R9 280X lag problem

[ajhakra]

So I recently upgraded to the R9 280X and I am getting low FPS on BF4 on all settings(Low-Ultra). I get around 40 on low and 30 on the rest. It was to my knowledge that this card would be able to run the game with no problem so is there something that i havent done right? My specs are as follows:

CPU-AMD FX-4100
RAM-8GB
GPU-Sapphire R9 280X OC Vapor-X
PSU-Fractal 650W Tesla edition
HDD- 2TB WD+500GB Seagate
I have the latest drivers aswell.


(It also lags on SR3 when i try to max that out. Ive also been told that my CPU is the problem. Can someone confirm this?)

 

[RandomFlyingPig]

well for starters your cpu will be bottlenecking your graphics card by loads, you should really have a fx 8320. That is your problem. your cpu was my old one until I got the 8320. you should upgrade.

 

[hypergon]

Yes your CPU is too weak

 

[woltej1]

The difference in battlefield 4 at 1920x1200 between the 4100 and the i7-4770k is 3 fps, so no you're not getting bottlenecked much. I suggest a driver and game reinstall as BF4 is extremely buggy and re install solved some problems for me. Reinstall the browser plug in for the game too.

 

[woltej1]

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

don't listen to the above 2 guys

 

[ajhakra]

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

don't listen to the above 2 guys

So whats the problem with my FPS then? Any ideas?

 

[woltej1]

It's a software issue, or maybe a bad card. Do you have a cpu cooler? If not get a hyper212 cooler, cheap and very effective. Do a clean re install of your graphics driver and re run your windows experience index.

 

[hypergon]

They don't play, they run a benchmark...
Just play singleplayer and note down your avg. Fps
Then join a 64 player server and note down frames again.

Actually bottleneck should happen in CPU intense scenes and you should see a frame drop, not all the time, but as you tested it with all presets, its probably not the GPU.
I have a old phenom 2 1055t in one of my PCs, without a overclock even with a hd7770 it sometimes bottleneck it in bf4

 

[RandomFlyingPig]

im just saying, that guy is stupid. just because there isnt much difference in frames between the i7 and the 4100 doesnt mean its not being bottlenecked, it is. I would highly recommend you getting a new CPU. adn also I had a lag problem with sr3 on my 4100 but its a wierd bug that sr3 doesnt work very well with it as well as cs:go. you need to flash your bios which I wouldnt recommend either. sr3 isnt worth doing that for.

 

[RandomFlyingPig]

those benchmarks are wrong anyways, I wouldnt trust them

 

[woltej1]

Unless the bottleneck is worth 60fps, as that is the difference between what he is getting and what he should be getting, then it is completely irrelevant here.

 

[RandomFlyingPig]

like hypergon said, they dont actually play the game, just run the benchmark which doesnt count things as lag drops

 

[woltej1]

"I had a tough time benchmarking Battlefield 4, but not because it's a bad game. On the contrary, I couldn't focus on my job because I wanted to keep playing, and that's saying something since I'm not a huge fan of first person shooters. There's a lot of work that goes into the immersion I experienced during the game's first four missions, but I credit its stunning visuals with keeping me hooked."

sounds like they played it to me

 

[hypergon]

They usually benchmark with a singleplayer scene and scripted movement (at least they should use a script) or the benchmark function.
You can't compare bf4 singleplayer with multiplayer what you're obviously doing. MP is far more CPU intense especially full 64 slot servers

 

[plunderclat]

Its most definitely because of you processor (primarily). I know because I replaced that one for bf3 and it made a monumental difference. I'd even go as far to say that the fx4100 is the moat dissapointing processer ive ever had.

 

[smeezekitty]

"I had a tough time benchmarking Battlefield 4, but not because it's a bad game. On the contrary, I couldn't focus on my job because I wanted to keep playing, and that's saying something since I'm not a huge fan of first person shooters. There's a lot of work that goes into the immersion I experienced during the game's first four missions, but I credit its stunning visuals with keeping me hooked."

sounds like they played it to me

Its most definitely because of you processor (primarily). I know because I replaced that one for bf3 and it made a monumental difference. I'd even go as far to say that the fx4100 is the moat dissapointing processer ive ever had.

Ever had a Pentium 4? If so that would probably take the cake.

 

[hypergon]

Woltej1 have you ever played BF4? Have you ever played Operation Locker on a Server with 64 players? Many high end systems suffer from CPU bottleneck on that map. Now think about a fx4100 playing that map with a a GPU many levels above it... High end CPUs will probably only (if they do) bottleneck when lots of action is happening, but a lower end CPU will be at 100% all the time.

BTW have you ever seen a GPU benchmark with a fx4100 as CPU? Are you sure you know what 'CPU bottleneck' is?
Let me help you: CPU bottleneck

 

[woltej1]

BF4 is pretty much the only game I play right now. First off if you play 64 man operation locker you're doing something strange because it's not even fun. Second, my i5 750 runs it at 80+fps, which is over 4 years old running 45nm tech.

 

[plunderclat]

My issue Turned out to be my mobo chipset (760g on the m5a78l-m lx v2). Couldn't handle the data transfers from my tagteam 8350 black edition amd the sapphire r9 280x 3gb O/C. It is cheap however and from around 2008.

Good luck for the future.