FPS problem?!

[killen]

Okay, i am stubborn as a mule. When i ask in game, everyone tell me: the game is not lagging, mine runs fine. Mine not. When i ask in the forum, someone told me that EVERYONE had problems with this game. 2 days ago i switched to windows 10 (clean install) hoping for some improvement (my old win7 was filled with crappy things). But, my problems are still there.
I run the game fine but when i watch in a precise direction, like west (maybe it is crowd of people), it start chopping.
Why? I really can't understand. My rig is decent .
Thanks guys for answering.

[Cavazos]

Your CPU might not be strong enough. I have a Q6600 which benchmarks around 3000 on PassMark. It's the cause of all my lag. You can look up your processor on the same website to see how yours compares.

[WeeD-KilleR]

It is because crowd of people. Looking in a direction with a lot of people kills your framerate if you dont have a strong single-threaded CPU.

[killen]

It is because crowd of people. Looking in a direction with a lot of people kills your framerate if you dont have a strong single-threaded CPU.

I tought my CPU was fine
BTW my CPU has 5820 of rating in passmark

[Snaiper]

I have AMD FX-6300.
Passmark: 6 444
Passmark (single-core): 1 446

I can run all modern games fine, even those which car CPU intensive.
And yet, PR has trouble sticking to 60 FPS. Especially with anti-aliasing on, which I cannot notice different in PR with or without, and a lot of players in the area.

If you have these issues, the upside is that whenever your FPS drops, you know that enemies nearby in general direction you're looking at!

[PatrickLA_CA]

Solid 60 FPS is probably impossible in PR. Some maps have worse performance than others due to the amount of objects in the nearby area and view distance. Take Fallujah and Kashan for example. Fallujah is 1 km with a lot of stuff and makes most of the people get bad fps while Kashan is 4km with huge view distance but runs smooth because of the low amount of objects. Then people come in and performance goes down even more as well as smoke and explosion effects.

Honestly, I don't see anything bad in playing from 25-60 fps. I spent half of my PR career playing on 20-30 then 15-20 fps which then got barely playable ofc, but if you can watch a movie at 25-29 fps, then you can play a game too right?

[Snaiper]

but if you can watch a movie at 25-29 fps, then you can play a game too right?

Not quite. Most codecs are 23.976FPS, but cameras use own motion blur to make image look a lot smoother. That's one thing. But another is that cameras work a lot differently than game engines do. And I could go on and on about it, but enough to say is: it's not the same. And why don't movies use 60 FPS? Some do, but most don't, because it would take approximately 2 times longer to process and edit a 60 FPS video compared to 30 FPS video, given all the special visual and audio effects.

But, yes, a game like PR, is very playable at 30 FPS, even when it sometimes drops to 25. And given it's an old game on an old engine, and a lot of things are so clunky, the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is not too noticeable.

[Cossack]

And why don't movies use 60 FPS?

Because not all people see the smoothness of the picture and its size would be double. Actually its way easier to edit something, when its captured with more frames, but main down side is the size.

Also, if you did not know that, human eye can see seamless picture transition, if its higher than 23-24 fps, so most stuff is like that. If it drops below that mark, we see "lag".

Saying again, IF someone does not know this ^

[PatrickLA_CA]

Well you are right about the movies, even though they can be made to double FPS with a simple script but lets not go off-topic, if anyone wants it I'll be glad to send it to you via PM.

The difference between 30 and 60 FPS is not really noticeable in PR unlike some of the more effect and animation packed modern games. It makes it look a bit smoother but you really don't miss out anything if you are playing under 60 FPS. I think that in order to have a stable frame rate in PR you'll need a powerful single-core processor and a decent video card.

[Snaiper]

Because not all people see the smoothness of the picture and its size would be double. Actually its way easier to edit something, when its captured with more frames, but main down side is the size.

Also, if you did not know that, human eye can see seamless picture transition, if its higher than 23-24 fps, so most stuff is like that. If it drops below that mark, we see "lag".

Saying again, IF someone does not know this ^

If you've ever tried video editing, then you know that less frames = less to edit. Because for special effects, you need to make sure that the effects goes in its place in every frame. And more frames is more job. It only looks nicer in 60 FPS.

People definitely would see the benefit of 24 vs 48 or 60 FPS. The Hobbit is example. The main issue is editing, that is what even people who do this as a job say as primary reason.

Well you are right about the movies, even though they can be made to double FPS with a simple script but lets not go off-topic, if anyone wants it I'll be glad to send it to you via PM.

The difference between 30 and 60 FPS is not really noticeable in PR unlike some of the more effect and animation packed modern games. It makes it look a bit smoother but you really don't miss out anything if you are playing under 60 FPS. I think that in order to have a stable frame rate in PR you'll need a powerful single-core processor and a decent video card.

Yes, movies can easily double FPS.

And that is completely true. It's not too noticeable, but what's annoying is that your PC can perform far better, yet it doesn't.

Decent video card is not very much needed, $100 should do just fine. PR doesn't use a lot of GPU at all, mostly CPU. Which is where the problem hits. Single-thread. Most newer CPUs are not optimal for single-core performance, because only old games are stuck in a single core/thread. And this is an issue. If we could somehow make PR/BF2 use more than one core, that would almost double FPS you're getting.


So in short: There's not much you can do about it, but try to tweak settings, increasing some, decreasing others to find the optimal sweetspot.

[Spook]

I got a i2500k @4,5ghz and i have 60+ FPS all the time while recording game with shadowplay 24/7.

I also enabled 16xCSAA via nvidia inspector because BF's AA looks horrible.


I personally am not able to play below 45 FPS. I respect the people who play at 20 FPS and hit shit better than I do

[Snaiper]

I got a i2500k @4,5ghz and i have 60+ FPS all the time while recording game with shadowplay 24/7.

I also enabled 16xCSAA via nvidia inspector because BF's AA looks horrible.


I personally am not able to play below 45 FPS. I respect the people who play at 20 FPS and hit shit better than I do

And I'm dumbfounded. How? i5 2500k is very much equivalent to FX-6300/6350, yet I fail to have 60+ FPS at all times.

[PatrickLA_CA]

4.5 GHz is a pretty high frequency though, that's pretty good when it comes to older games that use a single core.

[killen]

4.5 GHz is a pretty high frequency though, that's pretty good when it comes to older games that use a single core.

Well, i have problem too if playing at less than 30-40 FPS.
So, if i overclock my CPU i could get a lot more FPS! My main problem, i am scared of destroying my Intel

[PatrickLA_CA]

Well, I wouldn't suggest overclocking for the same reason, but try playing one resolution lower than your current or lowering textures and effects to medium if you really want 60 FPS?

[Snaiper]

Well, i have problem too if playing at less than 30-40 FPS.
So, if i overclock my CPU i could get a lot more FPS! My main problem, i am scared of destroying my Intel

As long as you don't change voltage you're safe. Games will crash, you will move up and down in clock, and then you will find the sweetspot. The thing I'd worry about is temperature. Use some aftermarket cooler, such as Hyper 212 Evo, to get best OC performance, with least noise and lowest temperature.

But, the above is not true.
My CPU default clock is 3.5GHz, and yet single-core performance of the two is identical. My Turbo Clock goes up to 4.1GHz, which is not much lower than 4.5GHz, and yet I am having issues on some maps and at some times with FPS.

I just did some benchmarks on some maps, and I'll do more, then I'll try to bundle it all up in one topic; my CPU usage doesn't go above 30%, Core 1 usage only went once up to 78% and never again. GPU usage is at around 30%. And yet, sometimes, regardless of all of that, I am having trouble keeping up 60 FPS. Against all logic, when my CPU and GPU usage was the lowest - the FPS was also the lowest.

[killen]

Well, I wouldn't suggest overclocking for the same reason, but try playing one resolution lower than your current or lowering textures and effects to medium if you really want 60 FPS?

I tried playing on 1280x720 all maxed out instead of 1920x1080 all maxed out. Nothing changed, not eventi 5 FPS gained

[PatrickLA_CA]

Well that is weird, I got more than 20 additional fps when I lowered from 1920x1080 to 1600x900

[killen]

Well that is weird, I got more than 20 additional fps when I lowered from 1920x1080 to 1600x900

I will try soon, thanks guys

[Cavazos]

I got a i2500k @4,5ghz and i have 60+ FPS all the time while recording game with shadowplay 24/7.

I also enabled 16xCSAA via nvidia inspector because BF's AA looks horrible.


I personally am not able to play below 45 FPS. I respect the people who play at 20 FPS and hit shit better than I do

Once a very long time ago, I would play America's Army 'Bridge' map with only 2.5 FPS. I still killed the enemy.