20fps seems awfully low for a single monitor
I pull 46 on tripple monitor set up. Although my processor is better there shouldnt be that much of a gap
780gtx
I7 4770k
stock clocks
![]()

20fps seems awfully low for a single monitor
I pull 46 on tripple monitor set up. Although my processor is better there shouldnt be that much of a gap
780gtx
I7 4770k
stock clocks
![]()


His CPU is a 1st Generation i7 compared to your 4th Generation i7. It's also only 2.8 Ghz, which is on the lower end for the Generation. I run a 4670k @ 4.4Ghz and SLI GTX 780s, I get 60 pretty much everywhere except a few rare places, all at 2560x1600.
Interesting, reading through all early replies I thought the reason would be my CPU's 2.8G clock rate (during game it will be OC a little to nearly 3.0G), since those with hight fps all have CPU OCed to like 4.5+.
But if yours is stock clock, which is 3.5G, that's not that much better than mine.
Maybe I'll try to OC a bit more to like 3.2G and see if there is much improvement. Otherwise the later generation of CPU may be something more than just higher clock rate.
For the reason above I start to believe this now...
Last edited by Arcaloid; 12-04-2013 at 03:21 PM.


You would be mistaken. You forget that your CPU is a 1st generation, Ziar's is 4th Gen. Each Gen can do more per clock than the previous. So that 700Mhz difference is quite a bit more in reality.Interesting, reading through all early replies I thought the reason would be my CPU's 2.8G clock rate (during game it will be OC a little to nearly 3.0G), since those with hight fps all have CPU OCed to like 4.5+.
But if yours is stock clock, which is 3.5G, that's not that much better than mine.
Maybe I'll try to OC a bit more to like 3.2G and see if there is much improvement. Otherwise the later generation of CPU may be something more than just higher clock rate.

It's going to be funny to see all the people who drag on PS3 players shocked when the PS4 version hits and has the best performance. They can optimise it to no end.


A select few? It doesn't take much at all to run this dated game on high with more than reasonable fps, highest players on screen and max view distance.
If this were 1.0, that'd be another story all together, complete resource hog.
The funny thing about this is, even with ps4 it's still not going to perform even close to as good as a modern day (gaming)pc that's around the same price of an xbox one.
Not saying PC is master race or anything but currently the difference between the console & PC version is so night and day I feel like they ripped console players off.



Don't drink Sony's koolaid.
PS4 isn't immune to this, and SE will have to do a lot of optimizations because the PS4 hardware is weaker than OP's specs. The PS4 doesn't even render BF4 at native 1080p. SE set the PC version to draws up to 100 characters on the screen; the PS3 is set to 40 characters and it still struggles in popular fates.
PS4 is a very good option for those who can't afford a $700+ PC.
Ok that is just odd... I have a gt 430 and an i7 processor and I have a steady 20-25 fps well...pretty much everywhere. Odin, svara, DD(before it was secretly fixed/nerfed), revant's toll, and even the empty mid level zones that no one does fates in. My fps never changes...
No more cast bars for Bard! Thank you, Yoshi-P! All hail our lord and savior!
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.

Reply With Quote




