Call of duty Advanced warfare framerate problems

[elijah1]

So I recently played the Call of duty game but I struggle to get my fps to a stable 60. It constantly fluctuating all over the place. It goes from 80-100 in some areas and instantly drops to around 33-38fps in other areas, particularly the open areas where there are a lot of fighting.

I should get high and stable fps with my rig and I have no idea why i get low frame rates. I have tinkered with the settings so many times, heck I even made them all into low and medium but I still get the same results.

Other games run ok, I guess. Is my card bad?


Drivers are the latest from amd "14.11.1" Optimized for CODAW
Specs:
FX-8350 on stock
Asus R9 290 at 1024mhz
Gigabye 990FX-UD3
12gb Ram @1600mhz
Gold 750 watt power-supply
2 1 TB hdd at 7200rpm

 

[Vynavill]

Are you absolutely sure your system is using the latest drivers? I had to do a clean install to let windows notice the beta drivers over the WHQL ones...

Check the video driver version that the catalyst suite (or the single driver package) is trying to install, and compare it with the one seen by dxdiag in its videocard-related tab. If they're different, you're not using the new drivers.

If that's not the case, be sure supersampling and HBAO+ (not to mention physx related effects) are disabled. They're extremely heavy and barely add anything. As far as ambient occlusion goes, the normal one is more than acceptable, while you don't need supersampling at all (use the previous option set to T2x, can't recall the name right now; filmic is slightly heavier, but looks slightly better, so it's up to you there).

Last, but not least, the game is currently still waiting for some patches, as there are pretty serious memory leak issues causing random or "on the long run" stuttering. Be patient like pretty much everyone else, can't do much about that 😛

Good luck!

 

[elijah1]

Are you absolutely sure your system is using the latest drivers? I had to do a clean install to let windows notice the beta drivers over the WHQL ones...

Check the video driver version that the catalyst suite (or the single driver package) is trying to install, and compare it with the one seen by dxdiag in its videocard-related tab. If they're different, you're not using the new drivers.

If that's not the case, be sure supersampling and HBAO+ (not to mention physx related effects) are disabled. They're extremely heavy and barely add anything. As far as ambient occlusion goes, the normal one is more than acceptable, while you don't need supersampling at all (use the previous option set to T2x, can't recall the name right now; filmic is slightly heavier, but looks slightly better, so it's up to you there).

Last, but not least, the game is currently still waiting for some patches, as there are pretty serious memory leak issues causing random or "on the long run" stuttering. Be patient like pretty much everyone else, can't do much about that 😛

Good luck!

I checked the driver versions earlier from dx diag and catalyst, they look fine. I'm sure that the drivers are the latest beta one, as I have removed and reinstalled it many times.

The game settings on the other hand doesn't do much when I tinker with it. I tried turning off AA, Ambient occlusion, and supersampling but it only gives me higher max fps whilst still drops fps to aroun 33-38ish.

I'm simply raging as I can see benchmarks on the web that they can run this game butter smooth while saying its a excellent pc port.

Thanks for the answer, appreciate it.

 

[Vynavill]

Meh, the PC port is indeed excellent compared to the previous ones, but there are still a couple of things which need to be ironed out. Some have (maybe exaggerating a little, IMO) compared it to another black ops 2.

The launch wasn't bad, but it could've been better. The good aspect is that, for now, they've been rolling out patches at a good rhythm rather than rushing for the DLCs.

In your case, I'm getting the feeling the CPU is the culprit. The FX 8350 is an awesome CPU for the price, but at stock clocks the Intels are much better, gaming performance wise at least. Get anything else which requires more computational power than graphical, and it easily beats Intels tho...
Could you state your current game settings, just in case? I mean, I own a 4670 and a 290x at stock clocks, which aren't too far from your setup; I should get at best a handful of frames more than you, yet I managed to keep way above the 60fps mark (not always, but mostly).
Drops will always be there until they optimize the game's in-house engine or further optimize the currently available drivers, but at least you can do your best to run the game at acceptable framerates.

 

[elijah1]

Meh, the PC port is indeed excellent compared to the previous ones, but there are still a couple of things which need to be ironed out. Some have (maybe exaggerating a little, IMO) compared it to another black ops 2.

The launch wasn't bad, but it could've been better. The good aspect is that, for now, they've been rolling out patches at a good rhythm rather than rushing for the DLCs.

In your case, I'm getting the feeling the CPU is the culprit. The FX 8350 is an awesome CPU for the price, but at stock clocks the Intels are much better, gaming performance wise at least. Get anything else which requires more computational power than graphical, and it easily beats Intels tho...
Could you state your current game settings, just in case? I mean, I own a 4670 and a 290x at stock clocks, which aren't too far from your setup; I should get at best a handful of frames more than you, yet I managed to keep way above the 60fps mark (not always, but mostly).
Drops will always be there until they optimize the game's in-house engine or further optimize the currently available drivers, but at least you can do your best to run the game at acceptable framerates.

Yeah its a good port and I think my cpu can at least handle 50-60fps. Seeing similar to this benchmark " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbiqhcW7vgE "
which has similar specs as mine except for the 970 card.

I might consider upgrading to a Intel next time I buy hardware as I game more. >_<

I hate thefps drops, especially around the manhunt mission where you control the wasp and fight the bad guys around the greek market. I have 34-38fps there which bothers me a lot.

Here are my exact settings:

Display options:
Screen refresh rate: 60hz
Sync Every Frame: No
Resolution: Native 1920x1080
Monitor Aspect Ratio:Auto

Texture options:

Texture Quality: Manual
Texture Resolution: Extra
Normal Map Resolution: Extra
Antisotropic Filtering: High

Shadow options

Shadows: Off
Shadow Map Resolution: High
Cache Sun Shadows Maps: Off
Cache Spot Shadows Maps: Off

Post Processing Options:

Depth of field: High Quality
Motion Blur: High Quality
Screen Space Ambient Occlusion: HBAO+
Medium Distance Ambient Occlusion: ON
Subsurface Scattering: ON
Depth Prepass: ON

Anti-aliasing options
Post-process Anti-Aliasing: FXAA
Supersampling: Off

Shader Preload: Off
Shader Preload during cinematics: Off

Misc. options:

Bullet Impacts: ON
Dynamic Light limit: 8

"Keep in mind that I triet lowering the settings to the lowest, it just increases my max fps but still continue to drop to 33-38fps in some areas".

Thanks Mate, this is really getting into my nerves. :/

 

[Vynavill]

Ok, if tearing isn't an issue, you can keep vsync off, otherwise enable it. Framerate drops will be there, and if memory serves right especially on the Manhunt and a couple other missions, so keeping it disabled is only beneficial if you don't mind about tearing (also, having the game set to a 60hz refresh rate, I suppose your monitor is at that frequency too, so you're stuck under 60 fps even if your card can produce 90+ at times)

I'm not sure if it works the same way as I've seen with other CoDs, but if it's possible, raise the refresh rate to at least 75hz. Worked for me on Ghosts and on my old 60hz monitor, can't test on my current 144hz one.

Set the ratio manually. You're on 1920x1080, so set that to 16:9.

You can enable shadows, but keep cache options disabled. As you may have noticed, they're bugged. Also, I've noticed no difference between normal and high, so you may want to get those settings down.

DoF and Motion Blur are more of a personal thing. I can't stand them in most games, and disabled them even here. With a 290, you shouldn't have any issue with them, so disable or lower them as a last resort.

Absolutely do set normal ambient occlusion and ditch HBAO+. It's a technique introduced and optimized by Nvidia, so it's going to kill the performance of an AMD card.

Post processing AA is up to you. As I've stated before, from what I've seen the difference between filmic and non-filmic is marginal, both graphically and performance-wise. FXAA is the lightest of the bunch, but is way too jaggedy for me.
Keep supersampling off.

Last, but not least, enable shader preload, and if you don't mind the cutscenes going heavily out of sync, enable preloading during cinematics as well. They'll increase loading times of about 5 to 15 seconds, but reduce in-game stuttering by A LOT.

You can leave bullet impacts and dynamic lighting sources to those settings.

You will still get stutters and frame drops every now and then, and you'll probably have to close down the game a couple times on long gaming sessions, but these should get you a slightly smoother experience.
As a last ditch effort, lower texture detail settings from extra to high. The difference is barely noticeable in all the mess that generates, but the frame boost you get from that is off the charts.

 

[elijah1]

Ok, if tearing isn't an issue, you can keep vsync off, otherwise enable it. Framerate drops will be there, and if memory serves right especially on the Manhunt and a couple other missions, so keeping it disabled is only beneficial if you don't mind about tearing (also, having the game set to a 60hz refresh rate, I suppose your monitor is at that frequency too, so you're stuck under 60 fps even if your card can produce 90+ at times)

I'm not sure if it works the same way as I've seen with other CoDs, but if it's possible, raise the refresh rate to at least 75hz. Worked for me on Ghosts and on my old 60hz monitor, can't test on my current 144hz one.

Set the ratio manually. You're on 1920x1080, so set that to 16:9.

You can enable shadows, but keep cache options disabled. As you may have noticed, they're bugged. Also, I've noticed no difference between normal and high, so you may want to get those settings down.

DoF and Motion Blur are more of a personal thing. I can't stand them in most games, and disabled them even here. With a 290, you shouldn't have any issue with them, so disable or lower them as a last resort.

Absolutely do set normal ambient occlusion and ditch HBAO+. It's a technique introduced and optimized by Nvidia, so it's going to kill the performance of an AMD card.

Post processing AA is up to you. As I've stated before, from what I've seen the difference between filmic and non-filmic is marginal, both graphically and performance-wise. FXAA is the lightest of the bunch, but is way too jaggedy for me.
Keep supersampling off.

Last, but not least, enable shader preload, and if you don't mind the cutscenes going heavily out of sync, enable preloading during cinematics as well. They'll increase loading times of about 5 to 15 seconds, but reduce in-game stuttering by A LOT.

You can leave bullet impacts and dynamic lighting sources to those settings.

You will still get stutters and frame drops every now and then, and you'll probably have to close down the game a couple times on long gaming sessions, but these should get you a slightly smoother experience.
As a last ditch effort, lower texture detail settings from extra to high. The difference is barely noticeable in all the mess that generates, but the frame boost you get from that is off the charts.

This seems to make my game run better at least. I'll just wait for driver or patch updates to fix my game hopefully.

I may add that Far Cry 4 suffers the same problem. The game underclocks my GPU, the weird thing is my CPU doesn't even reach to 100%. I tried updating the motherboard BIOS and also tried overclocking my CPU to 4.5Ghz and nothing worked.

For now I'll leave that the new games are still buggy but if problems keeps on persisting, I may need your advice on which parts should I start replacing. :/

Thanks for the reply!

 

[Vynavill]

Well, Far Cry was coded by "Ubi-vidia" 😛 Just as much as Unity, it features and is mainly powered by Nvidia GameWorks, not to mention it makes HEAVY use of Physx.
If you own an AMD GPU and buy any game coded and published by Ubisoft which doesn't pertain to the Rayman franchise, you're bound to have horrible performance at release and bad performance after patches and optimized drivers come out.
Wait for FC4 optimized drivers, but don't expect miracles out of it.

However, you mentioned "the game underclocks your GPU"...That kinda shouldn't happen unless thermal throttling is kicking in. Could you please state your GPU/CPU temperatures, just in case?
For the sake of completeness, I should mention that, if your ASUS works the same way as mine (and I believe it does), it'll cap fan speeds at 50% to keep silent operation, ignoring heat until it becomes an issue and, should that happen, go for thermal throttling until it's cooled off. I had to set a manual fan profile on MSI Afterburner to keep things properly cooled, although it becomes quite noisy under heavy load.

 

[elijah1]

Haha, well said! Ubi-vidia got me. XD. Wish they should release them soon.

Yes, I only go to about 800+ mhz although my GPU is overclocked to 1024mhz. My temps are 55-60°C (CPU) and 60-70°C (GPU) under load. My fan is also manually set to go up to 90% in MSI afterburner. Looks like a CPU bottleneck eh, just so weird as I think my CPU can handle it?

 

[Vynavill]

Temps are ok, and no, it's not a bottleneck. Your CPU can handle the GPU, it's just a matter of how much the game is leaning towards multi-core optimizations and operations.

BTW, It's odd I didn't notice sooner, but I'm getting suspicious here...
How could you have experienced the same in Far Cry 4 2 days before its UK/NA release? AFAIK, release is slated for November 18th, yet you stated you experienced the same on November 16th...

 

[elijah1]

Temps are ok, and no, it's not a bottleneck. Your CPU can handle the GPU, it's just a matter of how much the game is leaning towards multi-core optimizations and operations.

BTW, It's odd I didn't notice sooner, but I'm getting suspicious here...
How could you have experienced the same in Far Cry 4 2 days before its UK/NA release? AFAIK, release is slated for November 18th, yet you stated you experienced the same on November 16th...

Yeah, but 2 latest released games. It just breaks my heart that I can't run them properly.
I mainly base my system on this guys benchmarks "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWEZVkG1EnE&list=UUQM-tp1cm_3dCpB-hqrGHLQ".

Haha, as a great benchmarker once said, "Ask no questions and you will hear no lies" i'm sure you know. Besides you know ubisoft these days, can't trust them no more. </3

 

[Vynavill]

Well, the guy you linked has an extremely overclocked system and watercooling...no wonder he runs it okay.

Still, for how much I may understand you, rules here forbid people to provide help for pirated copies.
I'm afraid I may have to stop answering here, sorry...

 

[elijah1]

Got it! Thanks for the replies, Ill be sure to check back in when I get a proper copy of the game.

 

[xApocalypse]

Properly it might be a good solution and it's not even a bit effective on graphics but it keeps your fps stable that is lowering texture resolution from extra to high or ,Try changing it from "Manual" to "Automatic" it's going to set optimal options dealing with your specs

"Hope i helped u " :3 , Sorry for bad English :v