FPS stuck at 45 - possible to improve?

[Masochistic Monk]

Even after removing all mods it actually went down to 42/43. GTX 970 and FX-6000 something get ~60 fps (+ or -) on most games, so I'm stumped why something so old is struggling. Is there a wonky hidden setting or mod(s) that can help with this?

[Anro]

Originally posted by Joebot:

Even after removing all mods it actually went down to 42/43. GTX 970 and FX-6000 something get ~60 fps (+ or -) on most games, so I'm stumped why something so old is struggling. Is there a wonky hidden setting or mod(s) that can help with this?

the problem is your crap cpu

[Masochistic Monk]

Even if it's "crap", Fallout 4 and essentially any other recent game shouldn't be running at 60 fps while New Vegas won't exceed 45. That's not something you can blame on the CPU.

[Ceejay]

Originally posted by Joebot:

Even if it's "crap", Fallout 4 and essentially any other recent game shouldn't be running at 60 fps while New Vegas won't exceed 45. That's not something you can blame on the CPU.

hmm, odd, I do not think its your cpu either, but honestly no idea why your at 45 unless you have vsync on and you had a 90hz monitor (which would be odd).

You could still try switching vsync off.

[kristine]

new vegas stuter remover

[airmikee99]

Originally posted by Anro:

Originally posted by Joebot:

Even after removing all mods it actually went down to 42/43. GTX 970 and FX-6000 something get ~60 fps (+ or -) on most games, so I'm stumped why something so old is struggling. Is there a wonky hidden setting or mod(s) that can help with this?

the problem is your crap cpu

You're either joking or completely ignorant about AMD CPU's. The game requires a duo core 2.0 GHz, the weakest FX-6000 chip, the FX-6100, is a hexcore 3.3 GHz.

The next time you get the urge to share your stupid opinion, punch yourself in the face instead. Eventually you'll stop sharing your stupid opinions.

[Masochistic Monk]

It turns out fraps reports ~59-62 fps but the monitor from ReShade says ~43-45 fps. Not sure why that's happening, or which one is correct (maybe neither). Thanks for the suggestions.

[talgaby]

Oh dear gods almighty, sometimes I wonder why the "PC master race" gag still exists if PC players do not know even the basics of their own rig.

Yes, you are limited by your CPU, because the Bulldozer and Piledriver lines do not use "cores", they just marketed it as such because the average user is dumb like a sack of bricks and cannot understand simple concepts. The use some hybrid between a hyper-threaded core and one single-core entity, so the Unit itself is good at calculations that require tons of parallel processing, but it is terrible when it comes to single-lane calculations. Or in other words, FX chips excel at multi-threaded operations andare slower than a laptop Intel Celeron at 1.5 GHz at single-threaded operations.

New Vegas uses an engine from 2000, where multi-threaded game engines did not exist. At all. So it relies on single-thread performance. Which your CPU lacks. You are seeing 50-60 fps mostly because the FX line just crancked up the frequency as much as they could so they brute-force their way through the problems.

And you are not seeing this trouble in most any games because if they are old enough to use single-threaded engines then they are not a problem any more, and most anything else can use several parallel threads.
This is also the reason why my pet peeve is people using the "but if I run game X at zillion fps, I should run game Y at zillion fps as well", because it is not how software and hardware works. At all. That argument stopped being valid somewhere around 2004, so it has been dead for a longer time than some of its users have lived.
Same goes for GHz, by the way. I am writing this on a mini-PC with a 1.2 GHz processor that runs faster on a single-thread operation than an old Pentium 4 at 3+ GHz. Frequency is just a number. A CPU's strength is not measured by it but how effectively it can calculate during those cycles.

[Ceejay]

Originally posted by talgaby:

Oh dear gods almighty, sometimes I wonder why the "PC master race" gag still exists if PC players do not know even the basics of their own rig.

Yes, you are limited by your CPU, because the Bulldozer and Piledriver lines do not use "cores", they just marketed it as such because the average user is dumb like a sack of bricks and cannot understand simple concepts. The use some hybrid between a hyper-threaded core and one single-core entity, so the Unit itself is good at calculations that require tons of parallel processing, but it is terrible when it comes to single-lane calculations. Or in other words, FX chips excel at multi-threaded operations andare slower than a laptop Intel Celeron at 1.5 GHz at single-threaded operations.

New Vegas uses an engine from 2000, where multi-threaded game engines did not exist. At all. So it relies on single-thread performance. Which your CPU lacks. You are seeing 50-60 fps mostly because the FX line just crancked up the frequency as much as they could so they brute-force their way through the problems.

And you are not seeing this trouble in most any games because if they are old enough to use single-threaded engines then they are not a problem any more, and most anything else can use several parallel threads.
This is also the reason why my pet peeve is people using the "but if I run game X at zillion fps, I should run game Y at zillion fps as well", because it is not how software and hardware works. At all. That argument stopped being valid somewhere around 2004, so it has been dead for a longer time than some of its users have lived.
Same goes for GHz, by the way. I am writing this on a mini-PC with a 1.2 GHz processor that runs faster on a single-thread operation than an old Pentium 4 at 3+ GHz. Frequency is just a number. A CPU's strength is not measured by it but how effectively it can calculate during those cycles.

You also are slightly incorrect, yes fx processors are slower than their equivelent Intels, but they are not slower than all intels, infact their single core performance is higher than early i7's, again yes even a modern i3 will leave an fx standing single core wise, but then a modern i3 will leave any early i7 standing too.

The point is for this game while amd's do have weaker single cores than the equiv intel, its still more than fast enough for this game and its not the fx cpu holding him back, Ive an 8350 its not even being close to maxed out any of it cores,

As he states fallout 4, which is actually a more heavily modded version of the same engine, they get nearly 60 in, so new vegas should have zero issues.

Hell I can run new vegas on my old T8300 laptop, which is a dual core 2.4 at 1080p at around 40-50fps, and the fx absolutley leaves that cpu standing in its wake.
Where as that laptop cannot even get normal skyrim running on it at any kind of speed, even on the lowest settings, which shows the power difference needed between the two engines, and then it was modified again for fallout 4.

@op fraps is an industry used app, I would say that was the more reliable of the two, in which case your fine, and just proves a lot of people on this thread are talking total rubbish.

[Bansheebutt]

I can run Metal Gear Solid 5 at 60fps, but Diablo 2 only runs at 25fps, pls help.

Originally posted by Ceejay:

As he states fallout 4, which is actually a more heavily modded version of the same engine, they get nearly 60 in, so new vegas should have zero issues.

Fallout 4 (Creation 2.0) has far superior multi-core support and memory management than New Vegas. Likewise, the Special Edition of Skyrim has much better performance than the original even with its "enhanced" graphics.

[airmikee99]

Originally posted by talgaby:

Yes, you are limited by your CPU, because the Bulldozer and Piledriver lines do not use "cores", they just marketed it as such

Ironic that you complain about other people not "knowing their own rig" while you believe a bogus lawsuit has merit.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/217672-analysis-amd-lawsuit-over-false-bulldozer-chip-marketing-is-without-merit

[BlackRayPlayer]

Originally posted by talgaby:

New Vegas uses an engine from 2000, where multi-threaded game engines did not exist. At all. So it relies on single-thread performance. Which your CPU lacks. You are seeing 50-60 fps mostly because the FX line just crancked up the frequency as much as they could so they brute-force their way through the problems.

Seriously, 2000? This 2010 game existed when the XBOX Original released? I'm pretty sure it does not rely on the XBOX Original's Pentium III 768MHz Single Core processor to run.

I have the retail case saying that it is enhanced for mult-core processor, but only asks for a Dual-Core processor running at, at least 2.0GHz. Operating Systems Windows XP, Windows Vista, and ~ an operating system not available in early 2000 ~ Windows 7.

This game only requires a 128MB VRAM from a GPU, while Fallout 3 which came before it required 256 with 512MB being recommended
__________________________________________

There is three ways you can check your FPS. In desktop mode, unhook controller(s), and check with Steam's Desktop FPS Counter in conjuction with FRAPS to see if they act similar. Then you can also do the same with GeForce Experience FPS Counter the same way to see if FRAPS is acting similar as. I personally prefer FRAPS as my FPS Counter.
__________________________________________

When I first started playing Fallout: New Vegas, my Laptops specs were:

intel Core 2nd Gen i3-2350M 2.3GHz Dual-Core Processor with Hyperthreading
6GB DDR3 SDRAM @1333MHz
intel HD Graphics 3000 ~ 128MB Dedicated Video

[talgaby]

Originally posted by Ceejay:

The point is for this game while amd's do have weaker single cores than the equiv intel, its still more than fast enough for this game and its not the fx cpu holding him back, Ive an 8350 its not even being close to maxed out any of it cores

The FX 8000 series was different. Interestingly, more different than the 9000 series (which apparently sold so badly people even forgot they existed). Despite having the same architecture, somehow they managed to match the raw single-thread performance of better i3 CPUs and even got relatively close to the bottom of the i5 ones. My guess would be that their gigantic energy consumption has something to do with it, but the AMD FX 8000 line, despite the heat issues, was a good and cheap family of gaming-recommended CPUs. They can even run Final Fantasy XIII smoothly, and that PC port murders the first core more than New Vegas ever could.

Also yes, Fallout 4's engine is Creation 2.0, New Vegas runs on the same GameBryo that powered Oblivion, with the same scripting engine that ran under Morrowind. The engines have nothing in common (since Creation engine was created by Bethesda, whereas they just licensed that old GameBryo version), FO4 even managed to finally touch up on that ancient scripting engine.

Originally posted by BlackRayPlayer:

Seriously, 2000? This 2010 game existed when the XBOX Original released? I'm pretty sure it does not rely on the XBOX Original's Pentium III 768MHz Single Core processor to run.

Yes, the scripting engine is from Morrowind, and they wrote it around 1999, when they started to work on it.
The graphical engine, GameBryo is a bit newer, it is the same they had under Oblivion released on 2006, although the engine itself is from somewhere between 2002 and 2005. Funny enough, this means all TES games except the first have different graphic engines, but since they acquired Fallout, they are reusing the engines now.

Originally posted by airmikee99:

Ironic that you complain about other people not "knowing their own rig" while you believe a bogus lawsuit has merit.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/217672-analysis-amd-lawsuit-over-false-bulldozer-chip-marketing-is-without-merit

It is not about that lawsuit, it is about the actual architecture. It does not follow the classic core setup and it was a strange hybrid, which even AMD called modules when they talked about the architecture back then. The modules partly have one single common part and also two separate ones, this is why it is a strange hybrid between being multi-core and hyper-threaded single-core. That lawsuit itself was just playing around with words.

[Ceejay]

Your still missing the point.

My laptop which only has a T8300 intel core 2 2.4ghz has a slower single thread performance than the fx 6000 series, and it can play new vegas and oblivion fine. Therefore the ops fx should still run it. I was running oblivion originally on my Amd athlon x2 3800, nevemind an fx 6000 series. I honestly think your view of the capabilities of the fx series is a little off, again I am not saying they are fantastic, but they are good enough for this game.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Duo-T8300-vs-AMD-FX-6300

[BlackRayPlayer]

Whenever I look into AMD Specs, I get confused at what exactly I'm looking at. Shows for most FX-6000 Series, that they have 6 Cores with 3 modules apiece. What the hell do the modules do?

[Ceejay]

If you read the link about the lawsuit, it explains it all :)