I am getting low FPS on my HD 7970!

[MrLoooooooo]

Here is my specs
Core i7 2700k
Asus HD 7970
Asus Sabertooth P67
Corsair Vengeance 8GB 1600Mhz
Seasonic 850W
Corsair H100

I get an avg FPS of 32 in Battlefield 3 but i get 25 in Mafia II bench,ark with Phyx enabled.
I have seen many people on the internet get higher numbers.
Am I doing something wrong?

I overclocked my GPU

and I overclocked my CPU

 

[MrLoooooooo]

It is 1080p.
Graphic Drivers are upto date. I have not yet updated motherboard bios but will that make a difference?

 

[MrLoooooooo]

This was a completly new build.

 

[aznplayer213]

u sure its the proper drivers? a few weeks back i heard that 7900 series not officially supported in 12.1.





edit: nvm there is a 12.2 pre certified. took them forever to roll official drivers

 

[omega21xx]

Enabling Physx will hurt your FPS a lot since Radeon cards don't support Physx. As for your Battlefield 3 FPS, what settings, resolution, ect are you running at?

You should be running 12.2 drivers by the way.

 

[PCgamer81]

Honestly? That is about right.

Unfortunately, BF3 is currently the most legitimately demanding game on PC. It is no cakewalk by any means. I sometimes drop down into the 50fps range with my dual 6970's. If someone is doing better, they are probably using tweaks and/or have their CCC sliders turned off.

As for Mafia 2, you are not going to run it without a PhysX card. Period. Add another 7970 and you still won't. Hell, you should be glad you can get 25fps. That is about double what I get when I enable PhysX in Mafia 2.

 

[Boopoo]

Enabling Physx will hurt your FPS a lot since Radeon cards don't support Physx. As for your Battlefield 3 FPS, what settings, resolution, ect are you running at?

It's not that Radeons can't do Physx it's that Nvidia Crippled the code to not run on anything but there cards instead of reverting to the CPU where it should be in the first place. Nvidia = Corporate Dirt bags.

 

[PCgamer81]

It's not that Radeons can't do Physx it's that Nvidia Crippled the code to not run on anything but there cards instead of reverting to the CPU where it should be in the first place. Nvidia = Corporate Dirt bags.

Oh, it's blatant sabotage, no doubt about it.

Want to know the worst part?

Not only do they cripple the code, they also force developers to allocate normal physics renderings (that the developer would otherwise assign to the CPU) to be handled by PhysX.

I am not talking about million particle effects. I am talking about banners swinging in a breeze. Rain. Smoke. Things we have seen a million times before PhysX even existed.

If we don't give Nvidia our money, we don't get the full game we purchased. Plain and simple.

 

[aznplayer213]

Honestly? That is about right.

Unfortunately, BF3 is currently the most legitimately demanding game on PC. It is no cakewalk by any means. I sometimes drop down into the 50fps range with my dual 6970's. If someone is doing better, they are probably using tweaks and/or have their CCC sliders turned off.

not true. i have a 7970 clocked at the same speeds but I average 50 fps on ultra (32 vs 32 map). i get more frames if i kick down the AA to 2 from 4.

 

[omega21xx]

It's not that Radeons can't do Physx it's that Nvidia Crippled the code to not run on anything but there cards instead of reverting to the CPU where it should be in the first place. Nvidia = Corporate Dirt bags.

I'll put it this way, they don't support "Physx"
The specifc code they bought from I think it was Agiea (or something)
Now they handle actual Physics fine, and with the new arc. can do it even better than current Nvidia gpu's if companies move to an open standard.

 

[omega21xx]

not true. i have a 7970 clocked at the same speeds but I average 50 fps on ultra (32 vs 32 map). i get more frames if i kick down the AA to 2 from 4.

Correct, they really should be getting more as it sounds like they are only managing the performance I GET in BF3 @ Ultra. Although I believe I average higher than 32 fps but get plenty of dips below 30. (of course I don't game at this, Just tried it.)

 

[Boopoo]

Oh, it's blatant sabotage, no doubt about it.

Want to know the worst part?

Not only do they cripple the code, they also force developers to allocate normal physics renderings (that the developer would otherwise assign to the CPU) to be handled by PhysX.

I am not talking about million particle effects. I am talking about banners swinging in a breeze. Rain. Smoke. Things we have seen a million times before PhysX even existed.

If we don't give Nvidia our money, we don't get the full game we purchased. Plain and simple.

Good thing Physx is hardly in any games people want to play and every year the list is getting smaller and smaller.

 

[Boopoo]

I'll put it this way, they don't support "Physx"
The specifc code they bought from I think it was Agiea (or something)
Now they handle actual Physics fine, and with the new arc. can do it even better than current Nvidia gpu's if companies move to an open standard.

It was Nvidia's intent to put a Monopoly on the market when they acquired Ageia physics back in when was it like 07 but Physx is going nowhere fast.

 

[omega21xx]

It was Nvidia's intent to put a Monopoly on the market when they acquired Ageia physics back in when was it like 07 but Physx is going nowhere fast.

Doesn't matter about a monopoly on "physx" since companies could easily move to an open standard like in the case of DX vs OpenGL/OpenCL.

Physx how it is now is pretty pointless anyway. Haven't seen a game that actually makes a really difference in. "oh i can kick this paper around when i walk" yeah... thats about it.

 

[SingingThroughTheStorm]

Doesn't matter about a monopoly on "physx" since companies could easily move to an open standard like in the case of DX vs OpenGL/OpenCL.

Physx how it is now is pretty pointless anyway. Haven't seen a game that actually makes a really difference in. "oh i can kick this paper around when i walk" yeah... thats about it.

XD

Anyone remember Red Faction 2 and the whole GeoMod engine (I think that is what they called it)? It sounds like the realtime destruction BF3 boasts, as well as the "physics" Physx boast.

 

[Boopoo]

Doesn't matter about a monopoly on "physx" since companies could easily move to an open standard like in the case of DX vs OpenGL/OpenCL.

Physx how it is now is pretty pointless anyway. Haven't seen a game that actually makes a really difference in. "oh i can kick this paper around when i walk" yeah... thats about it.

Don't forget about the extra ripple in the trench coast in Mafia 2 for a slight performance hit of only 20fps LOL.

 

[MrLoooooooo]

Sorry man I dunno I'll be of much help with this one - I've never really experienced anything like that.

If all your temps are good, your overclocks are confirmed stable, and your drivers are up to date, then something is faulty. I don't know where to begin looking, though. Something like that could be a PSU issue, a mobo issue, a GPU issue, etc...

Do your GPU and CPU operate around a usage % during games/testing that you would expect to see? Does the GPU produce those low frames at 100% usage?

Also, do you have anything crazy enabled in Catalyst Control Center like tons of super-sampling AA or forced vsync? Do you have the power slider increased 20% for your GPU overclock?

Yes thank you. I had enabled super sampling AA and forced vsynch. Now fps have gone high.

 

[bystander]

I've seen Radeons in the past get poor number because they weren't seated well, and was running at x4 bus speeds or lower. Take a look at GPU-Z. See what the bus interface says. This will also allow you to check temps and check to make sure it's running at the right clocks under load.

 

[joshyboy82]

So a company buys another company for it's patents with millions of dollars. Ageia and Nvidia part happily. The new owner then pays developing costs for a game, in turn, putting a 'proprietary option' into the game as a treat for those who supported the company that had to front all of the money in the first place. They also block their competitor from using the software because they didn't provide any money to support or acquire the software. This is bad business how? You said so yourself that hardly any games use it, so why do you care. Secondly, AMD could've licensed the tech along time ago to support Nvidia's development cost with including it games. Then hey, maybe all games would have better physics and we'd all be enjoying them...or we can sit at opposite sides of the fence and pop verbal shots at each other.

 

[Boopoo]

So a company buys another company for it's patents with millions of dollars. Ageia and Nvidia part happily. The new owner then pays developing costs for a game, in turn, putting a 'proprietary option' into the game as a treat for those who supported the company that had to front all of the money in the first place. They also block their competitor from using the software because they didn't provide any money to support or acquire the software. This is bad business how? You said so yourself that hardly any games use it, so why do you care. Secondly, AMD could've licensed the tech along time ago to support Nvidia's development cost with including it games. Then hey, maybe all games would have better physics and we'd all be enjoying them...or we can sit at opposite sides of the fence and pop verbal shots at each other.

That's bad business and an example of how sloppy and inefficient the monetary system is LOL.

 

[PCgamer81]

So a company buys another company for it's patents with millions of dollars. Ageia and Nvidia part happily. The new owner then pays developing costs for a game, in turn, putting a 'proprietary option' into the game as a treat for those who supported the company that had to front all of the money in the first place. They also block their competitor from using the software because they didn't provide any money to support or acquire the software. This is bad business how? You said so yourself that hardly any games use it, so why do you care. Secondly, AMD could've licensed the tech along time ago to support Nvidia's development cost with including it games. Then hey, maybe all games would have better physics and we'd all be enjoying them...or we can sit at opposite sides of the fence and pop verbal shots at each other.

Woulda coulda shoulda blah blah blah. It doesn't matter that AMD "could've licensed the tech along time ago to support Nvidia's development cost with including it games". That has nothing to do with what is right. That is like saying, "You could have stolen the gold if you had gotten here first, so don't call me a thief." That line of thinking is absolutely hilarious and indicative of an Nvidia fanboy who refuses to admit the truth.

It is one thing to use PhysX to handle the physics renderings that couldn't be handled by normal GPUs or even most mid-range CPU's.

But to have developers allocate normal, everyday, run of the mill physics calculations to the PhysX engine, and then blatantly sabotage the code so that even high end CPUs can't handle them (waving banners, a puff of smoke, breaking glass - my high end Sandy Bridge @ 4.5GHz is crumbling!!! Yeah. Right.) is an outrage.

You can't argue your way out of this one. You're beat.

 

[omega21xx]

Woulda coulda shoulda blah blah blah. It doesn't matter that AMD "could've licensed the tech along time ago to support Nvidia's development cost with including it games". That has nothing to do with what is right. That is like saying, "You could have stolen the gold if you had gotten here first, so don't call me a thief." That line of thinking is absolutely hilarious and indicative of an Nvidia fanboy who refuses to admit the truth.

It is one thing to use PhysX to handle the physics renderings that couldn't be handled by normal GPUs or even most mid-range CPU's.

But to have developers allocate normal, everyday, run of the mill physics calculations to the PhysX engine, and then blatantly sabotage the code so that even high end CPUs can't handle them (waving banners, a puff of smoke, breaking glass - my high end Sandy Bridge @ 4.5GHz is crumbling!!! Yeah. Right.) is an outrage.

You can't argue your way out of this one. You're beat.

I don't know if they purposefully sabotage the code for cpu's to render Physx (I know they did for AMD GPU's since if you have one present in the system, you can't use the dedicated physx card from ageia anymore without a crack) but at the very least, it's VERY badly optimized for anything else other than Nvidia GPU's. Like you said, the big downside is we get robbed out of basic physics that can be implemented by our CPU's.

 

[Boopoo]

I don't know if they purposefully sabotage the code for cpu's to render Physx (I know they did for AMD GPU's since if you have one present in the system, you can't use the dedicated physx card from ageia anymore without a crack) but at the very least, it's VERY badly optimized for anything else other than Nvidia GPU's. Like you said, the big downside is we get robbed out of basic physics that can be implemented by our CPU's.

Don't be so naive of course Nvidia will do whatever they can within there realm of power to get a differential advantage over the competition Nvidia are a dirt bag corporate structure in every sense of the word.

 

[Mousemonkey]

I see that some people still haven't done any research into why Nvidia might have decided to lock AMD/ATi cards out of PhysX.

 

[Boopoo]

I see that some people still haven't done any research into why Nvidia might have decided to lock AMD/ATi cards out of PhysX.

Market Share ?