Xealyth Jul 10 @ 9:43am
Low FPS on high end PC?
Recently I noticed that when I play I:SS maxed out I only get anywhere near 30-40 FPS. I have a GTX 760, i7 4770k, 8GB of ram and Windows 8.1. I don't think I should be getting FPS that low as I can run games like Battlefield on way higher FPS. Any solution that doesn't comprimise the graphical fidelity? ( as I want to play on max settings. )
Showing 1-15 of 26 comments
< >
The doctor is in Jul 10 @ 12:51pm 
what resolution?

try running resource monitor or better msi afterburnder + hwinfo to see where bottleneck is

look at this thread on tweaking the game and increasing performance
http://steamcommunity.com/app/226700/discussions/0/846959179199964105/

most likely lookat your specs your gpu cant handle the setting you have

try reducing shadows and lighting a little

re: battlefield

battlefield does not have the size and complexity and draw distance of the maps this game uses with all the folliage, buildings, vehicles, loot, players, zombies, sounds and effects.


also your have a great cpu, but not the gpu to match

your gtx 760 is a $250 upper midrange card

so on average for 1080p u can expect 30-40fps worse for higher resolutions

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-4.html

if you wanted on average to do 50-60 fps or better you need $400 highend card or better

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-5.html

for what you spent you would have dont much better for the same money getting 280x and good chance you would have hit 40-50 fps on 1080p

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-4.html

here u can compare cards and see gtx 670 is one nutch below 280x which translate to ~10 lower frame rate at same resolution

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
Last edited by The doctor is in; Jul 10 @ 3:56pm
The doctor is in Jul 10 @ 2:57pm 
by the way i have 2+ yr old amd 1090t / ati 6870 1gb / 16gb and it runs 1920x1200 maxed out pretty well.

try tweaking lighting/shadows and aa, af, ect that normally kills gpu

also watch your resolution

i think this game favors ati gpu cause it dont do things like physx and on nvidia it does better with games that do cause of how they leave some of gpu for physx so u dont normally have full gpu available for game, i know what a waste for games that dont support physx.

so its been a long time since i had an nvidia card but i did some looking on web and nvidia cards maybe reserving a good chunk of gpu power for physx even if game dont use physx...

so if possible disable physx on video card settings if that is still allowed.

one thing you could try if they still allow it is for this game set the physx to be done on cpu and not gpu and since i dont think this game uses physx anyways the reserve should hopefully be minimal then...

http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2700/~/disabling-nvidia-physx-gpu-acceleration

see if u can do the above per application (game) basis that way it wont affect games that support physx

also do the same for cuda make sure you tell your video card to give everything to the game and not reserver stuff for things like cuda which it wont be doing. its not like it will be calculating clouds and stuff for this game...


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3agXcYEYRmI/UNlrmY_kDCI/AAAAAAAAB-E/qdgqK7-XeJg/s1600/01.jpg

also limit the gpu to a single monitor cause there is no point to waste any of it on another monitor that the game dont use...

re: battlefield

also battlefield optimized for xbox 360 which is actually been a problem for pc with the network code since the tick the game uses to determin how many network updates per second were set to xbox 360 on both client and server which was really bad since it was not enough updates per second until recently where they unlocked some of the servers to do more updates per second to occomidate pc gameplay...
Last edited by The doctor is in; Jul 10 @ 4:15pm
Xealyth Jul 11 @ 9:11pm 
Thanks for the reply, but the PhysX and CUDA settings did little to no help in performance. Thanks for the suggestion though!
Xealyth Jul 11 @ 9:18pm 
But the weirdest thing is that I see a bunch of videos on YouTube with people running the game on max settings with 5-60 frames. Why am I getting them such low?
The doctor is in Jul 11 @ 10:22pm 
hard to say for that you will have to run something like msi afterburner configured with hwinfo32 or even a cpu/gpu profiler to find out where the bottlenecks are...


the only thing i can tell you is you have a great cpu, but an average gpu. so if anything the gpu is not keeping up

you can also play around with the video settings and with these config file settings
http://steamcommunity.com/app/226700/discussions/0/846959179199964105/

to see if any of it helps

try reducing dynamic lighting / shadows / aa, ect... the settings that normally hit gpu the most...
Last edited by The doctor is in; Jul 11 @ 10:24pm
Speedy Cat Hat Jul 13 @ 8:32am 
the game is poorly optimised
=KZO= Half-Fast =KZO= Jul 13 @ 9:08am 
Try this:

http://forums.infestationmmo.com/index.php?/topic/109832-guide-improving-game-performance/

Doing the Nvidia control panel stuff gave me 55+ fps....
Last edited by =KZO= Half-Fast =KZO=; Jul 13 @ 10:24am
ChiGoku Jul 13 @ 12:09pm 
Originally posted by Xealyth:
Recently I noticed that when I play I:SS maxed out I only get anywhere near 30-40 FPS. I have a GTX 760, i7 4770k, 8GB of ram and Windows 8.1. I don't think I should be getting FPS that low as I can run games like Battlefield on way higher FPS. Any solution that doesn't comprimise the graphical fidelity? ( as I want to play on max settings. )


unfortunately the game poorly optimized in the sense, ppl with worse cpu's than you can play it better..

like take DR's terrible explanation for example..

tells you
"also your have a great cpu, but not the gpu to match

your gtx 760 is a $250 upper midrange cardso on average for 1080p u can expect 30-40fps worse for higher resolutions

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-4.html"

I'm sorry, but your GTX 760 is one of the top video cards out there for the price, you should be able to handle this nooooooooo problem, or w/e you throw at it.
http://graphics-cards-review.toptenreviews.com/
your card is ranked 7th..

then he says this
"by the way i have 2+ yr old amd 1090t / ati 6870 1gb / 16gb and it runs 1920x1200 maxed out pretty well."

so he tells you some BS story that, his 2 year old computer. lower end video card.. can run this out maxed.. 1920x1200 resolution.. which is higher than 1080p...

with 0 issues...

and your card that is 2X better than his...

cmon.. something doesn't add up here...

ISS map is about: 10km of playable area. all 10km's isn't loaded or even rendered to your screen. the graphics of this game, particles, etc, is subpar to any AAA game out there.

not to mention, way less things going on, less lighting, shadows, particles, explosions, fire, DETAILS of the surroundings and character models, less vehicles, so less vehicle movements flying/driving around having to be rendered... all sub par....

So the issue is not your computer, or video card for that matter...

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-HD-6870-vs-GeForce-GTX-760

Everything points, your gpu is better in everyway.. and he claims he can run it higher than 1080p... and that you won't be able to because your gpu.. thats a load of bull!!

Try to do the best you can with what KZO linked you.

otherwise, thats just the nature of the beast with a poorly optimized game engine.

do a search in the main forums, and you'll see your not the only one with poor performances with higher computer specs.

Last edited by ChiGoku; Jul 13 @ 12:11pm
ChiGoku Jul 13 @ 4:33pm 
Originally posted by The doctor is in:
that is an .3 difference when u look at general computing tests executed on the gpu which is amazing considering its been like 2+ yrs and that back then i paid like $250 on black friday deal at microcenter

why not talk about the proper differences.. just because you see a point score, shows nothing

Bandwidth 192 GB/s compared to your 134 GB/S

Texel Rate 94 GP/S compared to your 50 GP/S

Pixel Rate 31 GP/S compared to your 28 GP/S


in every way possible, his card is better than yours, but yet your saying he needs a better video card, thats already much much better than yours!!

yet you play higher res, everything on perfectly fine.. compared to his vastly superior graphics card.. that can't... and yeah its NOT the game.. your right, the game is perfectly fine.. and he needs to buy a new video card... your right

tell him to spend MORE money on a card thats not needed..

yup.. definitely NOT the game.. its his sub par graphics card

Last edited by ChiGoku; Jul 13 @ 4:37pm
The doctor is in Jul 13 @ 5:05pm 
Originally posted by ChiGoku:
Originally posted by The doctor is in:
that is an .3 difference when u look at general computing tests executed on the gpu which is amazing considering its been like 2+ yrs and that back then i paid like $250 on black friday deal at microcenter

why not talk about the proper differences.. just because you see a point score, shows nothing

Bandwidth 192 GB/s compared to your 134 GB/S

Texel Rate 94 GP/S compared to your 50 GP/S

Pixel Rate 31 GP/S compared to your 28 GP/S


in every way possible, his card is better than yours, but yet your saying he needs a better video card, thats already much much better than yours!!

yet you play higher res, everything on perfectly fine.. compared to his vastly superior graphics card.. that can't... and yeah its NOT the game.. your right, the game is perfectly fine.. and he needs to buy a new video card... your right

tell him to spend MORE money on a card thats not needed..

yup.. definitely NOT the game.. its his sub par graphics card


what proper difference. i see framerate not fillrate, that is internal and hey its you who cites gpuboss and i just tooks the numbers they gave. so why does gpu boss the cite you give show my card just being .8 difference between the two on benchmark and just .6 difference on processing power. from what you site surely it would not be those numbers. the fact everyone knows those number only say one thing but not say about what framerate someone going to get on some game. they hint.s ure he has hardware that has better bandwidth, texel rate and pixel rate than mine, but there is a lot more that goes to it and your just posting half the story. the numbers gpuboss and tomshardware give show the whole story. and the whole story takes into account things like mine running faster i already saidt hat came that way i didnt even have to overclock it to get it faster so they using msi vs stock ok i dont have stock and i dont have smi and next it dont take into account 2 different architectures nvisia is not ati very different animals inside. also it dont take into account drivers nvidia drivers are very different than ati drivers not just because different drivers but much different hardware. also like amd to intel inside the implementations are much different so you can see a high end amd cpu wiht much higher frequency and many more cores and many more everything get the heck beat out of it by average low end dual core intel cpu because of the implementation inside is much different and amd has everyone knows very poor ipc implementation of x86 instructions set because they are roadblocked from having better for like years cause intel holds all the patents. and there is also software tends to be profiled and optimized for intel cpu cause most developers, companies doing development, and even users running intel vs amd. so it just ends up that way.. all those things faster end much more than pure frequency.. and the same with video cards. some games developed and tested mostly on ti so ati would tend to do slightly better and perhaps a lot better and some nvidia. also nnvidia has physx problem little nasty they reserve like microsoft rserved until recently and still does a little some of the processing so their branded stuff looks good even when most things dont use it. most things dont use microsoft kinect, but microsoft has long history of reserving some of hardware for it and for the os even when kinect is not using it and even when the os does not use it. nvidia has history of reserving some of the gpu and have specific stuff for physx so all that is not going to games. but mostly we dont know how good the shders for example are being translated by directx based on drivers for ati vs nvidia for this game. so unless we run it on cpu/gpu profiler for both hardware we not going to know which one is better for. i suspect ati. but that is just based on all the people posting they got bad framrate appear to be mostly nvidia. also nvidia has history of nerfing their value cards and buffing their power cards. they sort of all do. but i dont know how they nerfed his. surely they did else it would outrun their performance cards and they dont want someone buying $250 and having a card that beats or even comes close to their $600 or worse $900 card. some of that as people have found out is at hardware level, but not all and on some cards people have played around with drivers and unlocked them and gotten real value, i has such an nvidia card long ago, i was doing horrible and went and got tweaked driver that allowed me to tell my nvidia driver that i had another nvidia card by setting some offset to the value of some other card nad bingo instant bigtime boost in framerate since then my card could use more power and run more hot. they had nerfed my value card in 2 ways disabling cells and the values they would allow for cells before saying we wont use them. so lots of games being played by these companies with basically hust the same hardware so they can squeeze more money. and like i posted i have my own heatsinks using my own stuff and i have my own dozen fans in it and that give me good ability to have the chip running nicely cool which means i can obsorbe a good bit more before it throttles back. so ur reviews dont take into account nothing that ive done with thsi box. and again one architecture is not another which is mostly what those numbers mean compare apples to apples and not get confused with apples to oranges which is what your doing and everyone can tell... man u have like way of doing this same thing in thread after thread. sure must work hard at it... cause i keep quoting the same things, tom's hardware and i dont mix and match. i take their gtx to the gtx for minimum requirements i dont swap their gtx for ati for minimum requirements to play on them...

oh and dont put words in my mouth and twist what i post i never posted "yup.. definitely NOT the game.. its his sub par graphics card'

i quoted as i cited now like 2-3 times directly from toms hardware and what they said about his card and ittoms hardware nor i said what u say i said. your just

and if he wants more framerate he sure going to have to throw more hardware at it. or look to resolve what is causing the bottleneck ive given some suggestions on number of areas from gpu to ssd to how he has stuff installed on his computer perhaps.

and i see in post after post your conclusion is always not they dont have hardware enough but that it is not optimized. which is just empty statement based on what... i posted like comprehensive list of optimizations that typically are done by video games/video game engine and asked you or anyone each time to find a single optimization that they need to do. you could certainly say for example your not using texture atlases ant that is contributing to low framerate or not combinding meshes and that is resulting in added draw calls, but ive not seen anyone post a single optimization that they do not do that they need to do. its just your hardware is ok its just their engine/game is poorly optimized without any facts to back it up. i post extensively as everyone can see takes a look time to research the posts i dont go to refridgerator review site to get my reviews and so i dont get its top 10 based card i have to go read a good bit to come up with the stuff. but hey the source code is all out there. easy to find, everyone appears to find the hacked versions easy enough and the source code is even easier and lots of forums about that source code being ripped apart and analyzed for just about everything. people looking at nepharious imagings in the source code trying to find where the logic exist that randomly bans innocent people and in like over a year an a half of people looking at it they still not find it and people looking to find where its poorly optimized so they can nail them and in over year and a half they still not find it and people lookig to find where they have poor network code and in year and a ahlf they still not find it. but perhaps the little group that rrquests this site for thrills and others saying stuff like throwing stuff on wall and hoping it sticks with will look at it and gleeme / find a single line of code or thing they dont do that they should.. here is my post with all the optimizations. if u work on games / game engines u should be familair with number of them. many are done for u wehen you bake/cook your maps / compile your releases soemthings u have to do and have tools for them or plygins or write your own ones. but surely someoen will find some... better than saying its not optimized, put some meat on it

here is my old post

http://steamcommunity.com/app/226700/discussions/0/45350790732055651/#c45350790812621886

and here is the list

so does not it do

+ distance lods
+ optimized draw calls
+ redush mesh count and draw calls by statch batching / combining meshes
+ reduce texture count by atlasing of textures
+ use baked static lightmapping and shadows where possible
+ occulusion + distance culling
+ terrain object billboarding
+ pooling of resources to limit count and to reduce cost of instantiation / destruction
+ make use of skyboxes and fake distant geometry
+ baked a* pathfinding
+ game logic written in natively compiled and optimized language that supports native threading
+ make use of native mutlithreading threading
+ compressed textures and mipmaps
+ utilize reduced path gpu shaders
+ vertext count < 200K and 3M per frame


so the word not optimized have to have some meaning it cant be something just thrown out there if its not optimized it must not be doing something from the above list. perhaps something i forgot then.. i think my list is comprehensive sure is the stuff i and many others use.. but perhaps u have better list, just give the list, not made up one, industry accepted one please. else its like joke/troll post. go through the list find the problems. and being the nice guy and so dedicated to pointing out things in hopes of making things better go to their website and suggest that they be fixed. i mean if they would not doing stuff i certainly would want it being done.. i mean that would be exceelent place to start to optimized. but honestly dont see where people will find what others have not found... perhaps they would not have looked hard enough and new fresh set of eyes would be better. i know ive spent lots of money doing the above list on the stuff i work on but some times one adds something in a rush and forgets, hey it happens long hours and at 5 am lots its forgetten so perhaps some texture that is not compressed. i mean the stuff is all out there. so no need to say its not optimized and have 0 proof behind that statement being thrown out there... i think seek and thall shall find and at least then there is some bases fo rthe statements where perhaps now there is none.


oh one word of warning to anyone thinking of going in changing some values in hopes of unlocking things like like with your cars with the right equirement you can go and change values and unlock your engine, transmission and breaks, but if you dont know what your doing the results will be quite ugly and with your video card fro nvidia you will damage it like with your car, well at least u not playing with your life like you would be if u editied the abs break tables... so be warned. i did not tell u to do it.. i just says nivdia plays lots of games so so do they all to get us all to pay a lot more for a lot less... ok less cause they nerfed it while on other models buffed it with basically the same hardware... so if u know what ur doing go find the drivers and tweak away, but if u dont know what it means dont... else u can end up with dead card, dead computer, crashing computer, even card on fire perhaps... who knows but will not be good... if u do want to learn and dont care a good place to start is learning about the hardware the chips and stuff they put on it and about drivers and about tweaked ones out there that allow u to go and edit stuff normally not edited. basically a lot of card the chip is the same perhaps on some lower models the chip did not past test or they damaged it on purpose cause or its even the same as higher end one but they put lower end fane/heatsink and other stuff on board. but if u learn about all the aparts and understand the capacitors they use the resistors fand heat sink ect and u make accomodations u can often go with tweaked drivers and say one card is another card by swapping is so that the driver will load different settings for the card and since its same card basically and if the hardware supports it it will for eample use cells it normally wont cause it wont cause lower end card may not have hardware for keeping it safe to use those additional cells cause of heat. power, ect but often its not a heat or power thing, its just the same and its just them doing it to charge different. so its safe and sometimes they cant get enough ships that dont pass and they have not yet setup where they damage the chip to prevent people accessing what is already there so the chip is safe to use cells theyve disabled and sometimes its not. other times it may not pass their tests but for your use its ok and would run just fine perhaps just not last 15 years letss ay they say it should last nad u shorttening lifetime, but hey your know u not going to be using it for 15 years. so u have to learn a lot about the ships and drivers and the hardware very specific things down to the capacity and resistors and heatsink ur hard have and higher end have and understand the risk and do testing with things like misafter burner and hardinfo for days to make sure its ok and stable and sometimes it just hangs and sometimes crashes nad sometimes worse. i normally do such things when buying a box. i put lot of time into the hardware since i have to live with it. i think evne based on what been cited so far .8 after 2+ yrs and not bad i bought value and im getting value i didnt buy $1000 cpu/gpu but im hanging in there with this and many other games without having to give up on the settings i like... which is great. i know eventually i'll have to buy another box. its just like this and next time im most likely going to get intel i7 4770k or the newer one at tabout that price and the same for gpu im sticking with ati cause so far every game i play most of the people complaining about things have nvidia its why i switched, i got tired ot the little issues... i guess some other may have gotten tired with little ati issues, so far ive not. plus ati now is leading with mantel and its working great in growing list of games i play and nvidia well they have physx but who cares since i dont do that and the game i play really dont do that and i rather have framrate and eye candy than some cloth i wont really notice moving simulated properly.. ok explosions but most game dont use physx and i dont play the batman one.. so i dont care.. and im happy with ai beta drivers squeezing more out of supposedly less and giving me .6 difference after 2+ yrs and that is vs stock i got better one even when i bought so im ahead and closer than the numbers that gpuboss gives with all the little tweaks ive done that really dont make my box unstable really is not hardcore overclocking no water cooler here no pumps just very quiet fans controlled by fan controller with temperature moniutors put in right places and fans directed using ties to move the are out... so when i look my frenqencies stay up on gpu / cpu/ chipset/memory way more then they would normally do by default overlocking hardware does when ur cool. hey it pays to have good airflow... all those little things allow me to squeeze as much frame rate as possible without having to buy new hardware now for 2+ yrs. my cpu being biggest problem since its amd. but that is big upgrde cause it owuld mean going intel new motherboard and new memory and might as well new gpu... anyways have fund finding where they didnt optimize it... i know i did optimize mine...
Last edited by The doctor is in; Jul 13 @ 5:51pm
IPTT1 Jul 14 @ 10:24am 
leave the game.
Toastersquid Jul 14 @ 11:11am 
Thats strange.... I have Gtx 760 SC with i5 3300 and I get like 56-60 fps on max. But then again I turn off shadows.
The doctor is in Jul 14 @ 12:14pm 
Originally posted by Toastersquid:
Thats strange.... I have Gtx 760 SC with i5 3300 and I get like 56-60 fps on max. But then again I turn off shadows.

yeah who knows. i get around 50-60 fps too and i haven't turned off anything. just tweaked the hardware and some settings installed on ssd and gave it pleanty of memory..
Last edited by The doctor is in; Jul 14 @ 12:16pm
ChiGoku Jul 14 @ 12:18pm 
Originally posted by Toastersquid:
Thats strange.... I have Gtx 760 SC with i5 3300 and I get like 56-60 fps on max. But then again I turn off shadows.


I dunno toaster.. apparently by DR's standards, his old sub par gpu and cpu can out run this game higher than 1080p, maxed out, flawlessly...

I mean, apparently from his 3 wall of text posts of spam, that no one gives a ♥♥♥♥, proves that your wrong, and shouldn't be able to :P.... apparently you need to get a better GPU than 760 to run this old 2 year old, outdated graphics game.
The doctor is in Jul 14 @ 12:45pm 
troll harder , u missed this post... he's got to run it with msi after burnder w/ hwinfo to find out where hsi bottleneck is...

Originally posted by Toastersquid:
Thats strange.... I have Gtx 760 SC with i5 3300 and I get like 56-60 fps on max. But then again I turn off shadows.
Showing 1-15 of 26 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Jul 10 @ 9:43am
Posts: 26