Would like to increse frames per second.

By ZTaylor
Nov 22, 2003
  1. Currently I can hold a steady 76 frames per second while playing rtcw. Took a few cvar tweaks though.

    I would like to get a steady 125 fps and would like some advice.

    Would getting a better processor, mother board, or video card increase my fps?

    Someone told me that my video card should be fine but that my processor and or mobo may be a bottle neck.

    Currently I have puter with an amd 2400+ processor, asus a7v333 mobo, a radeon 9700 pro, and 1024MB PC2700 DDR ram.

  2. Steg

    Steg TS Rookie Posts: 269

    well for a higher frame rate replacing everything will give the best results - but thats rarely possible due to cash restrictions etc
    IF price is not restriction then you want
    AMD Athlon FX-51
    Asus SK8N
    1Gb Registered Corsair PC3200 RAM
    nVidia FX5950 Ultra or ATi Radeon 9800XT

    however this could cost ALOT so if you are looking for something cheaper -
    A Athlon XP Barton 2500+ is VERY overclockable (as in 2.2+ghz) with some decent cooling and some fast ram eg Corsair PC3200 or even PC3500
    of course if you are doing that a motherboard with a dual channel memory controller (Asus A7N8X deluxe for example) will work wonders...
    you graphics card is up there at the top end so upgrading that wont yeld much extra performance.
    hope that helps


    p.s. Why do you want to get you frame rate to 125? isnt 75 smooth enough? and dont you use vsync atall?
  3. StormBringer

    StormBringer TS Rookie Posts: 2,244

    If you get a good steady 75fps, you can't really ask for more. ~65 is the limit of the human eye.
  4. Nic

    Nic TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,549

    Having more than 76 fps only gives you bigger bragging rights. It won't improve your gameplay. Be happy that you get framerates that good (try Halo and watch your framerate drop closer to 20-30fps). Also, if overclocking is your game, then the Asus A7N8X v2.0 deluxe is not the best board to use with AMD's latest *locked* chips as it doesn't allow multiplier settings above 12.5x. For that you'll need an Abit NF7-S v2.0. You could try overclocking your existing setup, as that won't cost you a thing.

    Something else to bear in mind is that your monitor will only update its display at around 70-85 fps (possibly less if your game is defaulting to 60fps max under windows xp), so higher framerates are largely lost. However, input from devices such as game controllers will be more responsive, but I don't think you'll notice any difference. I find anything above 30 fps more than adequate.
  5. Steg

    Steg TS Rookie Posts: 269

    you really dont need a multiplier higher than 12.5 unless u have some SERIOUSLY good cooling - the fastest a 2500+ can go (that i have seen) is 12.5*200 = 2500Mhz - and if that isnt a good enough overlclock.....

  6. TS | Crazyace

    TS | Crazyace TS Rookie Posts: 275

    I was going to say what Storm already did, but got beat to the punch....

    Anyhow, if you would like to increase your FPS, you are going to need a faster video card. The video card has the greatest impact on FPS, not the processor nor the ram (they do help, dont get me wrong, but you wont notice a BIG difference by going up a few MHZ)
  7. NoisySilence

    NoisySilence TS Rookie Posts: 98

    I bet you're having 75fps because you're using AF & AA. That would explain the FPS you get for RTCW which isn't really the latest game to come out.

    Even though we've come a long way with cards like the R9700/9800 & FX5800/5900 cards, the choice still comes down to : "Do you prefer image quality or pure speed ?".

    Go to your options & turn down some of the eye candy, then start playing rtcw again & see if the speed increase makes you forget the jaggies all over the screen ( not to mention the bluriness in certain textures ). If you can, then all is good, if you can't, then turn back the eye candy & live with the 75fps you're getting.

    You can also get a faster card like Ace suggested, but I don't think it's worth the price, considering what you'll get over the 9700 Pro.

    If you don't know how to mess around with the options for the 9700, go read this
  8. Th3M1ghtyD8

    Th3M1ghtyD8 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 664

    A Faster Processor will make a difference, and can be quite substantial depending on the game, games such as UT2003 are very CPU reliant, for things such as AI, and so the CPU is tied up with these things, rather than being able to assist the graphics card. I know this for a fact as I have tested different graphics cards with different CPUs, and a slow video card with a fast chip (e.g. Geforce 2MX with an Athlon XP2000) will outperfom a fast video card and a slow CPU (e.g. PIII 600 with a Geforce 3), this is because the CPU then becomes a bottleneck.

    The difference between a PC with an Athlon XP2400 and R9700Pro and P4 2.4Ghz@3.12Ghz with Radeon 9700Pro is almost 2000 Marks in 3DMark03. Yeah this is a synthetic benchmark, but most of that difference is also reflected in real world tests (e.g. game benchmarks).
  9. TS | Crazyace

    TS | Crazyace TS Rookie Posts: 275

    I understand your point, but with your example you are going a bit extreme. I mentioned a few MHZ as in a few hundred under the same design. In my studies, and many reviews of graphics cards, I have found a larger increase by updating to a faster card. Like I said, I am not talking extremes, it's obvious no matter what kind of card you get in a P3 600 machine, an AMD XP2000+ will beat the snot out of it.

    I have also found through my studies that 3DMARK is close is only a good test for tweaking a system with know values, not comparing.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...