One strange thing I noticed.
For certain games such as Assasin's Creed II the frame rate is quite low almost regardless of the horsepower you have.
I was testing the game in 3D (fully maxed out in-game settings, 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz) with my new GTX 580 and - much to my surprise - Fraps says the FPS average is 31.3 (min=17, max=61).
My first though was that my 'old' Intel Q9650 Quad is holding the new Fermi monster back, so I monitored the GPU & CPU usage as well (using nvidia's own system monitor). These results were even more puzzling.
First off, mostly 2 out of 4 cores were used (a 2010 game still not taking advantage of all 4 cores??!).
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores) and the GPU load was 57%. If the CPU was the bottleneck here, I would have expected the CPU load to be nearly 100% all the time, and the graphics card to 'cruise' comfortably at 50-70%. That is clearly not the case.
In other tests I've tried (such as Unigine Heaven 2.1 Benchmark or the Medusa demo) at least I can see the GPU working hard at ~ 95%.
How is it possible that both CPU and GPU still have plenty of power left untouched, and yet the frame rate is only 30 (not to mention it is as low as 20 fps sometimes)?
Is it possible that somehow the 3d vision drivers are not fully optimized yet? Or maybe there is a problem with the game itself...
Did any of you had similar experiences?
Please share your thoughts /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
For certain games such as Assasin's Creed II the frame rate is quite low almost regardless of the horsepower you have.
I was testing the game in 3D (fully maxed out in-game settings, 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz) with my new GTX 580 and - much to my surprise - Fraps says the FPS average is 31.3 (min=17, max=61).
My first though was that my 'old' Intel Q9650 Quad is holding the new Fermi monster back, so I monitored the GPU & CPU usage as well (using nvidia's own system monitor). These results were even more puzzling.
First off, mostly 2 out of 4 cores were used (a 2010 game still not taking advantage of all 4 cores??!).
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores) and the GPU load was 57%. If the CPU was the bottleneck here, I would have expected the CPU load to be nearly 100% all the time, and the graphics card to 'cruise' comfortably at 50-70%. That is clearly not the case.
In other tests I've tried (such as Unigine Heaven 2.1 Benchmark or the Medusa demo) at least I can see the GPU working hard at ~ 95%.
How is it possible that both CPU and GPU still have plenty of power left untouched, and yet the frame rate is only 30 (not to mention it is as low as 20 fps sometimes)?
Is it possible that somehow the 3d vision drivers are not fully optimized yet? Or maybe there is a problem with the game itself...
Did any of you had similar experiences?
Please share your thoughts /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
One strange thing I noticed.
For certain games such as Assasin's Creed II the frame rate is quite low almost regardless of the horsepower you have.
I was testing the game in 3D (fully maxed out in-game settings, 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz) with my new GTX 580 and - much to my surprise - Fraps says the FPS average is 31.3 (min=17, max=61).
My first though was that my 'old' Intel Q9650 Quad is holding the new Fermi monster back, so I monitored the GPU & CPU usage as well (using nvidia's own system monitor). These results were even more puzzling.
First off, mostly 2 out of 4 cores were used (a 2010 game still not taking advantage of all 4 cores??!).
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores) and the GPU load was 57%. If the CPU was the bottleneck here, I would have expected the CPU load to be nearly 100% all the time, and the graphics card to 'cruise' comfortably at 50-70%. That is clearly not the case.
In other tests I've tried (such as Unigine Heaven 2.1 Benchmark or the Medusa demo) at least I can see the GPU working hard at ~ 95%.
How is it possible that both CPU and GPU still have plenty of power left untouched, and yet the frame rate is only 30 (not to mention it is as low as 20 fps sometimes)?
Is it possible that somehow the 3d vision drivers are not fully optimized yet? Or maybe there is a problem with the game itself...
Did any of you had similar experiences?
Please share your thoughts /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
For certain games such as Assasin's Creed II the frame rate is quite low almost regardless of the horsepower you have.
I was testing the game in 3D (fully maxed out in-game settings, 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz) with my new GTX 580 and - much to my surprise - Fraps says the FPS average is 31.3 (min=17, max=61).
My first though was that my 'old' Intel Q9650 Quad is holding the new Fermi monster back, so I monitored the GPU & CPU usage as well (using nvidia's own system monitor). These results were even more puzzling.
First off, mostly 2 out of 4 cores were used (a 2010 game still not taking advantage of all 4 cores??!).
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores) and the GPU load was 57%. If the CPU was the bottleneck here, I would have expected the CPU load to be nearly 100% all the time, and the graphics card to 'cruise' comfortably at 50-70%. That is clearly not the case.
In other tests I've tried (such as Unigine Heaven 2.1 Benchmark or the Medusa demo) at least I can see the GPU working hard at ~ 95%.
How is it possible that both CPU and GPU still have plenty of power left untouched, and yet the frame rate is only 30 (not to mention it is as low as 20 fps sometimes)?
Is it possible that somehow the 3d vision drivers are not fully optimized yet? Or maybe there is a problem with the game itself...
Did any of you had similar experiences?
Please share your thoughts /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
[quote]Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores)...[/quote]
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
It is a little bit odd that the game doesn't use at least 3 cores. They probably just decided to support two and not mess with code that uses more cores if they exist.
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores)...
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
It is a little bit odd that the game doesn't use at least 3 cores. They probably just decided to support two and not mess with code that uses more cores if they exist.
[quote]Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores)...[/quote]
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
It is a little bit odd that the game doesn't use at least 3 cores. They probably just decided to support two and not mess with code that uses more cores if they exist.
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores)...
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
It is a little bit odd that the game doesn't use at least 3 cores. They probably just decided to support two and not mess with code that uses more cores if they exist.
Go SLI man ! Its the ONLY way to get decent fps in 3D Vision! Pop in another 580 and say "BYE BYE" to all your problems.
I was having problems with a single 480, until I decided to go SLI.
Then it was, "Problems-BYE BYE " /laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':laugh:' />
Go SLI man ! Its the ONLY way to get decent fps in 3D Vision! Pop in another 580 and say "BYE BYE" to all your problems.
I was having problems with a single 480, until I decided to go SLI.
Then it was, "Problems-BYE BYE " /laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':laugh:' />
[quote name='Zloth' date='15 November 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1289788378' post='1146615']
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
[/quote]
I forgot to mention, that's not the case either. Looking only at the 2 cores that do most of the work, I still get an average 80-85% load.
As for other suggestions, I'm one of the few with a single card slot mobo, so SLI is out unfortunately. I could change the motherboard, but then I need a new processor as well (LGA 775 is obsolete now), a new power supply, new RAM (I have DDR2) that's almost like a brand new PC, bar the graphics card, sound card, and display... I'd rather wait for another 1-2 years and build one from scratch.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like 'consolitis' :D
[quote name='Zloth' date='15 November 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1289788378' post='1146615']
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
I forgot to mention, that's not the case either. Looking only at the 2 cores that do most of the work, I still get an average 80-85% load.
As for other suggestions, I'm one of the few with a single card slot mobo, so SLI is out unfortunately. I could change the motherboard, but then I need a new processor as well (LGA 775 is obsolete now), a new power supply, new RAM (I have DDR2) that's almost like a brand new PC, bar the graphics card, sound card, and display... I'd rather wait for another 1-2 years and build one from scratch.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like 'consolitis' :D
[quote name='Zloth' date='15 November 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1289788378' post='1146615']
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
[/quote]
I forgot to mention, that's not the case either. Looking only at the 2 cores that do most of the work, I still get an average 80-85% load.
As for other suggestions, I'm one of the few with a single card slot mobo, so SLI is out unfortunately. I could change the motherboard, but then I need a new processor as well (LGA 775 is obsolete now), a new power supply, new RAM (I have DDR2) that's almost like a brand new PC, bar the graphics card, sound card, and display... I'd rather wait for another 1-2 years and build one from scratch.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like 'consolitis' :D
[quote name='Zloth' date='15 November 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1289788378' post='1146615']
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
I forgot to mention, that's not the case either. Looking only at the 2 cores that do most of the work, I still get an average 80-85% load.
As for other suggestions, I'm one of the few with a single card slot mobo, so SLI is out unfortunately. I could change the motherboard, but then I need a new processor as well (LGA 775 is obsolete now), a new power supply, new RAM (I have DDR2) that's almost like a brand new PC, bar the graphics card, sound card, and display... I'd rather wait for another 1-2 years and build one from scratch.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like 'consolitis' :D
One strange thing I noticed.
For certain games such as Assasin's Creed II the frame rate is quite low almost regardless of the horsepower you have.
I was testing the game in 3D (fully maxed out in-game settings, 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz) with my new GTX 580 and - much to my surprise - Fraps says the FPS average is 31.3 (min=17, max=61).
My first though was that my 'old' Intel Q9650 Quad is holding the new Fermi monster back, so I monitored the GPU & CPU usage as well (using nvidia's own system monitor). These results were even more puzzling.
First off, mostly 2 out of 4 cores were used (a 2010 game still not taking advantage of all 4 cores??!).
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores) and the GPU load was 57%. If the CPU was the bottleneck here, I would have expected the CPU load to be nearly 100% all the time, and the graphics card to 'cruise' comfortably at 50-70%. That is clearly not the case.
In other tests I've tried (such as Unigine Heaven 2.1 Benchmark or the Medusa demo) at least I can see the GPU working hard at ~ 95%.
How is it possible that both CPU and GPU still have plenty of power left untouched, and yet the frame rate is only 30 (not to mention it is as low as 20 fps sometimes)?
Is it possible that somehow the 3d vision drivers are not fully optimized yet? Or maybe there is a problem with the game itself...
Did any of you had similar experiences?
Please share your thoughts
One strange thing I noticed.
For certain games such as Assasin's Creed II the frame rate is quite low almost regardless of the horsepower you have.
I was testing the game in 3D (fully maxed out in-game settings, 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz) with my new GTX 580 and - much to my surprise - Fraps says the FPS average is 31.3 (min=17, max=61).
My first though was that my 'old' Intel Q9650 Quad is holding the new Fermi monster back, so I monitored the GPU & CPU usage as well (using nvidia's own system monitor). These results were even more puzzling.
First off, mostly 2 out of 4 cores were used (a 2010 game still not taking advantage of all 4 cores??!).
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores) and the GPU load was 57%. If the CPU was the bottleneck here, I would have expected the CPU load to be nearly 100% all the time, and the graphics card to 'cruise' comfortably at 50-70%. That is clearly not the case.
In other tests I've tried (such as Unigine Heaven 2.1 Benchmark or the Medusa demo) at least I can see the GPU working hard at ~ 95%.
How is it possible that both CPU and GPU still have plenty of power left untouched, and yet the frame rate is only 30 (not to mention it is as low as 20 fps sometimes)?
Is it possible that somehow the 3d vision drivers are not fully optimized yet? Or maybe there is a problem with the game itself...
Did any of you had similar experiences?
Please share your thoughts
One strange thing I noticed.
For certain games such as Assasin's Creed II the frame rate is quite low almost regardless of the horsepower you have.
I was testing the game in 3D (fully maxed out in-game settings, 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz) with my new GTX 580 and - much to my surprise - Fraps says the FPS average is 31.3 (min=17, max=61).
My first though was that my 'old' Intel Q9650 Quad is holding the new Fermi monster back, so I monitored the GPU & CPU usage as well (using nvidia's own system monitor). These results were even more puzzling.
First off, mostly 2 out of 4 cores were used (a 2010 game still not taking advantage of all 4 cores??!).
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores) and the GPU load was 57%. If the CPU was the bottleneck here, I would have expected the CPU load to be nearly 100% all the time, and the graphics card to 'cruise' comfortably at 50-70%. That is clearly not the case.
In other tests I've tried (such as Unigine Heaven 2.1 Benchmark or the Medusa demo) at least I can see the GPU working hard at ~ 95%.
How is it possible that both CPU and GPU still have plenty of power left untouched, and yet the frame rate is only 30 (not to mention it is as low as 20 fps sometimes)?
Is it possible that somehow the 3d vision drivers are not fully optimized yet? Or maybe there is a problem with the game itself...
Did any of you had similar experiences?
Please share your thoughts
One strange thing I noticed.
For certain games such as Assasin's Creed II the frame rate is quite low almost regardless of the horsepower you have.
I was testing the game in 3D (fully maxed out in-game settings, 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz) with my new GTX 580 and - much to my surprise - Fraps says the FPS average is 31.3 (min=17, max=61).
My first though was that my 'old' Intel Q9650 Quad is holding the new Fermi monster back, so I monitored the GPU & CPU usage as well (using nvidia's own system monitor). These results were even more puzzling.
First off, mostly 2 out of 4 cores were used (a 2010 game still not taking advantage of all 4 cores??!).
Second - and most important - the CPU load was only 52% (averaged over all 4 cores) and the GPU load was 57%. If the CPU was the bottleneck here, I would have expected the CPU load to be nearly 100% all the time, and the graphics card to 'cruise' comfortably at 50-70%. That is clearly not the case.
In other tests I've tried (such as Unigine Heaven 2.1 Benchmark or the Medusa demo) at least I can see the GPU working hard at ~ 95%.
How is it possible that both CPU and GPU still have plenty of power left untouched, and yet the frame rate is only 30 (not to mention it is as low as 20 fps sometimes)?
Is it possible that somehow the 3d vision drivers are not fully optimized yet? Or maybe there is a problem with the game itself...
Did any of you had similar experiences?
Please share your thoughts
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
It is a little bit odd that the game doesn't use at least 3 cores. They probably just decided to support two and not mess with code that uses more cores if they exist.
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
It is a little bit odd that the game doesn't use at least 3 cores. They probably just decided to support two and not mess with code that uses more cores if they exist.
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
It is a little bit odd that the game doesn't use at least 3 cores. They probably just decided to support two and not mess with code that uses more cores if they exist.
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
It is a little bit odd that the game doesn't use at least 3 cores. They probably just decided to support two and not mess with code that uses more cores if they exist.
I was having problems with a single 480, until I decided to go SLI.
Then it was, "Problems-BYE BYE "
I was having problems with a single 480, until I decided to go SLI.
Then it was, "Problems-BYE BYE "
Processor- Intel Core I7 920
Mobo- MSI- X58 Pro-E
RAM- 6 GB G. Skill DDR3 RAM
VGA -2xSLI (Zotac AMP GTX 480 and Leadtek GTX 480)
Monitor- Samsung 2233RZ 120 Hz LCD
3D Vision Kit
Razer Megalodon 7.1 Surround Sound Headphones
PSU- Corsair HX1000 W
Case- Coolermaster HAF 922
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit
3DMark Vantage Score- 31661
Club SLI Member- SLI-34225 shrapnel
I was having problems with a single 480, until I decided to go SLI.
Then it was, "Problems-BYE BYE "
I was having problems with a single 480, until I decided to go SLI.
Then it was, "Problems-BYE BYE "
Processor- Intel Core I7 920
Mobo- MSI- X58 Pro-E
RAM- 6 GB G. Skill DDR3 RAM
VGA -2xSLI (Zotac AMP GTX 480 and Leadtek GTX 480)
Monitor- Samsung 2233RZ 120 Hz LCD
3D Vision Kit
Razer Megalodon 7.1 Surround Sound Headphones
PSU- Corsair HX1000 W
Case- Coolermaster HAF 922
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit
3DMark Vantage Score- 31661
Club SLI Member- SLI-34225 shrapnel
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
[/quote]
I forgot to mention, that's not the case either. Looking only at the 2 cores that do most of the work, I still get an average 80-85% load.
As for other suggestions, I'm one of the few with a single card slot mobo, so SLI is out unfortunately. I could change the motherboard, but then I need a new processor as well (LGA 775 is obsolete now), a new power supply, new RAM (I have DDR2) that's almost like a brand new PC, bar the graphics card, sound card, and display... I'd rather wait for another 1-2 years and build one from scratch.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like 'consolitis' :D
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
I forgot to mention, that's not the case either. Looking only at the 2 cores that do most of the work, I still get an average 80-85% load.
As for other suggestions, I'm one of the few with a single card slot mobo, so SLI is out unfortunately. I could change the motherboard, but then I need a new processor as well (LGA 775 is obsolete now), a new power supply, new RAM (I have DDR2) that's almost like a brand new PC, bar the graphics card, sound card, and display... I'd rather wait for another 1-2 years and build one from scratch.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like 'consolitis' :D
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
[/quote]
I forgot to mention, that's not the case either. Looking only at the 2 cores that do most of the work, I still get an average 80-85% load.
As for other suggestions, I'm one of the few with a single card slot mobo, so SLI is out unfortunately. I could change the motherboard, but then I need a new processor as well (LGA 775 is obsolete now), a new power supply, new RAM (I have DDR2) that's almost like a brand new PC, bar the graphics card, sound card, and display... I'd rather wait for another 1-2 years and build one from scratch.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like 'consolitis' :D
Meaning two cores are pegged at 100% and two cores are doing nearly nothing at 2%. So your CPU is probably the bottleneck here.
I forgot to mention, that's not the case either. Looking only at the 2 cores that do most of the work, I still get an average 80-85% load.
As for other suggestions, I'm one of the few with a single card slot mobo, so SLI is out unfortunately. I could change the motherboard, but then I need a new processor as well (LGA 775 is obsolete now), a new power supply, new RAM (I have DDR2) that's almost like a brand new PC, bar the graphics card, sound card, and display... I'd rather wait for another 1-2 years and build one from scratch.
The more I look at it, the more it looks like 'consolitis' :D