Why are core 2 quads listed that high in the gaming cpu hierarchy chart?

[Georgepaul4k]

The Q9650 is on the 3rd tier while the pentiums are on the 5th tier, with the core 2 duos. Doesn't make any sense. Aren't the pentiums viable for budget gaming builds while the quad's time is over? I heard the pentium cpus can run games on med - high settings. I have a Q9550(which is maybe 5% slower than the Q9650 which shouldn't make a difference) and it can't even run games on low settings without dripping below 30 fps all the time, let alone high settings.
By pentiums, i am talking about the new Haswell or Ivybridge ones and not the old pentium dual cores.

 

[Georgepaul4k]

The pentium's are still dual cores with no hyperthreading. They can only run two threads and the quad can run 4. Its less efficient, by a long way but it still has a 30% higher processing ability. It cost a fortune when new, so its not surprising its still useful. Pent G's pc mark around 3200, q9650 4200.

Then why am i getting low fps in all games?
specs
core 2 quad Q9550 2.83 Ghz
mobo - Asus P5G41T-MLX
memory - 4 GB ddr3 1333(2 x 2 gb)
Gpu - Msi GTX 750 ti
wd green 1TB hdd
psu - Antec VP450P 450W
Windows 8.1 pro x64
Have latest updates and drivers.

 

[AdmiralDonut]

The pentium's are still dual cores with no hyperthreading. They can only run two threads and the quad can run 4. Its less efficient, by a long way but it still has a 30% higher processing ability. It cost a fortune when new, so its not surprising its still useful. Pent G's pc mark around 3200, q9650 4200.

Then why am i getting low fps in all games?
specs
core 2 quad Q9550 2.83 Ghz
mobo - Asus P5G41T-MLX
memory - 4 GB ddr3 1333(2 x 2 gb)
Gpu - Msi GTX 750 ti
wd green 1TB hdd
psu - Antec VP450P 450W
Windows 8.1 pro x64
Have latest updates and drivers.

What games, what settings and at what resolution? You also only have 4GB of ram which is going to cripple everything because Windows is notorious for hogging system RAM.

 

[Georgepaul4k]

Well you are using a power saving economy hard drive, that will slow down transfer times and map loading in mmo's. How OLD is the hard drive? As old as the rest of the machine? get a new one. How old is your windows install? If its more than 20 months old start again with a solid state drive as primary. And 4 gig of ram is not enough anymore. You really need 8.Then see how you go.Also note in games limited to two threads the pentium is gonna beat you. You should think about overclocking,,those chips clocked well and you could get 20% ish more fps with a good overclock.

The pentium's are still dual cores with no hyperthreading. They can only run two threads and the quad can run 4. Its less efficient, by a long way but it still has a 30% higher processing ability. It cost a fortune when new, so its not surprising its still useful. Pent G's pc mark around 3200, q9650 4200.

Then why am i getting low fps in all games?
specs
core 2 quad Q9550 2.83 Ghz
mobo - Asus P5G41T-MLX
memory - 4 GB ddr3 1333(2 x 2 gb)
Gpu - Msi GTX 750 ti
wd green 1TB hdd
psu - Antec VP450P 450W
Windows 8.1 pro x64
Have latest updates and drivers.

What games, what settings and at what resolution? You also only have 4GB of ram which is going to cripple everything because Windows is notorious for hogging system RAM.

Resolution is 1366 x 768
Thief gives around 30 fps on medium settings. It occasionally drops below 30, even on very low. I get average 33 fps when maxed out.
Assassin's Creed 3 can be maxed out and gives around 50 fps most of the time. Sometimes, it drops below to 20s. It even gives 26 - 30 fps when running it on 2732 x 1536 resolution(DSR),similar fps on 1080p(DSR) and 768p.
Watch Dogs gives smooth 30 fps most of the time on medium, but drops down to 20 time to time. The fps keeps on changing. The fps still drops below 30 even on low.

I can max out Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance.
Tomb raider gives constant 60 fps when maxed out(including TressFX) and
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance gives 45 - 60 fps when maxed out.
I don't own any other new games.
The older games can be easily maxed out.
I once saw a review of games when running on 4gb and 8gb on identical hardware and the difference was 2 or 3 frames. I also don't multitask when gaming.

 

[Georgepaul4k]

Well you are using a power saving economy hard drive, that will slow down transfer times and map loading in mmo's. How OLD is the hard drive? As old as the rest of the machine? get a new one. How old is your windows install? If its more than 20 months old start again with a solid state drive as primary. And 4 gig of ram is not enough anymore. You really need 8.Then see how you go.Also note in games limited to two threads the pentium is gonna beat you. You should think about overclocking,,those chips clocked well and you could get 20% ish more fps with a good overclock.

I am not talking about mmos(WoW and Dota 2 works fine) The hdd is a little over 1 year old. Windows was installed a couple of months ago. I am not much worried about the initial loading and loading between levels, etc. I can wait till the game loads. But i can't stand 20 fps and low settings.

 

[AdmiralDonut]

I can max out Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance.
Tomb raider gives constant 60 fps when maxed out(including TressFX) and
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance gives 45 - 60 fps when maxed out.
I don't own any other new games.
The older games can be easily maxed out.
I once saw a review of games when running on 4gb and 8gb on identical hardware and the difference was 2 or 3 frames. I also don't multitask when gaming.

I'm sorry, but do you really think you're getting a solid 60FPS in Tomb Raider? I think not. I have an i5 3570K OC'd to 4.6GHz, 16GB of 1600MHz RAM, an MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr 2GB OC and a Samsung EVO 120GB SSD. With all of that, and at the same resolution as you claim to be running at, I get an average of 48FPS in the Tomb Raider benchmark with everything maxed out including TressFX. There is no way on this green Earth you are getting 60FPS on that rig of yours.

 

[barto]

I've been watching this thread because I actually owned a Q9550. There are two things I'd like to point out.

1. RAM is not enough.
2. Have you even monitored the CPU or GPU usage in these games? Frames isn't always a straight forward answer.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-20.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-9.html

 

[Georgepaul4k]

I can max out Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance.
Tomb raider gives constant 60 fps when maxed out(including TressFX) and
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance gives 45 - 60 fps when maxed out.
I don't own any other new games.
The older games can be easily maxed out.
I once saw a review of games when running on 4gb and 8gb on identical hardware and the difference was 2 or 3 frames. I also don't multitask when gaming.

I'm sorry, but do you really think you're getting a solid 60FPS in Tomb Raider? I think not. I have an i5 3570K OC'd to 4.6GHz, 16GB of 1600MHz RAM, an MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr 2GB OC and a Samsung EVO 120GB SSD. With all of that, and at the same resolution as you claim to be running at, I get an average of 48FPS in the Tomb Raider benchmark with everything maxed out including TressFX. There is no way on this green Earth you are getting 60FPS on that rig of yours.

I am serious. With vsync off, i get 76 fps average on the tomb raider benchmark. With vsync, i get 60 fps most of the time. I tested it for 2 hours and the least i got was 30 fps, just once. It is definitely above 50 most of the time.
I didn't try using DSR with this game, just at 1366 x 768 resolution.
Were you really playing on 768p? Your rig is like 2x as powerful as mine. This game is gpu intensive right? I only get 6 fps(maxed out) on my old hd 6670 gpu and had to play on medium to get near - playable framerate. When i upgraded to the 750 ti, it went up to 76 fps.

 

[AdmiralDonut]

I can max out Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance.
Tomb raider gives constant 60 fps when maxed out(including TressFX) and
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance gives 45 - 60 fps when maxed out.
I don't own any other new games.
The older games can be easily maxed out.
I once saw a review of games when running on 4gb and 8gb on identical hardware and the difference was 2 or 3 frames. I also don't multitask when gaming.

I'm sorry, but do you really think you're getting a solid 60FPS in Tomb Raider? I think not. I have an i5 3570K OC'd to 4.6GHz, 16GB of 1600MHz RAM, an MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr 2GB OC and a Samsung EVO 120GB SSD. With all of that, and at the same resolution as you claim to be running at, I get an average of 48FPS in the Tomb Raider benchmark with everything maxed out including TressFX. There is no way on this green Earth you are getting 60FPS on that rig of yours.

I am serious. With vsync off, i get 76 fps average on the tomb raider benchmark. With vsync, i get 60 fps most of the time. I tested it for 2 hours and the least i got was 30 fps, just once. It is definitely above 50 most of the time.
I didn't try using DSR with this game, just at 1366 x 768 resolution.
Were you really playing on 768p? Your rig is like 2x as powerful as mine. This game is gpu intensive right? I only get 6 fps(maxed out) on my old hd 6670 gpu and had to play on medium to get near - playable framerate. When i upgraded to the 750 ti, it went up to 76 fps.

With TressFX on and everything to Ultra, your system is physically incapable of producing those framerates. Literally physically unable, in the same way that a Ford Fiesta will never, ever power a Saturn V size rocket in to space.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-and-750-ti-review,11.html

That shows what a 750TI can do, with TressFX off, and only FXAA and that thing is paired to an i7 3960 6 core CPU. So there is literally no way on gods green earth you get 75FPS. None. If you suffer from lag and FPS drops it's because the 750TI is not a strong card in general and even less so when paired with an old, slow CPU and a pitiful amount of system ram.

 

[Georgepaul4k]

I've been watching this thread because I actually owned a Q9550. There are two things I'd like to point out.

1. RAM is not enough.
2. Have you even monitored the CPU or GPU usage in these games? Frames isn't always a straight forward answer.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-20.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-9.html

Does 8GB ram make that much difference in gaming than 4GB? I tried monitoring and have never seen a game use over 2GB. The highest i have seen is watch dogs with 18xx MB ram.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-8.html
Still, the G3258 scores 39 min fps when maxed out, sure that was with a titan, but that is 1080p. My pc gets 11 fps min when maxed out. Even on the lowest settings, it drops below 30 fps. Lower settings use less ram right?

 

[Georgepaul4k]

I can max out Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance.
Tomb raider gives constant 60 fps when maxed out(including TressFX) and
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance gives 45 - 60 fps when maxed out.
I don't own any other new games.
The older games can be easily maxed out.
I once saw a review of games when running on 4gb and 8gb on identical hardware and the difference was 2 or 3 frames. I also don't multitask when gaming.

I'm sorry, but do you really think you're getting a solid 60FPS in Tomb Raider? I think not. I have an i5 3570K OC'd to 4.6GHz, 16GB of 1600MHz RAM, an MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr 2GB OC and a Samsung EVO 120GB SSD. With all of that, and at the same resolution as you claim to be running at, I get an average of 48FPS in the Tomb Raider benchmark with everything maxed out including TressFX. There is no way on this green Earth you are getting 60FPS on that rig of yours.

I am serious. With vsync off, i get 76 fps average on the tomb raider benchmark. With vsync, i get 60 fps most of the time. I tested it for 2 hours and the least i got was 30 fps, just once. It is definitely above 50 most of the time.
I didn't try using DSR with this game, just at 1366 x 768 resolution.
Were you really playing on 768p? Your rig is like 2x as powerful as mine. This game is gpu intensive right? I only get 6 fps(maxed out) on my old hd 6670 gpu and had to play on medium to get near - playable framerate. When i upgraded to the 750 ti, it went up to 76 fps.

With TressFX on and everything to Ultra, your system is physically incapable of producing those framerates. Literally physically unable, in the same way that a Ford Fiesta will never, ever power a Saturn V size rocket in to space.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-and-750-ti-review,11.html

That shows what a 750TI can do, with TressFX off, and only FXAA and that thing is paired to an i7 3960 6 core CPU. So there is literally no way on gods green earth you get 75FPS. None. If you suffer from lag and FPS drops it's because the 750TI is not a strong card in general and even less so when paired with an old, slow CPU and a pitiful amount of system ram.

Maybe i got it mixed a bit. I tested it 2 months ago. With TressFX, the average fps was higher than 50 and min fps was 30. With TressFX off, and everything else maxed out, i got 76 fps average. i am 100% sure that with tress fx off and everything else max, i got 76 fps average. I mean it, there is no need for me to lie, and i was not using just fxaa, i used the highest AA, iirc it is 8x msaa.
I can't prove it right now as i RMA'd my gpu as the games crashed frequently after playing for a few minutes since the last month and it also started making a weird irritating noise when gaming. Sadly, i am stuck with my old hd 6670 gpu. Can't play anything other than Dota 2

 

[barto]

Does 8GB ram make that much difference in gaming than 4GB? I tried monitoring and have never seen a game use over 2GB. The highest i have seen is watch dogs with 18xx MB ram.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-8.html
Still, the G3258 scores 39 min fps when maxed out, sure that was with a titan, but that is 1080p. My pc gets 11 fps min when maxed out. Even on the lowest settings, it drops below 30 fps. Lower settings use less ram right?

That just doesn't seem right. WatchDogs is CPU dependent and uses quite a bit of RAM. I just started WatchDogs and I'm currently using 4.5 GB of RAM. That's Steam, UPlay, Teamspeak, Task Manager and WatchDogs. With Google Chrome added, it's about 5.3 GB. All the settings are on High. Changing the graphic details didn't change anything. I went high to low and dropped to 1366 * 768.

You should be using more than 2GB.

 

[SuperVeloce]

In my house we still use one with core 2 quad cpu (with 7870XT, ssd and 8GB ram). And I agree, quads are not as good for new games as some wants to believe. Every new game I tried is heavily cpu bottlenecked (i sometimes use riva statistics server with hwinfo to show me gpu and cpu utilisation).

While AC3 was just the worst port ever (and needs brute force for good fps in boston), even better coded games can make it beg for mercy. Watch dogs fps and gpu utilisation is scene dependent and can be quite bad.
AC4, LOTR shadow of mordor and COD Advanced Warfare can give you random fps drops and so on. I dont remember exact Tomb Raider performance but it felt smooth enough to finish the game. New Alien game is running very nice with 60fps vsync most of the time (with dips at high 30's fps but still feels smooth).
Cpu is q6600 @ 3ghz with stock voltages (most of the time). Highest overclock was 3.6ghz when I played AC3 but it might be needed again for watchdogs and COD AW.
One thing I see when trying games on that computer is that AMD drivers impose more overhead and more workload for cpu than nvidia's.
gamegpu.ru tests seems to confirm my suspicions. I will most likely make a switch with nvidia 660ti (from another computer with newer platform)

 

[Georgepaul4k]

In my house we still use one with core 2 quad cpu (with 7870XT, ssd and 8GB ram). And I agree, quads are not as good for new games as some wants to believe. Every new game I tried is heavily cpu bottlenecked (i sometimes use riva statistics server with hwinfo to show me gpu and cpu utilisation).

While AC3 was just the worst port ever (and needs brute force for good fps in boston), even better coded games can make it beg for mercy. Watch dogs fps and gpu utilisation is scene dependent and can be quite bad.
AC4, LOTR shadow of mordor and COD Advanced Warfare can give you random fps drops and so on. I dont remember exact Tomb Raider performance but it felt smooth enough to finish the game. New Alien game is running very nice with 60fps vsync most of the time (with dips at high 30's fps but still feels smooth).
Cpu is q6600 @ 3ghz with stock voltages (most of the time). Highest overclock was 3.6ghz when I played AC3 but it might be needed again for watchdogs and COD AW.
One thing I see when trying games on that computer is that AMD drivers impose more overhead and more workload for cpu than nvidia's.
gamegpu.ru tests seems to confirm my suspicions. I will most likely make a switch with nvidia 660ti (from another computer with newer platform)

Can the Quad achieve 30+ fps in all games in high settings if overclocked to 3.2 - 3.4 Ghz? Ram is the other issue. My mobo only has 2 slots and i already filled them with 2 ram sticks. The problem is that it is not possible to sell them here. No one will buy them. I still have my old Pentium D, and an E5700 and ofcourse the old HD 6670 gpu. These are all useless now. If i buy 2 4gb sticks, my current 2 sticks will be useless.

 

[Arthur Adler]

The pentium's are still dual cores with no hyperthreading. They can only run two threads and the quad can run 4. Its less efficient, by a long way but it still has a 30% higher processing ability. It cost a fortune when new, so its not surprising its still useful. Pent G's pc mark around 3200, q9650 4200.

Then why am i getting low fps in all games?
specs
core 2 quad Q9550 2.83 Ghz
mobo - Asus P5G41T-MLX
memory - 4 GB ddr3 1333(2 x 2 gb)
Gpu - Msi GTX 750 ti
wd green 1TB hdd
psu - Antec VP450P 450W
Windows 8.1 pro x64
Have latest updates and drivers.

What games, what settings and at what resolution? You also only have 4GB of ram which is going to cripple everything because Windows is notorious for hogging system RAM.

I do not know how it is in Windows 8 but I'm sure that in Windows 7 64-bit, 4 GB RAM is not enough for gaming. Even bit older games run like slug on low detailes. But I have Windows 7 64-bit on laptop and the same games in normal housing PC with Windows XP SP3 and 3 GB RAM runs better.

 

[sirstinky]

The Core 2 Quads, especially the ones with the 1333 MHz bus like the Q9650 are still decent processors. Pair them with 8 GB memory and a good gpu and can play modern games at decent settings. 4 cores will always be better than 2 unless there's hyper threading or you can overclock like the new Pentium. The only things that hurt it is the lack of L3 cache and limited DDR2 RAM. But, yes you can overclock it and make up for some of that. However, it will still be slower than a low end i3. Tech has come a long way since the quads were retired!

 

[barto]

Can the Quad achieve 30+ fps in all games in high settings if overclocked to 3.2 - 3.4 Ghz? Ram is the other issue. My mobo only has 2 slots and i already filled them with 2 ram sticks. The problem is that it is not possible to sell them here. No one will buy them. I still have my old Pentium D, and an E5700 and ofcourse the old HD 6670 gpu. These are all useless now. If i buy 2 4gb sticks, my current 2 sticks will be useless.

High settings in all games? Unless you drop the resolution, no. It's simple too old and slower architecture.

I guess you can call your situation a problem, but that's how technology works. Why would someone want to buy the older tech when the newer low end tech does better performance? Does it suck? Yes. You can recycle the sticks you have after you buy new ones. I put my old Q9550 to good use by putting it a build for my grand parents. All they do is Word processing, email and a few simple games.

Honestly, I would save money for a new build rather than patching that old PC.

 

[mlga91]

You should get a new 8GB ddr3 ram kit, and a good cooler like the 212 evo for overclocking a bit, sisnce you can use the ram and the cooler in any modern setup, you can reuse them if you want to upgrade, with that board you should be able to achieve 3.0-3.3GHz

 

[RobCrezz]

I can max out Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance.
Tomb raider gives constant 60 fps when maxed out(including TressFX) and
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance gives 45 - 60 fps when maxed out.
I don't own any other new games.
The older games can be easily maxed out.
I once saw a review of games when running on 4gb and 8gb on identical hardware and the difference was 2 or 3 frames. I also don't multitask when gaming.

I'm sorry, but do you really think you're getting a solid 60FPS in Tomb Raider? I think not. I have an i5 3570K OC'd to 4.6GHz, 16GB of 1600MHz RAM, an MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr 2GB OC and a Samsung EVO 120GB SSD. With all of that, and at the same resolution as you claim to be running at, I get an average of 48FPS in the Tomb Raider benchmark with everything maxed out including TressFX. There is no way on this green Earth you are getting 60FPS on that rig of yours.

I am serious. With vsync off, i get 76 fps average on the tomb raider benchmark. With vsync, i get 60 fps most of the time. I tested it for 2 hours and the least i got was 30 fps, just once. It is definitely above 50 most of the time.
I didn't try using DSR with this game, just at 1366 x 768 resolution.
Were you really playing on 768p? Your rig is like 2x as powerful as mine. This game is gpu intensive right? I only get 6 fps(maxed out) on my old hd 6670 gpu and had to play on medium to get near - playable framerate. When i upgraded to the 750 ti, it went up to 76 fps.

With TressFX on and everything to Ultra, your system is physically incapable of producing those framerates. Literally physically unable, in the same way that a Ford Fiesta will never, ever power a Saturn V size rocket in to space.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-and-750-ti-review,11.html

That shows what a 750TI can do, with TressFX off, and only FXAA and that thing is paired to an i7 3960 6 core CPU. So there is literally no way on gods green earth you get 75FPS. None. If you suffer from lag and FPS drops it's because the 750TI is not a strong card in general and even less so when paired with an old, slow CPU and a pitiful amount of system ram.

To be fair, he is running a much lower resolution than them benchmarks!

 

[AdmiralDonut]

I can max out Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance.
Tomb raider gives constant 60 fps when maxed out(including TressFX) and
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance gives 45 - 60 fps when maxed out.
I don't own any other new games.
The older games can be easily maxed out.
I once saw a review of games when running on 4gb and 8gb on identical hardware and the difference was 2 or 3 frames. I also don't multitask when gaming.

I'm sorry, but do you really think you're getting a solid 60FPS in Tomb Raider? I think not. I have an i5 3570K OC'd to 4.6GHz, 16GB of 1600MHz RAM, an MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr 2GB OC and a Samsung EVO 120GB SSD. With all of that, and at the same resolution as you claim to be running at, I get an average of 48FPS in the Tomb Raider benchmark with everything maxed out including TressFX. There is no way on this green Earth you are getting 60FPS on that rig of yours.

I am serious. With vsync off, i get 76 fps average on the tomb raider benchmark. With vsync, i get 60 fps most of the time. I tested it for 2 hours and the least i got was 30 fps, just once. It is definitely above 50 most of the time.
I didn't try using DSR with this game, just at 1366 x 768 resolution.
Were you really playing on 768p? Your rig is like 2x as powerful as mine. This game is gpu intensive right? I only get 6 fps(maxed out) on my old hd 6670 gpu and had to play on medium to get near - playable framerate. When i upgraded to the 750 ti, it went up to 76 fps.

With TressFX on and everything to Ultra, your system is physically incapable of producing those framerates. Literally physically unable, in the same way that a Ford Fiesta will never, ever power a Saturn V size rocket in to space.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-and-750-ti-review,11.html

That shows what a 750TI can do, with TressFX off, and only FXAA and that thing is paired to an i7 3960 6 core CPU. So there is literally no way on gods green earth you get 75FPS. None. If you suffer from lag and FPS drops it's because the 750TI is not a strong card in general and even less so when paired with an old, slow CPU and a pitiful amount of system ram.

To be fair, he is running a much lower resolution than them benchmarks!

It doesn't make any difference. He might hit those frame rates if he were running at 800x600, but not any higher.

 

[RobCrezz]

I can max out Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance.
Tomb raider gives constant 60 fps when maxed out(including TressFX) and
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance gives 45 - 60 fps when maxed out.
I don't own any other new games.
The older games can be easily maxed out.
I once saw a review of games when running on 4gb and 8gb on identical hardware and the difference was 2 or 3 frames. I also don't multitask when gaming.

I'm sorry, but do you really think you're getting a solid 60FPS in Tomb Raider? I think not. I have an i5 3570K OC'd to 4.6GHz, 16GB of 1600MHz RAM, an MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr 2GB OC and a Samsung EVO 120GB SSD. With all of that, and at the same resolution as you claim to be running at, I get an average of 48FPS in the Tomb Raider benchmark with everything maxed out including TressFX. There is no way on this green Earth you are getting 60FPS on that rig of yours.

I am serious. With vsync off, i get 76 fps average on the tomb raider benchmark. With vsync, i get 60 fps most of the time. I tested it for 2 hours and the least i got was 30 fps, just once. It is definitely above 50 most of the time.
I didn't try using DSR with this game, just at 1366 x 768 resolution.
Were you really playing on 768p? Your rig is like 2x as powerful as mine. This game is gpu intensive right? I only get 6 fps(maxed out) on my old hd 6670 gpu and had to play on medium to get near - playable framerate. When i upgraded to the 750 ti, it went up to 76 fps.

With TressFX on and everything to Ultra, your system is physically incapable of producing those framerates. Literally physically unable, in the same way that a Ford Fiesta will never, ever power a Saturn V size rocket in to space.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-and-750-ti-review,11.html

That shows what a 750TI can do, with TressFX off, and only FXAA and that thing is paired to an i7 3960 6 core CPU. So there is literally no way on gods green earth you get 75FPS. None. If you suffer from lag and FPS drops it's because the 750TI is not a strong card in general and even less so when paired with an old, slow CPU and a pitiful amount of system ram.

To be fair, he is running a much lower resolution than them benchmarks!

It doesn't make any difference. He might hit those frame rates if he were running at 800x600, but not any higher.

Proof?

 

[AdmiralDonut]

I can max out Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance.
Tomb raider gives constant 60 fps when maxed out(including TressFX) and
Metal Gear Rising Revengeance gives 45 - 60 fps when maxed out.
I don't own any other new games.
The older games can be easily maxed out.
I once saw a review of games when running on 4gb and 8gb on identical hardware and the difference was 2 or 3 frames. I also don't multitask when gaming.

I'm sorry, but do you really think you're getting a solid 60FPS in Tomb Raider? I think not. I have an i5 3570K OC'd to 4.6GHz, 16GB of 1600MHz RAM, an MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr 2GB OC and a Samsung EVO 120GB SSD. With all of that, and at the same resolution as you claim to be running at, I get an average of 48FPS in the Tomb Raider benchmark with everything maxed out including TressFX. There is no way on this green Earth you are getting 60FPS on that rig of yours.

I am serious. With vsync off, i get 76 fps average on the tomb raider benchmark. With vsync, i get 60 fps most of the time. I tested it for 2 hours and the least i got was 30 fps, just once. It is definitely above 50 most of the time.
I didn't try using DSR with this game, just at 1366 x 768 resolution.
Were you really playing on 768p? Your rig is like 2x as powerful as mine. This game is gpu intensive right? I only get 6 fps(maxed out) on my old hd 6670 gpu and had to play on medium to get near - playable framerate. When i upgraded to the 750 ti, it went up to 76 fps.

With TressFX on and everything to Ultra, your system is physically incapable of producing those framerates. Literally physically unable, in the same way that a Ford Fiesta will never, ever power a Saturn V size rocket in to space.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-and-750-ti-review,11.html

That shows what a 750TI can do, with TressFX off, and only FXAA and that thing is paired to an i7 3960 6 core CPU. So there is literally no way on gods green earth you get 75FPS. None. If you suffer from lag and FPS drops it's because the 750TI is not a strong card in general and even less so when paired with an old, slow CPU and a pitiful amount of system ram.

To be fair, he is running a much lower resolution than them benchmarks!

It doesn't make any difference. He might hit those frame rates if he were running at 800x600, but not any higher.

Proof?

I ran the benchmark myself, with the same stats he listed. 1366x768, TressFX enabled, everything to max just as he claimed to have done. Here are the screenshot results:

Basic Graphics Settings:

Shows resolution, refresh rate, and V-Sync status.

Advanced Graphics Settings:

Shows all advanced settings including TressFX being enabled and all other settings to max, which is either high or ultra.

Benchmark Results:


Shows min, max and average FPS.

Min = 40.8
Max = 73.9
Average = 57.6

I run a watercooled and OC'd i5 3570K @4.5GHz, 16GB 1600MHz DDR3 and an MSI GTX 770 Twin Frozr OC 2GB GPU. I expect that this is proof enough. Unless of course you think that an old Q9550 and a 750Ti are the equivalent of my system...