Is my GTX 670 FTW fps normal?

[Kagonpeak]

Just wondering. I have an i5 3570k at stock clocks and a GTX 670 FTW.

Now, I saw a review where they state the GTX 670 (normal version) has around 140fps on 1080p ultra: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/M...dition/23.html

Thing is, I don't even run everything at ultra and I don't really have 140fps. And I'm not talking about 25m raids, because drops there are pretty normal. No, I mean just outdoor Pandaria. I usually have like 80/90 there with drops in busy areas to 55.

Is my fps normal?

[Wolfbear]

That review was done before Pandaria was out, don't Blizzard update the game every expansion graphically?

[Wkd]

Intel Core i7-3770K @ 4.7 GHz (Ivy Bridge, 8192 KB Cache) - (The CPU in the Test System they used with the card in that Review)

That is a pretty huge difference, especially for WoW.

[noteworthynerd]

80-90FPS at 1080p sounds about right in Pandaria. I've got a 2500K overclocked to 4.6GHz and a 680 and I was doing 50-60 with everything on Ultra.

[dezzick]

I have a HD 7970 with 8 gigs of ram and an i5-3570k at 4.2ghz. I get 50-80 fps in MoP zones. That is the right amount of fps. This benchmark is really off. Probably benchmarked in an empty vanilla zone like ironforge lol.

[Kagonpeak]

Thanks guys. I'm happy to hear these numbers are normal.

I'm really obsessed with numbers, so I tend to stress out when my hardware seems to underperform

[Lemmiwink]

I think it's very individual tbh, like Noteworthynerd says he gets 50-60 fps with a 680 maxed out, I get 95-100 in Pandaria and 70ish in busy zones. As long as your game is running smoothly I wouldn't worry about it. By the looks of it your game is running smoothly...

---------- Post added 2012-12-27 at 07:27 PM ----------

WoW is becoming more graphically intense. Perhaps "intense" isn't the right word, but slight exaggeration gets the point across better. Each expansion adds new effects. Wrath added shadows (still the heaviest effect in the game, even today), Cataclysm added the new water and sunrays (the water isn't too heavy, but it does provide some FPS boost when you switch to the old style water), and MoP added Ambient Occlusion which improves the contrast by adding an additional shadowy layer to the world that makes dark areas darker. Now, the only thing WoW is missing in reference to effects is tessellation (but i don't believe WoW will ever bring that in).



Indeed. Not to mention, the review doesn't even state where the measurements were taken. In fact, it doesn't even give us an indication of what sort of benchmark was performed. Was it while standing in an empty area, and if so, what area? Was it done with timetest and if so, what flight path was used? There's many question that aren't answered.

As said above, MoP added Ambient Occlusion. This is a pretty heavy effect for GPU's, and will reduce frames by 20-30%.



The extra 4 logical cores make little to no difference for WoW -- not because "it only uses 2 cores" as is regularly spouted (which has been disproven many times but simply because the number of 'high-processing' logic threads is still relatively limited), and the clock speed, being only 100Mhz higher, will add around 2-3% framerate (though, as you can imagine, add 3% for every 100Mhz quickly adds up, so a 4.7Ghz overclock as used there could add up to 36% FPS increase).

Of interest, you can see from the review just how much difference resolution makes. The average FPS reduction is 22% at each resolution increase, and interestingly, the 1920x1200 to 2560x1600 is the biggest jump (29.57%), even though 5760x1080 is 3-screen gaming (2560x1600 to 5760x1080 is a 25% reduction). That can be explained by the 78% resolution increase between 1920x1200 to 2560x1600, vs the 52% between 2560x1600 and 5760x1080.

In real world performance I have only been able to spot a 1% difference in game performance between the i5 and i7. Most games it's identical. Only real difference I have seen has been in Shogun 2 and BF3 where I have had 23-24% higher fps on my system compared to my girlfriends 3570K system. Note that my gaming overclock is @4.9 while hers is 4.6.

edit: Her system

Asus Maximus V formula
i5-3570K
8GB Kingston HyperX RAM
Samsung 830 128GB
Radeon HD7970 Matrix Platinum

[Majesticii]

Without making another wall of text, i can agree with Synthaxx. The framerate is too reliant on the specific conditions. If it were some controlled enviroment like a benchmark or loop, then you'd have a reason to question the performance. But since it is not, you've got nothing to worry.

I think it's very individual tbh, like Noteworthynerd says he gets 50-60 fps with a 680 maxed out, I get 95-100 in Pandaria and 70ish in busy zones. As long as your game is running smoothly I wouldn't worry about it. By the looks of it your game is running smoothly...

---------- Post added 2012-12-27 at 07:27 PM ----------



In real world performance I have only been able to spot a 1% difference in game performance between the i5 and i7. Most games it's identical. Only real difference I have seen has been in Shogun 2 and BF3 where I have had 23-24% higher fps on my system compared to my girlfriends 3570K system. Note that my gaming overclock is @4.9 while hers is 4.6.

Not on 1080p. i7 does really start to matter when you do things like surround / eyefinity.

[Deleted]

just run a heaven benchmark with settings similar to OC leaderboards and see how far you are off would be a better way of testing said performance.( oc'ed cards should score higher but atleast you got a reference point then)