EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dv8D66p.png)
low fps in bigger 1v1 battles
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
It's Physics and Effects that kills you, not really anything else. You can get 50-100% minimum FPS gain having physics off effects low/medium vs both maxed. Regardless you can still expect pretty low minimums because of CPU, you can raise them a ton with overclocking if you have an appropriate motherboard, cooling and unlocked CPU (same benchmark, R1CH reported 27fps minimum with 2500k @3.3ghz, 39fps minimum @4.4ghz, but this was WOL, before new physics etcetc) Before anyone says GPU, in the benchmarking i did in a 2v2 replay (not the most intensive) i had same minimum FPS on max vs min graphics settings (as long as you dont count physics and effects as graphics setting) on a gtx260, with GPU load in battle being around 30-40% with the game maxed (extreme shaders etc 1920x1080) so i dont think minimums would change much, though GPU bottleneck is there early game with pretty much any setup (very little load on CPU at start of game, so it can throw out 200-400+FPS, lower tier graphics cards cannot keep up past low settings - but as game goes on, demand on CPU rises massively, framerates cliff and even low tier GPU's can keep up with the game on max settings) | ||
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
Do you know if post-processing is as expensive as effects and physics? Its a GPU setting, i doubt it would change minimum FPS | ||
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
On April 09 2013 02:26 Cyro wrote: Its a GPU setting, i doubt it would change minimum FPS Can you advise me on a tool that tracks fps? | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
I have an i7 2700K and also not full 60 fps at large battles. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
| ||
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
| ||
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
| ||
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
On April 09 2013 04:37 Cyro wrote: Do you really need that much? (vcore) I don't think so. Lowered it to 4ghz. | ||
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
| ||
|
LTY
United States223 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
A lot of CPU's can do 4.5ghz on 1.25v, some need more, some need less, but unless you are manually setting voltage + clock speed and stability testing to see how low you can go without crashing, bluescreening or encountering errors, you'll never know how low you can go on voltage at any given clock speed. If you are maxing 65c in Prime95, you have like 20c of headroom over 4ghz 1.25v, which means you can do pretty much whatever you want. Absolute max temps around 85c are completely fine unless you are running Folding@Home or something similar to run the CPU at 100% load 24/7 | ||
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
If you need help or more info for overclocking, just ask (: | ||
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
Heat and voltage degrade the CPU, 1.25-1.3v is safe if you are being super strict on sandy bridge and if you have max temps under 80c for prime95, you're completely fine, like longevity is not even a factor Dont feel forced into overclocking, but it's very sweet to do and there's not really any risk for lower end (like 4.4ghz) | ||
|
HAL_9000
Bulgaria13 Posts
| ||
| ||
