Trevalon Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Ok i thank everyone for all your help. I have one more question. I just opened up my computer and it is unbelievably dusty. So how much do you think this could be causing a lot of my lag? Meh, probably not much - Dust causes overheating issues and unless your shutting down from heat issues then it probably isn't affecting your FPS that much. Edited January 2, 2013 by Trevalon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmerus Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) umm because 600 series utilizes pci-e 3.0 and sandy bridge and p67 does not, why would I buy a gpu that I can't fully utilize without a chipset and cpu upgrade? as for performance I've played through alot of intense fps games at max setting with no problems - deus ex human revolution which is a game they advertise as being optimized for amd cards I never got under 50fps on max settings, that's a pretty graphic intensive game it's funny you think newer games are the ones that need alot of gpu power, but in all honestly some of the older games are the highest gpu intense games to date - metro 2033, crysis, etc. all quite old games and top the charts in terms of gpu usage. Because there is not a single card that is powerful enough to utilize the bandwidth of a single PCI-E 3.0 16x lane. And if there was they would be needed to come up with PCI-E 4.0 with the next generation of cards or it would be pointless. Metro 2033 is not old. It was released in 2010. Ofc newer games are GPU heavy. Have you tried Battlefield 3? EDIT: Btw Im running my GTX 680s on PCI-E 2.0 8x lanes (because nvidia PCI-E ****up) and they are not bottlenecked by the PCI-E lanes. Edited January 2, 2013 by Marmerus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fornix Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 either way your advice is bad, 560ti is overkill for swtor and pretty much any other game I've played The 560 is most definitely not overkill, not even the 660 is. It's a mid-range card which scores decent in games such as BF3, Skyrim, Crysis 2, etc, But still more is to be gained by using the GTX 680. For SWTOR the performance benefit is less profound, as previously explained already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinxDuff Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Ok i thank everyone for all your help. I have one more question. I just opened up my computer and it is unbelievably dusty. So how much do you think this could be causing a lot of my lag? Lag can happen when the GPU overheats. While in your case it doesn't sound like this is your problem regardless, clean it out! Make sure you actually take the card out then clean it with some compressed air. Edited January 2, 2013 by JustinxDuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fornix Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Ok i thank everyone for all your help. I have one more question. I just opened up my computer and it is unbelievably dusty. So how much do you think this could be causing a lot of my lag? Your computer will not run slower due to dust, as temperature does not influence speed per sé. 2.6 Ghz @ 30 C or 2.6 Ghz at 50 C is the exact same speed. However, a lower temperature does allow for greater overclocking if desired, and in terms of that keeping dust out is most definitely preferable. Even beyond that it's also strongly to be recommended to keep it clean, primarily to reduce the risk of fire hazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwence Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 skyrim and crysis 2 is np with 560ti as I've played through them both at max settings never played BF3, not really into any of the BFs most of the time gpu overusage comes from the edge removal crap which is hardly noticeable, and now they have FXAA which does the same thing but can render without that heavy gpu usage I wouldnt put too much stock in benchmark scoring if that is what you're basing your opinion on. Yes of course the $600 680 card will outperform a 560ti lol, but do u need it to play games at high fps on max settings? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwence Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 oh 1900x1200 res, just so u dont think I did skyrim at 800x600 or something lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skoobie Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 OP, fwiw.....I play on a ATI 5780@ max setting with pretty much no frame rate problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foune Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Get yourself a GTX 460 if you're low on budget, one of the best cards you're gonna get at the 100 euro range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Which isn't surprising, as what basically happens during such load screen stalls is that a game is having difficulty retrieving a file from your drive. In the meantime it's stuck there till the file is loaded in and it is allowed to cycle through. So if you need to load in an 800 MB data file for example with a 5400 RPM HDD with an avg read speed of 70 MB / sec you will face a 12 sec stall. That's not what happens though, I have an SSD (SATA 3.0 6 Gbit/s) and there is no CPU or IO stall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fornix Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) skyrim and crysis 2 is np with 560ti as I've played through them both at max settings never played BF3, not really into any of the BFs most of the time gpu overusage comes from the edge removal crap which is hardly noticeable, and now they have FXAA which does the same thing but can render without that heavy gpu usage I wouldnt put too much stock in benchmark scoring if that is what you're basing your opinion on. Yes of course the $600 680 card will outperform a 560ti lol, but do u need it to play games at high fps on max settings? No way. I definitely do notice my edge removal crap . Beyond that, I also am a heavy user of graphics enhancing mods to user higher res textures, beyond standard visibility where possible, etc. So in those terms my GPU usage is above average. That's not what happens though, I have an SSD (SATA 3.0 6 Gbit/s) and there is no CPU or IO stall. Even with an SSD you're still expected to stall, the period just lasting shorter. For me with my Crucial SSD it lasts about 2 ~ 3 seconds. Edited January 2, 2013 by Fornix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordArtemis Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) My original suggestions still stand, and would point out that many folks agree AMD cards (used to be ATI) are not the way to go if you want trouble free gameplay. Anything north of a 460 with 2GB of DDR5 (very important) would work. Also some have mentioned that 8GB of ram might not be enough...not sure about that, but more can't hurt. Again, make sure it is at least 1600 DDR3. Best to buy matched chips, two if possible, and go dual bank with them. If you stick to an Intel board (sandy bridge preferred), I7 processor of at least 3GHZ (higher preferred), Nvidia 460 2GB DDR5 or better, 8 to 12 gigs of 2 matched sticks of DDR3 1600 ram or better, an SSD and Windows 7 64 bit you will be in pretty good shape. With this setup you can run either 1920x1080 or 1200, depending on your monitor naturally, max settings, with very few if any problems. Edited January 2, 2013 by LordArtemis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwence Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I agree with nvidia > amd I don't agree with the need for 2gb on your gpu, that junk only comes into play if you're trying to play with some crazy high resolution, 1gb cards are fine for 1900x1080 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Also some have mentioned that 8GB of ram might not be enough...not sure about that, but more can't hurt. Yeah itt can't hurt, but 8 is more than enough, so it probably won't help either (unless you're ramdisking, of course). Even 4 is more than adequate (barring the memory leak issue ). It just these days RAM is so cheap less than 8 seems silly. Even with an SSD you're still expected to stall, the period just lasting shorter. For me with my Crucial SSD it lasts about 2 ~ 3 seconds. I think you're missing the issue, I'm wondering if there is an engine/GPU issue causing said stall, because it is NOT a "waiting to load stall" as there is no activity during this time. Previously a lot of people have suggested it is a game synch issue (which it still might be). Edited January 2, 2013 by Goretzu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infalliable Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) The 560 is most definitely not overkill, not even the 660 is. It's a mid-range card which scores decent in games such as BF3, Skyrim, Crysis 2, etc, But still more is to be gained by using the GTX 680. For SWTOR the performance benefit is less profound, as previously explained already. I recently got a 560Ti. I'm very happy with the results. It runs very smoothly (1900x1080) and is affordable (~$150 after rebate). As someone earlier mentioned, most of the better cards require the PCIe 3.0 standard slots, which people who are upgrading probably don't have. Edited January 2, 2013 by Infalliable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skoobie Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) My original suggestions still stand, and would point out that many folks agree AMD cards (used to be ATI) are not the way to go if you want trouble free gameplay. And I would like to point out that the only people who actually say this are Nvidia users. There is no actual basis in reality for this. Nvidia and AMD both have had various issues with their drivers at times. Edited January 2, 2013 by Skoobie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fornix Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) I think you're missing the issue, I'm wondering if there is an engine/GPU issue causing said stall, because it is NOT a "waiting to load stall" as there is no activity during this time. Previously a lot of people have suggested it is a game synch issue (which it still might be). I think it IS a waiting to load stall, it's a stall which gets significantly shorter if you run the game on an SSD rather than HDD. Strongly suggesting the game cycle simply standing still till a larger file is loaded in, instead of continuing on looping simultaneously. And I would like to point out that the only people who actually say this are Nvidia users. There is no actual basis in reality for this. Nvidia and AMD both have various issues with their drivers at times. They also both have distinct differences and performance variability between games. As an nVidia user I'd say neither is better than the other. Best thing is to look for the games you frequently play what they're best optimized for. If majority is Ati, it'd be weird to go for an nVidia card. Edited January 2, 2013 by Fornix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwence Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I definitely do notice my edge removal crap . Beyond that, I also am a heavy user of graphics enhancing mods to user higher res textures, beyond standard visibility where possible, etc. So in those terms my GPU usage is above average. I dont believe you, at least not for swtor. I've turned aa on and off and literally have to zoom the camera in and sit myself flush against some edge to notice any difference which is still very minor. as for textures, what mods are you talking about? pretty much every game by default has the max filtering already on and you can't enchance even through control center Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skoobie Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) They also both have distinct differences and performance variability between games. As an nVidia user I'd say neither is better than the other. Best thing is to look for the games you frequently play what they're best optimized for. If majority is Ati, it'd be weird to go for an nVidia card. They can and I agree. If you are into overclocking your gpu, then AMD is the only way to go atm, since Nvidia just had thier little attitude with their 3rd party vendors. If you really want to experience the full physx benefits of a game like Borderlands 2, then you will want a Nvidia. As far as performance testing, the top single gpu's (at factory settings) for both companies rate about equal. (7970 vs 680) Edited January 2, 2013 by Skoobie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I think it IS a waiting to load stall, it's a stall which gets significantly shorter if you run the game on an SSD rather than HDD. Strongly suggesting the game cycle simply standing still till a larger file is loaded in, instead of continuing on looping simultaneously. So why is there no I/O activity during the stall? And why would SWTOR take forever with an SSD compared to similar loads in similar game (if there were I/O activitiy at that point, which there isn't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwence Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 oc a gpu hardly does anything anyway, you can get maybe 1-2 fps boost in most cases, it's like oc'ing memory - does very little also that stuff about game optimization seems to me to be more like that gpu company throwing the game developer some kickback for advertising that there game runs the best on that particular gpu series. I don't think there is much to the whole this game is optimized for this card stuff also I dont like amd for non-gpu related reasons, I was just mad they half assed there 8 core fx series cpu's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmerus Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 skyrim and crysis 2 is np with 560ti as I've played through them both at max settings never played BF3, not really into any of the BFs most of the time gpu overusage comes from the edge removal crap which is hardly noticeable, and now they have FXAA which does the same thing but can render without that heavy gpu usage I wouldnt put too much stock in benchmark scoring if that is what you're basing your opinion on. Yes of course the $600 680 card will outperform a 560ti lol, but do u need it to play games at high fps on max settings? No way. FXAA blurs the entire picture and not just the edges. This gives a very uneven and blurry image and not very pleasant for the eyes. It is better than nothing but it is far from good and not comparable with real anti aliasing. And to get it to look anywhere good you still need some AA. The idea behind it was to run it on top of some AA without losing to much GPU power like with higher AA settings. I have 3xGTX 680. But it is not for playing games at max settings because they can't handle that. But I can have very high settings in most games and get good fps on a tripple screen setup. But I would never go out and say that my system can max out every game because it can't and if I went out and said that and some poor fool would believe me and get the same setup. Well then he would get very disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skoobie Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I will say this: If the rumors of Intel buying Nvidia come true, then it will be lights out for AMD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fornix Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I dont believe you, at least not for swtor. I've turned aa on and off and literally have to zoom the camera in and sit myself flush against some edge to notice any difference which is still very minor. as for textures, what mods are you talking about? pretty much every game by default has the max filtering already on and you can't enchance even through control center For all games I play I use HD texture packs where available, I use enhanced effects and lighting where available, etc. Furthermore I commonly alter the .cfg files to enhance aspects such as foliage density, view distance, object view distance, shading effects, etc. For other games such as for example GTA IV I use things such as iCEnhancer to improve the game's looks. All of such things give a hit on performance for which more GPU power is required to keep it playable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwence Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 sorry just to make sure I understand... you cant max your games out with 3-680's? do you have the little sli bridge connected right? lol are you trying to play your games on the overhead screen at cowboy's stadium or something? cuz I think 3 680's should even be able to pull that off. sadly you're doing something wrong pal, or your definition of max setting is pretty out there in wonderland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts