Video Settings = 0 Impact on FPS

[DarthGreg]

So I just decided to fool around with some settings and timedemos to determine what did and didn't have an impact on my overall framerate. What I found confused me. I found differences of less than 1 FPS between running in 800x600 vs. 1600x1200, DX7 vs. DX8 vs. DX9, low settings vs. maxed settings, no AA/AF vs. high AA/AF.

The only thing that made any kind of difference were NewKleer's config and the original FPS config. Either result in a net 20% performance increase, though the latter config also changes a lot of things (like the advanced video settings) that have 0 impact for me.

This is a newly-formatted system, running fully-updated Windows XP Pro SP2. Specs are:

CPU: AMD Athlon64 3500+ @ 2.2GHz
Video: NVIDIA 7800GT
Memory: 2GB PC4000
Mobo: ABIT AN8 Ultra

I can e-mail my dxdiag.txt to anyone interested, my web hosting doesn't seem to be working at the moment.

i got nothing...

mH fo life!

-seneka :P

[Apathy]

There are a lot of things that you can do to increase performance before using an FPS config. There are tons of guides on the internet for better FPS including windows and regedit tweaks. A few things I would try are

-Defrag your hardrvie
-Run PCbooster http://www.rainbowsoft.info/?p=2038
-Optimize windows http://www.tweakguides.com/TGTC.html

btw, I never posted that config on that forum, no idea why people are alternating it when they re-post it.

[Lost]

I noticed as well, I dropped all my AA and AS to base lowest values, reduced resolution and then fired up FF, still getting 60~ fps in well made areas, 15~ in heavy combat in crappy areas. My CPU is definitely a roadblock, but there should be some change.

[DarthGreg]

Thanks for the advice Apathy, but I've already done all of those things.

Dospac helped me for a few hours last night and determined that my system was fine, and that there was really nothing I could do other than wait for SDK/FF optimization to occur.

As for that config, it seems your post on these forums was removed, which is why I had to link over to those forums rather than these.

[DarthGreg]

Originally Posted by homotron

i got nothing...

mH fo life!

-seneka :P

HOLY CRAP Seneka get on IRC homo! At the very least shoot me a message on AIM: SN DarthGreg.

this pcbooster? can someone let me know what does what so i dont break my pc?

[Apathy]

PC booster is a program that optimizes your registry and can disable annoying things for better performance. (Such as no recent programs in the windows start menu)

[Gigiya]

I would also recommend CCleaner for registry cleanup as well as general PC maintenance.

[Defrag]

If changing your video settings doesn't alter your framerate then it most likely means you are totally and utterly CPU limited. I.e. your graphics card isn't running at max capacity because your CPU can't shovel the data to it fast enough.

[richard nixon]

sorry Defrag but I think you got it wrong, it may be Vice Versa

my processor is far better than my shitty video card

amd 64 3500
geforce 6200
1gb ram
on-board network/sound

changing resolution from 800x600 to 1024x768 makes the game not as smooth, I get 60fps average on 800x600 (vsync on, I hate tearing) and 50fps average on 1024x768 (vsync off) with noticeable slowdown when water is on screen and more than 5 enemies and lots of explosions. 1024x768 is playable of course (I've played worse-BioShock avg 20fps ....) but I'd rather have it be more smooth since the visual quality isnt worth it unless you go up to 1280x1024, of course.

Also, I have latest drivers and my settings are on all high except for AA which is disabled and AF which is at my default 4x, dx9 mode as well with no special .cfg configs or launch options..except for heapsize which is half of my ram (-heapsize 512000, seems to make the game crash a little less more)

I'm just saying, with my particular old comp changing resolution and AA greatly impacts my performance.

honestly I'm happy with the performance of FF, especially compared to Insurgency Mod (which rapes my comp), the only thing INS has over FF is better looking maps...but thats it, the models, weapons, explosions, gibs, sounds, etc look so much better in FF.

Just givin my input.

[Mirage]

What you've just said only seems to back-up the fact that HL2 seems to be quite CPU intensive.

1. Moderate CPU + Poor GFX = Better FPS at lower res.
2. Poor CPU + Moderate GFX = No real difference between any res.

In instance 1 (Your case) a better GFX would mean better FPS at all settings but struggling at high res/settings, where as, to get better FPS in instance 2 you would need to upgrade the CPU.

[Defrag]

I'm just saying, with my particular old comp changing resolution and AA greatly impacts my performance.

If that's the case then you're not just CPU limited. Read the thread again, I don't think you understood (no offence!)

If you can change your graphics settings from top to bottom and your framerate is invariant, then it almost always means you're CPU limited (that's the definition of CPU limited!) Basically what this means is that your graphics card is chewing up everything your CPU can throw at it and still isn't running at capacity. It's effectively kicking its heels and waiting around; that's why your framerate doesn't go up or down if you change the resolution -- it's not running at full throttle because the CPU isn't giving it enough stuff to do because the CPU is taking too long to process each frame (or 'tick') of the game.

If you run at low res and get 100 fps and then run at high res and get 20fps, it's the opposite to being CPU limited -- you're GPU limited. Most people (depending on the game & settings) usually have something in between. The best idea is to crank up the resolution & settings until you start to notice a drop in framerate that actually impacts the fluidity of your game and then kick it down a few notches. If you're totally CPU limited then you may as well run with the graphics settings maxxed out because it won't affect your framerate.

Most people have the situation where running on low to medium won't impact performance too much graphics-wise as they're CPU limited to a degree. However, that doesn't mean you can run @ 1600 x 1200 with 8xAA & 16xAF, as most cards will be brought to their knees at those settings, even with a crap CPU feeding it.

[DarthGreg]

Yeah I am CPU-limited, but only for Source-engine games it appears.

[NewKleer]

yep FF, particularly spam is _definitely_ cpu limited. eg if you have a 2ghz AMD/3ghz P4 you _will_ get only half the fps in spam/action compared to someone with a 3ghz C2D, if you both have same video card (say 7900gt or above and lowish graphics settings as applicable)

the video card will determine the general environment FPS - and thats where graphics settings will play a role to some extent.

below i test i did with my timedemo as in this thread: http://www.ozfortress.com/showthread.php?t=24116

ive got a 8800gts which is a tad overkill compared for need for as much CPU mhz as you can get. which is evident in the almost linear increase in FPS as CPU speed rises.

ok just tested CPU speed impact on FPS.

(i have ragdoll and overlay options on, rest as per config). 1280, 4xAA, trilinear.

2.66ghz - 79FPS
3.20ghz - 94FPS

20% increase in cpu speed resulted in a 19% increase in FPS. very CPU dependant (all the spam and FF aspects over normal HL2 are presumably done in code that runs on CPU only, hence high dependance).

Originally Posted by DarthGreg

Yeah I am CPU-limited, but only for Source-engine games it appears.

That is because the source engine is very processor friendly. If you have a good processor and a sub-par graphics card, you can still get very high FPS.

I have an 8800GTX OC and up until 5 days ago a 4200+ x2 @2.7gig with this I was able to get 250fps but with dips to about 120fps.

My 4200+ died so I moved the 8800 into my other PC a 3.4gig p4 600 and my fps dropped dramatically to 170fps with dips to 80fps.

I have the same problem as the first poster, It doesn't matter which settings I change in video the fps stay the exact say, this makes me agree with defrag, cpu limited

[Mirage]

Bit of an update to support this, I did an long over due upgrade this week as follows:

AMD Barton XP-M 2500 (Running at over XP3200 speeds - 2.3GHz)
2 GB Geil Value Ram (1x1GB, 2x512MB)
Abit NF7-S v2
7800GS (Overclocked slightly)

to

Pentium C2D E2140 (1.6GHz)
Asrock 775-VSTA (which supports DDR & DDR2, AGP & PCI-E)
Same ram
Same GFX

I've gone from 20-100fps to 100fps with some small drops. I haven't even overclocked the CPU and it's the lowest C2D on the market, mobo isn't meant to be up to much either except its amazing support of components.

For me, that's proof enough that FF is CPU dependent.

[JECS]

i wonder if people are forgetting about checking things besides game options?
like shadowing and caching in the bios settings. im not sure what the control panel is like for any of the newer video cards but it could be the video cards software forcing stuff higher quality and overriding the games settings. downloading coolbits and using this guide http://3dgpu.com/archives/2004/08/09...0-tweak-guide/
could make a fair difference if quality isnt important. in which case you should also use dx7 because that made all the difference for me.
you should also check to see if your fps is capped (fps_max), if vsync is on (mat_vsync in game, and/or in video control panel), and you might as well check your monitors frequency setting too just to make things look a bit better. im happy at 75hz which is the max my monitor can do at 1280x1024 i think.