Difference in FPS (nearly same spec)
 

Ok i took this from another thread to hopefully get some advice help and guidance for others if they are thinking about upgrading they're system..

**THE SYSTEM SPECS**

AMD PhenomIIx6 1055t O/C 3.5 >>>>AMD PHENOM II X6 1090T 3.2GHZ
4 gig CRUCAIL Ram >>>>Corsair XMS3 8GB (4x2GB) DDR3
ATI 5770 slightly overclocked >>>>NVIDEA GeForce GTX470
GIGABYTE Mbo USB 3 7.1 sound >>>>ASUS-M4A89GTD-PRO/USB3
Win7 32 bit >>>>Windows 7 64bit

GAME settings are on max for both with roads/grass/shadows checked but the resolutions are different::

SYSTEM on LEFT 1920x1200 SYSTEM on RIGHT 1280x720
FPS over sea 20-30 less over land FPS over sea 60-70/40-50 over land


Now can someone tell me why the system on the right boasts 2.5/3 times the amount of FPS than the one on the left.. i just dont understand how this is working out neither do i understand why you cant pinpoint why there should be such a vast amount of differnce

Now as far as i know the systems both have the same patches and MOD.. if the system on the right doesnt have the MOD then its even more confucing

~S~

From what I've experienced, the resolution makes a BIG difference in fps for this game..

maybe difference in win7 32 and 64 bit makes a difference also. 4 gigs of ram is REALLY 4 gigs of ram in 64bit.

Not that the game can take advantage of all that RAM but the memory handling if I am correct is better handled in 64bit

Agreed but this game doesn't utilize that and even if it did there is still 3-3.5Gig available in my system with Win7 32 yet so it shouldn't make a difference like this should it?:o

this could be something, I have a similar system to Z-jamz description (right one) and I can only have a resolution of 1680x1050 because it is max native for my monitor, but I am getting extremely good framerates and little to no stutter with everything on max

Well 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels. 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels.

Ignoring other factors, one machine is pushing 2.5 times (2304000 / 921600) more pixels around.

I think this shows a linear performance.

hmm thats strange.. my system is the one on the left fyi but in either case again if your getting good fps and everything on max its a far cry from what my system is getting... its playable dont get me wrong since the mod but the scenery doesnt look pretty at all

BUT

still masses of difference between them and from the different resolutions ive tried NONE gave me 30-40 fps increase

There have been some indications that people with the Nvidia gtx4XX series cards are getting the most joy, whether that is irrespective of other hardware I don't know, but there is evidence mounting it seems.

p.s. I'm not even using the SSAO mod

Well... it depends... the first system because its 32 bit can not utilize 4 Gigs of RAM. its something like 3.2 or something like that? I forget.. anyway.. How much RAM does the OS plus all open processes use? we will substract this from the 3.2 gigs... then if I'm not SERIOUSLY mistaken but i read something about this... we ALSO subtract the total amount of Ram of your VIDEO card!!! yes your dedicated NOT onboard but slotted beast of a video card. Then how much ram is left for the game?

Again.. I might be mistaken but I read this somewhere.. might be to do that equal amounts of internal ram is needed to adress the ram inside your video card or something? Please if someone could adress this issue and explain it to me in plain english I will be much obliged.

So in other words a win7 64 bit version has in your example 1 gig more for overhead memory handling.

well, mine is the system on the right....

Just the latest official patch installed..no mods.

The build is brand new..COD is the only program installed apart from TrackIR.

I doubt the SSD would effect frame rates..maybe just help with stutters?

the Phenom is o/clocked to 3.7Mhz