Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
so I am trying to play metro last light and I know its just about the most taxing game there is so I have a question about my gaming rig - I am pretty sure that everything is good except for the gpu not many games need much cpu and I got a fairly nice one

Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3
FX 4350 Black
16GB ram
7970

I know the 7970 isnt powerful enough to run the game on max settings I tried it but it wont even run it on min settings at anything over 20fps most of the time

I was going to buy a 290x as it is just about the most powerful single gpu card you can get under $600 ($500 at my local microcenter) thats ati - and thats the key here I want to have it mining when I am not gaming so it must be ati not nvidia even though nvidia is probably the better choice for this game and most others with phyxs

1. so would a single r9 290x be enough to play the game at 1920x1080 over 30fps or even 40fps?

2. is this cpu/mobo good enough

I have played many games including crysis 3 and arma 2 and day z which all require lots of gpu power and they all played fine for the most part, arma I could turn the draw distance up to max with no problems - all games I could play at max settings with no problems

I even have an older intel computer (its in my signature still, havent updated that in a while) a Q6600 G0 quad core 775 sockett! pcie 2.0 not even 3.0 and a 660ti gpu and it games pretty well for games like borderlands 2 hitman, splinter cell all at max settings and its a computer from 2009 and a gpu from 2011! so can I assume my cpu/mobo now is fine I just need a kick ass gpu?

I do have a dual r9 290x machine thats a miner running 24/7 and its got linux so using that isnt going to happen it makes me about $20 a day after electricity costs so I dont like to take it offline just to play games
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,235 Posts
My 7950 plays Metro Fine(@1440p no vysnc), so not a GPU problem. Just make sure you are using the latest drivers. Unless your card is throttling and causing your game to lag, or some other problem.

Your CPU is a little on the weak side TBH, I say try to overclock it and see if that helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,292 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftkidney View Post

so I am trying to play metro last light and I know its just about the most taxing game there is so I have a question about my gaming rig - I am pretty sure that everything is good except for the gpu not many games need much cpu and I got a fairly nice one

Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3
FX 4350 Black
16GB ram
7970

I know the 7970 isnt powerful enough to run the game on max settings I tried it but it wont even run it on min settings at anything over 20fps most of the time

I was going to buy a 290x as it is just about the most powerful single gpu card you can get under $600 ($500 at my local microcenter) thats ati - and thats the key here I want to have it mining when I am not gaming so it must be ati not nvidia even though nvidia is probably the better choice for this game and most others with phyxs

1. so would a single r9 290x be enough to play the game at 1920x1080 over 30fps or even 40fps?

2. is this cpu/mobo good enough

I have played many games including crysis 3 and arma 2 and day z which all require lots of gpu power and they all played fine for the most part, arma I could turn the draw distance up to max with no problems - all games I could play at max settings with no problems

I even have an older intel computer (its in my signature still, havent updated that in a while) a Q6600 G0 quad core 775 sockett! pcie 2.0 not even 3.0 and a 660ti gpu and it games pretty well for games like borderlands 2 hitman, splinter cell all at max settings and its a computer from 2009 and a gpu from 2011! so can I assume my cpu/mobo now is fine I just need a kick ass gpu?

I do have a dual r9 290x machine thats a miner running 24/7 and its got linux so using that isnt going to happen it makes me about $20 a day after electricity costs so I dont like to take it offline just to play games
The 7970 is still an awesome GPU, I'm puzzled as to why you are having such issues with Metro. What drivers are you using?
Something you can do to see what's bottlenecking you is to open up task manager and open the CPU monitoring tab. Also, download and install MSI After burner to monitor the GPU usage. Leave both open while you play. Run around for a bit and minimize the game and see which of the charts are being maxed out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

you have to have PhysX disabled.
This.

I have a 7870XT and I can play metro LL on highest settings, 1080p, increased FoV but SSAA at x2 instead of x4 with 40+ fps with phsyx disabled

with physx on it cripples just about any amd gpu rig unless you have a pimpin CPU that wont skip a beat from the extra load.

also, remember that even in CPU intensive times,you still may get frame drops, regardless of ingame settings.

woo, 1000th post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftkidney View Post

so I am trying to play metro last light and I know its just about the most taxing game there is so I have a question about my gaming rig - I am pretty sure that everything is good except for the gpu not many games need much cpu and I got a fairly nice one

Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3
FX 4350 Black
16GB ram
7970

I know the 7970 isnt powerful enough to run the game on max settings I tried it but it wont even run it on min settings at anything over 20fps most of the time

I was going to buy a 290x as it is just about the most powerful single gpu card you can get under $600 ($500 at my local microcenter) thats ati - and thats the key here I want to have it mining when I am not gaming so it must be ati not nvidia even though nvidia is probably the better choice for this game and most others with phyxs

1. so would a single r9 290x be enough to play the game at 1920x1080 over 30fps or even 40fps?

2. is this cpu/mobo good enough

I have played many games including crysis 3 and arma 2 and day z which all require lots of gpu power and they all played fine for the most part, arma I could turn the draw distance up to max with no problems - all games I could play at max settings with no problems

I even have an older intel computer (its in my signature still, havent updated that in a while) a Q6600 G0 quad core 775 sockett! pcie 2.0 not even 3.0 and a 660ti gpu and it games pretty well for games like borderlands 2 hitman, splinter cell all at max settings and its a computer from 2009 and a gpu from 2011! so can I assume my cpu/mobo now is fine I just need a kick ass gpu?

I do have a dual r9 290x machine thats a miner running 24/7 and its got linux so using that isnt going to happen it makes me about $20 a day after electricity costs so I dont like to take it offline just to play games
Go to : C:\Users\YourUsername\AppData\Local\4A Games\Metro LL\1100001005bfb04

Open user.cfg with notepad and look for r_api. This should be r_api 1 or r_api 2, I'm not exactly sure which but its one of the two, change it to r_api 0 for DirectX 9 mode. You'll have much better framerates after this change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hps7TV4d0

the FX 4300 loses out to an i3 3220 (so seems like a FX 4350 would lose out to a i5 4670 ???)

this
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-4350
shows CPU core results. again 4670 edges out the 4350 in both single core and all core performance.

So 4670 does win

however looking at this site
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1117 (from your initial source)

it seems like all the games he used, only in 1080p the CPU's perfrom same and in lower res with low quality the 4670k edges out the 4350, so this shows that the fx 4350 is less supperior
but the i5 4670k was performing the same as the 4350 at 1080p max qaulity
so doesnt this show that he DOES need a better cpu? but i guess getting a i5 4670 wont help looking at those results, he'll be stuck with the same frames problem.

does that mean that game needs an 8 thread cpu?? which doesnt make sense to me.
so does that mean this all goes back to OP needing a better GPU ?? (like what your saying?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I will give it a try again later and make sure I have everything up to date and turned physx off

but I do have Afterburner and it showed 100% gpu usage (or 98% whatever it never goes to 100 98 or 99 usually) and the cpu was only around the 40% mark

temps were fine with gpu also

I know the cpu isnt the best I built this computer for mining crypto and playing games sometimes but its got room for just about the best amd cpu out its a 990 board but I really dont want to spend money on the CPU since I dont really think that will matter it wasnt even maxed out like the gpu was

I will check on the drivers but I think everything is up to date I use the computer to mine on and I make sure the gpu drivers are up to date

if I am getting a new gpu it pretty much has to be an ati because I mine on this computer as well, and that means the 290x cuz I can get it for $500 at my microcenter a great deal - I would rather play using nvidia but they dont mine that well

I do have a 660 ti I am not using anymore I am sure the 7970 is better than the 660ti at gaming - but is it? since the 660ti would have physx would that be better or is that something thats a cpu thing? I thought it was gpu nvidia cards only?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,830 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMKR View Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hps7TV4d0

the FX 4300 loses out to an i3 3220 (so seems like a FX 4350 would lose out to a i5 4670 ???)

this
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-4350
shows CPU core results. again 4670 edges out the 4350 in both single core and all core performance.

So 4670 does win

however looking at this site
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1117 (from your initial source)

it seems like all the games he used, only in 1080p the CPU's perfrom same and in lower res with low quality the 4670k edges out the 4350, so this shows that the fx 4350 is less supperior
but the i5 4670k was performing the same as the 4350 at 1080p max qaulity
so doesnt this show that he DOES need a better cpu? but i guess getting a i5 4670 wont help looking at those results, he'll be stuck with the same frames problem.

does that mean that game needs an 8 thread cpu?? which doesnt make sense to me.
so does that mean this all goes back to OP needing a better GPU ?? (like what your saying?)
Not many games are CPU bound, most games are GPU bound. That's why at max settings the framerates are nearly identical between the two. There's nothing wrong with his CPU, he just needs to overclock it and that will remove almost all bottlenecks. The majority of games being played today are GPU bound, so unless you are running at some stupid low resolution you aren't going to notice any bottleneck issues with an AMD CPU or if the game is CPU intensive you might be behind 10-20 fps.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,034 Posts
definitely disable physics, it's a killer. other than that you should be fine, obviously turning off AA or setting it to the 0.5AA setting would help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbiker033 View Post

definitely disable physics, it's a killer. other than that you should be fine, obviously turning off AA or setting it to the 0.5AA setting would help.
yea I had that turned on I thought it was off I checked a few times and it was always off but maybe I turned it on and forgot

anyways its working fine now thanks for the help

but this brings up a new question

the physx is handeled by the CPU? only when you dont have an nvidia card with physx on it or always?

I was looking into it and it looked like there was no reason to go with an intel CPU for gaming since amd should work fine now adays - in 2009 when I built my last gaming computer really the intel CPU made all the difference in games but now I have been told by a few people that it really doesent matter anymore intel CPU's are better for tasks like video encoding or photoshop CPU tasks really and virtualization stuff but for gaming amd should be fine? but if physx is controlled by the cpu's not gpu's then I would need a really good cpu as well wouldnt I?

thanks for your help
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,830 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftkidney View Post

yea I had that turned on I thought it was off I checked a few times and it was always off but maybe I turned it on and forgot

anyways its working fine now thanks for the help

but this brings up a new question

the physx is handeled by the CPU? only when you dont have an nvidia card with physx on it or always?

I was looking into it and it looked like there was no reason to go with an intel CPU for gaming since amd should work fine now adays - in 2009 when I built my last gaming computer really the intel CPU made all the difference in games but now I have been told by a few people that it really doesent matter anymore intel CPU's are better for tasks like video encoding or photoshop CPU tasks really and virtualization stuff but for gaming amd should be fine? but if physx is controlled by the cpu's not gpu's then I would need a really good cpu as well wouldnt I?

thanks for your help
PhysX is an nVidia feature only, if you try enabling it with an AMD GPU it will kill your framerates. PhysX even with an Nvidia GPU must be ran on the GPU because when ran on the CPU it also kills framerates.

If you want to utilize PhysX in the games that has the feature you will need an nVidia GPU. There was a way that you could run an AMD GPU for your main card, and have an nVidia GPU secondary for PhysX but I'm pretty sure nVidia's newest drivers don't allow that feature anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,330 Posts
8350

if the Titan is as cheap as the 290, will you pair it to the 4300?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
the titan is really expensive and not worth the price since even the 780 is faster than the titan from what I remember or maybe its another card but all I remember is the titian isnt worth the money

I can get a 290x for $500 from my local microcenter so thats probably the best option for a new gpu unless I want physx which really I do I have tried it with it off playing borgerlands on my 660ti and its much better with it turned on the same for batman
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top