CPU or GPU is more important?

[666th_Lange]

Originally Posted by Vonov

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but FPS, which stands for Frames Per Second, is DIRECTLY related to smooth gameplay. Full-motion video, or what the eye perceives as smooth, natural motion, is usually a minimum of 30 frames per second...

You did indeed misunderstood me (). You can have an avg of 80FPS but still have stutter. Smooth for me is not a high FPS (but high enough to not make it jerky) but smooth "for me" means no stutter. I prefer a constant FPS of 30 and smooth scrolling of the landscape over an FPS of 80 with hickups. But for some, it can be jerky as hell, as long as the FPS reaches tripple numbers, they are satisfied. It's a matter of perception. And for me, COD is a nightmare at this current state, just plain horrible.

[MadTommy]

Originally Posted by 666th_Lange

I'm using a GTX480 with 1536MB/RAM (together with a i950 CPU and 6GB of RAM) and the performance is crappy. I don't want FPS, i'm looking for smooth gameplay and we are lightyears from that.

You must have a slow HD or some other issue.

I have a GTX480 and a dual core E8400 @ 3.6Ghz... very few stutters, only get minor stutters when a large town/city comes into view. Most of the time its very smooth. But i have a SSD drive.

[z0ttel]

Hi,

I have been monitoring my system the last days during the game using perfmon (for CPU, RAM and HDD) and gpu-z (for GPU and VRAM). The results show, that the GPU and the VRAM are the limiting factor. Both are at 100% during the game, whereas the CPU never reaches that limit. Normal RAM never drops below ~1GB and the HDDs are almost at 90% idle time.

So I think it's time to think about an GPU upgrade. The situation might be less worse with the upcoming patches, but I wouldn't count too much on that - in my special case, the GPU seems to be totally outdated which is ok, because I've paid only a few bucks for it

[jimbop]

I'm looking for 60+ fps with no stutter. Currently getting an average of 60 but the stutter is annoying. Not really bad but bad enough. And the lack of vsync gives atrocious tearing.

[666th_Lange]

Originally Posted by MadTommy

You must have a slow HD or some other issue.

I have a GTX480 and a dual core E8400 @ 3.6Ghz... very few stutters, only get minor stutters when a large town/city comes into view. Most of the time its very smooth. But i have a SSD drive.

With 6GB of RAM, HD or SSD should not matter, only on the loading times when the game starts. There's plenty of RAM to use, i can wait a bit for it to load completely (or with a bigger bubble) then have to undergo a stutter everytime something is loaded into memory. Same issue with DCS:A-10C which has stutters but which i have seen only use 3,5GB of memory at max.
Peeps then rush out to buy an SSD only to find that the game loads much faster on startup and that the hickups maybe are smaller but that they still suffer from stutter because the RAM is not entirly used.

BTW: as long as the game isn't patched up to a finished state (there's a lot of work still to be done on this one), there's no need to rush out and buy new hardware. What would you do if this was the X-Box 360 (or PS3 whetever) and the released game you buy is delivered in this state? Go out and buy some new hardware in order to run it? Guess not.

SInce there are no " blurr" from on frame to the other from a fast moving object in video rendering, like on film at 24 fps, the ideal minimum fps for a video game is 60 fps to have a cinematographic correspondance...
It can be smooth under there rates, but it will not be "realistic"...
So lets hope patches will allow top PCs those performances with lots of action in the air !

Salute!

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by kalimba

SInce there are no " blurr" from on frame to the other from a fast moving object in video rendering, like on film at 24 fps, the ideal minimum fps for a video game is 60 fps to have a cinematographic correspondance...
It can be smooth under there rates, but it will not be "realistic"...
So lets hope patches will allow top PCs those performances with lots of action in the air !

Salute!

+1. The 30fps argument is not valid IMHO.

[madrebel]

Originally Posted by kalimba

SInce there are no " blurr" from on frame to the other from a fast moving object in video rendering, like on film at 24 fps, the ideal minimum fps for a video game is 60 fps to have a cinematographic correspondance...
It can be smooth under there rates, but it will not be "realistic"...
So lets hope patches will allow top PCs those performances with lots of action in the air !

Salute!

you know its funny cause people hav argued for so long that "zomg you only need 24 fps" completely not understanding the issue.

well some in hollywood want 60fps because 24 is extremely limiting.

Originally Posted by madrebel

you know its funny cause people hav argued for so long that "zomg you only need 24 fps" completely not understanding the issue.

well some in hollywood want 60fps because 24 is extremely limiting.

24 fps was the standard for film, based on the fact that people wouldn't notice any stuttering at that rate...Early movies were shot at 18 fps (like some WW1 movies) and we can clearly see stuttering...But it works with an average shutter speed of 1/125 witch makes a fast moving object leaving a trail that makes the passing from one frame to the other look smooth...
SOme camera F/X were used at 24 FPS but with hight shutter speed in Gladiator, and it gives the impression of stroboscopic movement...CLose to what a game would do...Funny...

Salute !

[15JG52_Brauer]

Well from what I've seen it'sGPU locked not cpu locked (9% overall cpu load - not more than 60% on core 1 - with process affinity mask -15 set in conf ini) - ps GPU load was 0% for screenshot on desktop - but 99% when running the game - just on gpu 1. peak temps 90c on gpu1, 45c on gpu2 - 0% load gpu 2.
Also this was with CPU on 4.4 ghz not 4.7 - trying lower setting to see if there is any impact - will try tomorrow at stock and then underclocked speeds to see if I can find where CPU becomes the limit.