Bottleneck Question

[bktabor]

Important Specs:

9800gt 512mb
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz
Samsung ddr2 4 x 1gb each at 400MHz

I was using the Far Cry 2 benchmark tool the other day and I noticed something when I was trying to max out my fps. I started a run with 1680 x 1050 resolution and dx10 high settings (I usually run at medium settings). It ran at 28.84 fps. I used the same settings for the next run but changed the resolution to 640 x 480. It ran at 28.94 fps. I got very similar results with medium and low.

With this, I was just wondering if my parts are limiting my performance at all. Or is this normal.

 

[raybay]

Andyour point... you asking about .01 fps difference, or am I missing something ?

 

[bktabor]

I'm wondering why changing the resolution from 1680 x 1050 to 640 x 480 only gives that much of a difference. Sorry about being unspecific.

 

[raybay]

Probably because screen resolution is run by drivers, rather than by borrowing memory. Most screens use their own memory allocation, while a few steal memory from the memory available, but once you set the display screen resolutiopns and color display as 24 bit or 32 bit or whatever, that's it. Otherwise you would have little wars over what component needed which support.

 

[captaincranky]

640 x 480 is VGA resolution. I think that's the size that you revert to without the video driver installed. I would be curious to know how many FPS you might get at perhaps, 1440 x 900 (the next monitor size down).

 

[bktabor]

1440 x 900 and 1280 x 720 didn't change much either. 1440 x 900 got 29.18 fps and 1280 x 720 got 29.34.

 

[captaincranky]

Are you sure you don't have the refresh rate in the video driver set to 30 FPS?

 

[bktabor]

I have the refresh rate at 60. When I tested it at medium settings yesterday, the average fps was about 40.

 

[bktabor]

I'm not using v-sync either if that helps at all.