Graphics Card Isn't Getting as Much FPS as it Should

Hello all!

I promise you that this is not another AMD vs. Nvidia troll thread.

I have an MSI Radeon R9 270X HAWK card, and from what I have heard about it on this forum, it should be able to easily get 60 FPS on max settings. I don't know if it is supposed to on the heavier maps, but I cannot get more than 35 on some of the very good maps (Dry Rock, primary example). Do any of you who have this card overclock it? I have done the CPU check thing, and it has a small influence on some maps, but I can get a noticeable difference in FPS when I change settings around.

If I need to overclock it, I am quite new to it. I have Afterburner, and it says on the box for the card it is *supposed* to be almost fail-proof if I mess it up too much (Dual BIOS, military-grade performance, among other stuff). I have not messed with any of it yet, but I have looked through it.

Anyways, for you guys who own it, can you get at least near-max FPS on heavy-ish maps? Also, does the HAWK part of the name make a major difference? Maybe my card is a lower version, compared to everyone elses.

 

I don't have the same graphics processor as you, it's not even of the same vendor. (NVidea GeForce GTX 660Ti)

However I am having the same problem as you, all heavy maps such as Dry Rock island have excessively low FPS rates. can be as low as 25FPS. This card should be able to get a straight 60 FPS at all times, I've put this down to my processor being a rather old model of the quad core Intel I5 at 3.3GHz. But now that I am seeing that other people with high end GFX cards and CPU's are having similar problems I think this may be a software related issue. However that's just a theory.

I'll keep watching this thread for updates.

 

I remember there was somebody else with a similar problem and an AMD card, though of a different model. I believe he/she reported the latest Catalyst beta fixed his/her issue.

As for xingbreakin, perhaps try another driver version? I'm running 320.49. Yes, it's a little out of date but my 760 runs the game just fine at 40+ FPS, with occasional drops to 25. Apparently, the 660 ti struggles to push a lot of pixels, perhaps try lowering your resolution slightly?

 

I was going to say that I am used to this, but now that I think about it, I do not understand how I am practically back at my old settings from my school tablet (Intel HD 4000 Graphics), and, while I may be getting not as hot and I am getting smoother FPS, I am still suffering on the higher-vegetated maps. I am still glad that I can run other games at max with usually 45+ FPS (I have been playing Borderlands 2 and Just Cause 2 MP), so thats a plus. I also looked over a guide for beginners on overclocking, and from what it sounds like, I need either a bigger case for a bigger fan/ cooler, or buy a water cooler and figure out how the hell I set it up. I don't have money for that, and the guide itself still sounded confusing, with all of the steps and such. I guess I am either going to need a Zappymouse-esque tutorial (Barebones, with the most basic instructions for true idiots like me ) or learn a lot more myself.

 

If you run and try the latest WHQL and the beta before it, if you run nvidia try the latest and the one before it. (320.49?) The hawk should be clocking to 1150 so run afterburner and use it to monitor temps and clock speeds. You do not need to overclock, but you an if you want. My 270x (iceqx2) ran at 1140 and will max it at well over 60. (Running 1280x1024 though.)

So, yes, they should both max the game at nearly 60 fps.

- - - Updated - - -

Nononono, it is a great card that needs 0 overclock. There is an issue somewhere, but it isn't the cards capabilities. Monitor the temps and core clocks during a gaming session.

 

Should I look at Afterburner? Or should I try looking at HWinfo64?

 

I use afterburner. It graphs everything, and is msi's utility

 

Would using Afterburn to overclock my GT 630M be a bad idea? It's not exactly the most powerful card.

 

Mmkay, I ran the game until I got a full graph. There were lots of fluctuations, I guess, when I started it up, but it stayed constant for the rest.

Also, yes, I did drive around. This is just what I did when I got a full graph. I did not just crash and sit there until it was full.

 

I ignore the MSI branding, works just fine for EVGA too

 

Oh I know, it works with my HIS too, but you might as well use it over HWinfo. HWinfo isn't always right.

 

Your processor is bottlenecking your gpu. Either overclock your cpu (you might get around 20% more performance) or buy a new processor.

I had an AMD Phenomm II 955 @ 4,2GHz, it managed around 35-60fps depending on the map and car. Bought an i5 4670k and now i get around 60-70fps with dipps down to about 45-50fps. I have a gtx 570.

Edit: Sorry, i didnt read your first post all the way to the end.

 

He's done the pause physics test which usually confirms whether or not its CPU lag (simply press J, pauses physics, a bottlenecking CPU will no longer be bottlenecking and the FPS jumps)

 

I get a 10+ FPS increase when I pause, then unpause (I get that FPS when I unpause, then it goes back down slowly), so the CPU does have a tiny bottleneck. I cannot overclock that much, because I don't have a big ass cooler on it.

 

Yep, your CPU is bottlenecking. How hot does it actually get under load? (Check it in HWMonitor)

If it doesn't get too hot, you could still overclock but if it does, then go buy a better cooler.

 

I think the hottest it has ever gotten (According to HWMonitor, which I have heard gave different temps, but they are not far off), was about 100F. I know that HWMonitor isn't that much off because I had the case off of my computer to check on it, and when I felt the back plate of my graphics card, it was warm, and unless if 137F is supposed to hurt, it is accurate enough.

 

100f? Wow, that's a lot cooler than it should be. HWMonitor also gives me inaccurate temps for my CPU. (Ranges from 32f on idle to 90f under load.) MSI Control Center does give me accurate CPU temps though. (HWMonitor said it was going to about 115f back when I had the stock cooler)

 

Okay, I just played with 2 cars for around 15 minutes, and I looked at HWinfo64 this time, and it said 102F, so that is the correct temp, mainly because they are both agreeing with each other.

Now, what is a very safe overclock that I can do that will not make me nervous about it, and I won't have to be checking every 10 minutes on whether or not my CPU is about to reach the temperature of the sun (not literally, but preferably). If I just double numbers or increase them proportionally, would either of those be safe and/or proper techniques?

Also, how exactly will power be involved with this? I also would not want to have my parents paying 302% of what they are now.

 

I can tell you, that is not your core temp. What do those programs say the idle temp is? (Like, don't have anything running except the monitors) And what does the BIOS say the idle temp is? (Should be under something like hardware monitor. The BIOS should give you an accurate idle temp.)

On my computer, with water cooling, the load temp is about 120-130 and the idle is about 85f.

 

Power consumption will increase with an increase in clock speed and also increase with voltage. This is why people undervolt their CPU's (and undervolting too far is the main cause of instability with overclocks). Heat increases too.

Wont be a 302% increase in energy bills though