New gfx FPS drop on cod4?

lutonlagerlout

Distinguished
May 4, 2009
15
0
18,510
0
i am running an amd athalon 300 x2 4 gig ocz ram asus m2n32 pro mobo razer barracuda sound card and lately a xfx 4870

when i had an 8800gtx i got around 250-300 fps in cod4,now with the 4870 i only get 25fps,i have updated all the drivers and am pulling my hair out now,the psu is 600 watts and i just cant figure out what it can be
my friend thinks it may be mobo,cpu or psu on the way out ,but i would like to know if anyone has had the same issues
any help greatly appreciated
regards wobbly
 

lutonlagerlout

Distinguished
May 4, 2009
15
0
18,510
0
doh! bad me

Mainboard : Asus M2N32 WS Professional
Chipset : nVidia nForce 590 SLI
Processor : AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ @ 3000 MHz
Physical Memory : 4096 MB (2 x 2048 DDR2-SDRAM )
Video Card : ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Hard Disk : WDC (150 GB)
Hard Disk : ST336032 (360 GB)
Monitor Type : Samsung SyncMaster - 23 inches
Operating System : Microsoft Windows XP Professional 5.01.2600 Service Pack 3
DirectX : Version 9.0c (March 2009)

and as for 300FPS i ran this with most settings turned low or off except model detail (caused some lodscalerigid error) and low res
i have updated all the drivers to the latest versions and removed the old ones
what happened previously the 8800gtx (asus) started doing some weird stuff,a lot of lines and pixels started appearing over the screen,so i put a cheapo card in that worked fine,so i then assumed(maybe wrongly) the gfx was NFG and bought the 4870
which brings me to my present position with all gfx turned low and 1024 by 768 i only get between 15-30 FPS which is unplayable in cod4 matches
I am at my wits end, any advice is welcome
cheers wobbly
 

lutonlagerlout

Distinguished
May 4, 2009
15
0
18,510
0


yes both the connectors are plugged in to the card
cheers
wobbly
 

daedalus685

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2008
1,558
0
19,810
16
LOw res is CPU bound, the difference in performance at that resolutoin between a 8800 and 4870 should be next to none, you would have been better off gettign a faster CPU if you want to game that low. Also you can't compare fps at different resolutions.. which it seesm to me you are..

Sounds like a driver problem as well.. make sure to run driver sweaper (or uninstall tehm all by hand if you are sure you won't miss anything).. I hate saying it, but it is generally a good idea to reinstall windows when changing brands like that. (obviously you don't have to.. and I woudlnt.. but you know.. when problems arize best to start over :D )
 

lutonlagerlout

Distinguished
May 4, 2009
15
0
18,510
0
to tell you the truth daedalus ,if the economy was better i would have properly upgraded, I play competitive cod4 and generally speaking you need 250fps to make certain jumps etc
i kinda realised that the 4870 wasn't an upgrade per se,but it cost about half of what i paid for the 8800gtx when new, if i could get 125fps i would be happy

I'm not too clever on the driver side of things but i used a driver alert programme and updated all the drivers
and removed the old ones
if a windows re install sounds like the next natural progression i will go for it
thanks for the advice so far
cheers wobbs :)
 

lutonlagerlout

Distinguished
May 4, 2009
15
0
18,510
0
That card wants to run at least 1680x1050 and all settings on high and you should get around 100fps.

If you set it to low and 1024x768, your cpu is doing all the work.

tried high settings too m8,nothing seems to get me over 25 ish FPS
its all very laggy
another weird thing is that my ping seems higher then before
cheers for help
wobbs
 

ravenware

Distinguished
May 17, 2005
617
0
18,980
0
Is this during online play or while in single player mode?

Have you tried swapping back to the 8800GTX to see if your performance levels are back to pace?

An AMD 6000+ x2 and 4870 are more than enough to run that game at acceptable frames.

My rig handles CoD4 on a 4200+ x2/4870 1GB @ 1680x1050 everything maxed, with silky smooth frames.
 
That card wants to run at least 1680x1050 and all settings on high and you should get around 100fps.

If you set it to low and 1024x768, your cpu is doing all the work.
So...you are arguing that running a lower resolution results in MORE work for the CPU???

Please; at a higher res, the GPU is doing more work COMPARITIVLY then the CPU, but the CPU is doing more work at 1680x1250 then at 1024x768 or 800x600.

His CPU shouldn't be a bottleneck for a single 4870 anyway. Make sure the drivers are installed properly, power connectors in card, etc. Run PCMark and list scores, etc.
 

wh3resmycar

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2007
2,502
1
20,965
57
download gpu-z and check if you are running your pci-e @ 16x.

heres the link www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/.

and simply uninstalling the nvidia drivers via the control panel dont always work.

use driversweeper (google it), run it on safe mode.

if all else fails, the card must be busted or your nvidia motherboard is screwing things up.
 

lutonlagerlout

Distinguished
May 4, 2009
15
0
18,510
0
its the way the game plays,with higher fps that matters
anyway did the stuff mentioned above and the thing seems to work now,think the re install of xp prolly got rid of a lot of crap that shouldnt have been there
anyway thanks people for all your help
if any of you need any landscaping or paving help i moderate on a site called pavingexpert dot com , not trying to spam ,but it is similarly useful for driveways and such in the way this site is for pc hardware,i have helped over 3000 ppl there and appreciate your help here :)
thanks
wobbly
 

werxen

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,331
0
19,310
5
lol. u are not a pro player if u were u would not say u 'need 200+fps to make certain jumps' and u would also not play with such a crap resolution.
 


250 fps? lawls...
Most LCD monitors don't render past 60fps. The human eye can't really tell the difference beyond that point either.



:D


Exactly what I was thinking...
 

lutonlagerlout

Distinguished
May 4, 2009
15
0
18,510
0
errr i know that the human eye cant see it but the game runs better at higher fps, I came for help and i got it thanks
well thanks to the people that made a positive contribution anyway
regards wobbly
 

wh3resmycar

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2007
2,502
1
20,965
57


correct to some extent. but @ 30 fps things are a little hard to aim at with your mouse compared to a very fluid 60fps+ (first person shooter games) especially when you're playing competitively.
the old counterstrke is a testament to this. when xp came out, the refresh rate messed up my gameplay compared to win98. theres a a world difference of getting 99fps constantly compared to variable 60fps+. refreshlock did help a little.
 

rewindlabs

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
1,181
0
19,290
1

Quake 3? yeah exactly...you would be right when it comes to most games(everyone knows it to)...albeit cod4 is a quake engine title...

http://forums.enemydown.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6573

http://www.tek-9.org/forum/Call_of_Duty_4-13/125_vs_250_fps-6239/1.html#comments

http://cod4boards.com/cod4-pc/97110-60-fps.html

The guy stated the obvious that can be found via google yet everyone still has to suggest the human eye can't see this or that and nothing is different at this fps and that...apparently most THF users can't read or research... :sarcastic:


OP if your still posting mind explaining who you play for and where exactly? just kinda interested in getting some lan partys going in my area or visiting a few


Edit: It would seem the cod4 engine is a modified q3 engine....something i certainly didn't know...if this doesn't prove my post even farther than google quake 3 fps jump there are tons of graphs on how it works....quake 3 operates exactly like cod4...or close to it


Edit2: Great post sharken...considering this game can be maxed out on even an amd 3000+ series and run at the high enough fps to jump and this guy only plays cod4 in competition GREAT POST....i despise you...
 

rewindlabs

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
1,181
0
19,290
1
http://www.funender.com/quake/articles/fps.html

So how does the framerate affect player physics?





Basically, your position is calculated every time a frame is rendered by Quake.
So if you are using a higher framerate, your position will be calcualted more times per second.




In Quake 3, the standard gravitational field strength is 800 units/second2.
Also, as there is no air in Quake, there is no air resistance to affect your movement.
When you press your jump button - whether you are stood still, running, whatever - you are instantly given a vertical velocity of 270 units/second upwards.
This initial velocity is fixed and never changes.
So, when you jump there are 2 factors involved: 1) Your 270 units/second of upwards velocity and 2) The 800 units/second2 of deceleration caused by gravity.




As Quake has to calculate your position for every frame, it calculates the effect that gravity is having on you every frame.
However, every time it calculates your new position, direction and speed, it has to remember that the Quake world is discrete.
It is all based around a very fine grid matrix where the smallest division is called a unit.
Therefore, when it is calcualting players' positions and velocities etc., they cannot be half-way between one unit and another unit.
They have to snap exactly to an exact position, to a particular unit. There is no in-between.
But the biggest effect is due to the velocity also being rounded to an integer, in order to save bandwidth, which gives large framerate-dependent rounding errors.




This means there is a rounding error in the results of Quake's calculations and it is these rounding errors which causes the differences in movement - most noticeably when jumping.




Indeed, many players say they feel like they are 'floating' when they first try one of the magic framerates that has a large effect, such as 125fps.




However there is another side to the story.
Just as some framerates can appear to reduce the effect of gravity, others can actually appear to increase the effect of gravity, which can serve as a disadvantage through loss of height.
 

Irrelevent, your moniter can not physically display that many frames. Essentially, your GPU is drawing 140 frames that are not being displayed.

Of course, thats why I still use my 85Hz moniter for competition; looks like crap using VGA, but thats the only way you can display more then 60 frames per second, as thats the most the screen is updated for almost all LCD's.

The 200FPS is nothing but a placebo effect.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS