZ since it will probably be lower)

 

Wow so glad they had that long winded post about low end machines and explaining to us noobs what graphic settings are v.v

 

Edit: adding cpu and ram cause I am a tard and forgot. Quad core oc'd to 2.8 and 8 gigs of ram

 

1. What is your CPU? "Quad-core" doesn't mean anything, there is a huge difference between a Core2Quad and an i5.

 

2. What is your HDD? SWTOR is hugely hard-drive dependent, if you want a minimum 30 FPS, you will need a current-gen SSD.

 

3. What are your settings? A 550 ti is a budget card, if you are running high shadows, high shaders or bloom, you will be killing your FPS.

 

4. Where are you at? You will NEVER get above 30 FPS in the fleet or heavily crowded areas, this is the nature of your network connection and MMOs. For example, I get 400+ FPS in WoW in instance areas, yet 40 FPS in Org.

Edited February 1, 2012 by subrosian

[Classicalbor]

funny how passmark rates the bulldozer higher than the 2500k and this is before the updates that microsoft is making to actually utilize the 8 cores, if you have a bulldozer you can request the hotfix from microsoft however it is a beta hotfix.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

FURTHERMORE: The AMD FX-8150 8-core processor on Bulldozer is supposed to compete with the i7-2700k ... not the i5-2500k... but sadly the 2500k still out performs this. It is an extreme fail from AMD and 8 cores mean nothing in gaming.

[themdroids]

I'm usually around 50-60 fps with 2 280's and a AMD Phenom 9950 Quad.

[C-Bee]

while it is true that Intel can offer slightly better architectuer right now, it's pretty much irrelevant point of argument.

 

There are CPU's that are Fastest in their class and then there are CPU's that are fast enough for the intended purpose. Im happy to say that most modern CPU's from both Intel and AMD can be put into 2nd category.

 

Im running old Phenom II X4 945 myself and CPU isnt even close to being the bottleneck.

[subrosian]

The upgrade was just in general and figured I would do a test for TOR with the whole fps debate going on.

 

TOR FPS depends on 3 things:

 

1. CPU

2. HDD

3. GPU

 

You want the fastest quad-core processor you can find. An i7 is money, an i5 is solid, if you have a Phenom (or gad... Bulldozer) you will want to overclock it until it screams. Overclock your i5 or i7 as well... anything less, you want to upgrade.

 

Your HDD speed *matters*. If you don't have an SSD, get one, and install both TOR and Win7 on it. You'll notice a dramatic increase in your minimum FPS, and a decrease in those pesky load times.

 

Finally, your GPU matters. You really don't want to have grass, shadows, bloom, etc... turned up anyway as those hit your CPU, but you want to be able to run high resolution (19x10 minimum) and turn on 4xAA/16xAF as this will dramatically improve your ability to see and compete in raid / warzone content.

 

The HDD is what gets people, so many people are still not putting their OS and games onto SSDs, and yet those games are getting to the point where, if they're not 64-bit, they have to use HDD cache... hence the SSD advantage.

[stickyickytricky]

im getting anywhere from 50 -100 depending on what place im in (fleet when busy drops to around 50) with a 965 @ 4.1 ghz and a 6970. I don't have a problem gaming with my amd.

[Eerazer]

So yesterday I decided to finally update the video card on my desktop. I didn't go crazy and get top of the line but I think we can all agree that a nvidia 550ti is nothing to scoff at (i had a nvidia 9600 in there). Loaded up BF3 on ultra and Skyrim at max and got around 30-35 fps. Not bad, about what I was expecting since the card is about a year old. Now time to load up to and see if I can get above 20 fps....oh wow yea! now I have !22! fps while running around in quest areas (didnt check fleet and WZ since it will probably be lower)

 

Wow so glad they had that long winded post about low end machines and explaining to us noobs what graphic settings are v.v

 

Edit: adding cpu and ram cause I am a tard and forgot. Quad core oc'd to 2.8 and 8 gigs of ram

 

nvidia 550ti is nothing to scoff at....

 

trash.

 

Quad core oc'd to 2.8...

 

trash.

 

this game is heavily cpu dependent.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Eerazer

[DarthKong]

Overclock your i5 or i7 as well... anything less, you want to upgrade.

 

I run totally ok on a Wolfdale 5200 oc'd to 3.3

[stickyickytricky]

I miss my pentium D 2.8, that thing was a beast for its time!!!!!

[Vengeful_Deity]

Ummm its gotta be something else.

 

I run my game max res max settings minus the shadows because they are gawd awful ugly and I get a steady 40-60 fps in fleet with my GTX 275..... lol. With shadows on in fleet im still at 30-60fps depending on where im at.

 

Pretty sure the 550ti out specs that card.

 

I am running a 975 extreme i7 and 6 gigs of dominator ram on a evga classified SLI 3 board.

 

They're about the same, #43 and 45 on this list.

 

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

[Frenzyguy]

So yesterday I decided to finally update the video card on my desktop. I didn't go crazy and get top of the line but I think we can all agree that a nvidia 550ti is nothing to scoff at (i had a nvidia 9600 in there). Loaded up BF3 on ultra and Skyrim at max and got around 30-35 fps. Not bad, about what I was expecting since the card is about a year old. Now time to load up to and see if I can get above 20 fps....oh wow yea! now I have !22! fps while running around in quest areas (didnt check fleet and WZ since it will probably be lower)

 

Wow so glad they had that long winded post about low end machines and explaining to us noobs what graphic settings are v.v

 

Edit: adding cpu and ram cause I am a tard and forgot. Quad core oc'd to 2.8 and 8 gigs of ram

 

You are choking your por 550 with an old q6600 i guess, its that bad yes, you petty much better with a huige 3.5- 4ghz dual core than this quad. and 550 is WAY WAY behind 560, 550 is basicly not even 50% better than your 9600 gt(I have a computer with this card in at home) the real improvement you have with this card over your 9600gt is the shader graphic and thats pretty much it.

 

GFX card isnt doing its job alone, oh and you quad is probably running on a lga 775 socket board which is probably runnign with some ddr2 800MHz........all in all You are choking, and when you say bf3 ultra....what resolution, what is you ani filter and AA at? ultra settings means nothign if your AA is off and you are runnign at 800x600 lol.

[Lundli]

The HDD is what gets people, so many people are still not putting their OS and games onto SSDs, and yet those games are getting to the point where, if they're not 64-bit, they have to use HDD cache... hence the SSD advantage.

 

And half of those who do stick them in an SATA II port

[C-Bee]

TOR FPS depends on 3 things:

 

1. CPU

2. HDD

3. GPU

 

You want the fastest quad-core processor you can find. An i7 is money, an i5 is solid, if you have a Phenom (or gad... Bulldozer) you will want to overclock it until it screams. Overclock your i5 or i7 as well... anything less, you want to upgrade.

 

Your HDD speed *matters*. If you don't have an SSD, get one, and install both TOR and Win7 on it. You'll notice a dramatic increase in your minimum FPS, and a decrease in those pesky load times.

 

Finally, your GPU matters. You really don't want to have grass, shadows, bloom, etc... turned up anyway as those hit your CPU, but you want to be able to run high resolution (19x10 minimum) and turn on 4xAA/16xAF as this will dramatically improve your ability to see and compete in raid / warzone content.

 

The HDD is what gets people, so many people are still not putting their OS and games onto SSDs, and yet those games are getting to the point where, if they're not 64-bit, they have to use HDD cache... hence the SSD advantage.

 

The whole CPU part is debatable since Im prooving it wrong every time I play...

 

HDD only matters to a certain point and there is only so much you can gain by usign even fastest available RAM disk configuration.

 

You might want to check your facts about CPU/GPU usage with shadows / bloom / etc. too. Becose what you are posting is just down right misleading m8.

[talligan]

Whats the power requirement for that new card? What about your old card? Whats your PSU? You didn't accidentally plug the monitor into the on-board video (lol)?

What about heat?

 

I'd recommend:

Hit ctrl-shift-esc, go to performance and hit 'resource monitor'. Run it for a while and see what happens. If you see a big hitch or stutter alt-tab over and see if any graphs are topping out. What are your hard faults/sec on the memory? Is your HDD running at 100%?

 

Get MSI Afterburner and have it graph GPU usage and temperature over time. if you're heating up and repeatedly hitting 100% then something is funky with your card.

[Frenzyguy]

TOR FPS depends on 3 things:

 

1. CPU

2. HDD

3. GPU

 

You want the fastest quad-core processor you can find. An i7 is money, an i5 is solid, if you have a Phenom (or gad... Bulldozer) you will want to overclock it until it screams. Overclock your i5 or i7 as well... anything less, you want to upgrade.

 

Your HDD speed *matters*. If you don't have an SSD, get one, and install both TOR and Win7 on it. You'll notice a dramatic increase in your minimum FPS, and a decrease in those pesky load times.

 

Finally, your GPU matters. You really don't want to have grass, shadows, bloom, etc... turned up anyway as those hit your CPU, but you want to be able to run high resolution (19x10 minimum) and turn on 4xAA/16xAF as this will dramatically improve your ability to see and compete in raid / warzone content.

 

The HDD is what gets people, so many people are still not putting their OS and games onto SSDs, and yet those games are getting to the point where, if they're not 64-bit, they have to use HDD cache... hence the SSD advantage.

 

No need to OCC I5 2500k or I7 2600k if you dont want to at 3.3 GHz its using 50% of total procesing power available. and me I run an I5 2500k at 4.5 and I barely go above 30-40% cpu load I run at 50-60 fps in fleet and 80-110 outside......(6970 2GB OC, with 8GB ram)

[talligan]

Whats the power requirement for that new card? What about your old card? Whats your PSU? You didn't accidentally plug the monitor into the on-board video (lol)?

What about heat?

 

I'd recommend:

Hit ctrl-shift-esc, go to performance and hit 'resource monitor'. Run it for a while and see what happens. If you see a big hitch or stutter alt-tab over and see if any graphs are topping out. What are your hard faults/sec on the memory? Is your HDD running at 100%?

 

Get MSI Afterburner and have it graph GPU usage and temperature over time. if you're heating up and repeatedly hitting 100% then something is funky with your card.

 

Bumping this over to the last page to make sure the OP sees it

[Vengeful_Deity]

TOR FPS depends on 3 things:

 

1. CPU

2. HDD

3. GPU

 

You want the fastest quad-core processor you can find. An i7 is money, an i5 is solid, if you have a Phenom (or gad... Bulldozer) you will want to overclock it until it screams. Overclock your i5 or i7 as well... anything less, you want to upgrade.

 

Your HDD speed *matters*. If you don't have an SSD, get one, and install both TOR and Win7 on it. You'll notice a dramatic increase in your minimum FPS, and a decrease in those pesky load times.

 

Finally, your GPU matters. You really don't want to have grass, shadows, bloom, etc... turned up anyway as those hit your CPU, but you want to be able to run high resolution (19x10 minimum) and turn on 4xAA/16xAF as this will dramatically improve your ability to see and compete in raid / warzone content.

 

The HDD is what gets people, so many people are still not putting their OS and games onto SSDs, and yet those games are getting to the point where, if they're not 64-bit, they have to use HDD cache... hence the SSD advantage.

 

THIS!!!

 

I played the game in beta, was getting ~15 FPS on flight paths in the starting area. Changing settings did little or nothing to improve the situation.

 

I upgraded my Processor from a Q9550 to an i7 2600k and moved from a consumer level HDD to a SATA III Force GT SSD.

 

Both set ups used the same 275 GTX GPU, I jumped to 70+ in most situations. I've got it vsynched now and I have a smooth 60 FPS in all places but Illum, and even then it only drops to like 30ish.

 

Edit: The worst part is trying to convince people that their drive has anything to do with FPS. I asked someone in General chat that was having problems what their drive speeds were and got laughed out of town.

 

Jokes on them.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Vengeful_Deity

[ispanolfw]

while it is true that Intel can offer slightly better architectuer right now, it's pretty much irrelevant point of argument.

 

There are CPU's that are Fastest in their class and then there are CPU's that are fast enough for the intended purpose. Im happy to say that most modern CPU's from both Intel and AMD can be put into 2nd category.

 

Im running old Phenom II X4 945 myself and CPU isnt even close to being the bottleneck.

 

Slight? Sandy Bridge is about a 30% performance increase over Nehalem on average. And Nehalem is already faster than the Phenom II Architecture. And while I can see it working fine for some, depending on settings, resolution or whatever. Most of the time you can still see an FPS increase by OC'ing even Sandy Bridge Chips.

[ispanolfw]

Also if you do have a slower drive this "might" help some, but only if you have enough RAM to do so.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=154568

 

It basically uses a RAM Drive for the cache files the game uses. I do it on mine and it "seems" to do ok, but I run the game off an SSD as it is and my computer is no slouch either. But I have 12 gigs so ram is no issue.