1. #1

    Just upgraded to GTX 670

    Today I upgraded my GTX 460 SE to a GTX 670. I've noticed I'm getting really bad FPS in GW2. Like in Lions arch when I try to look around it can go from 25 down to 3 fps. I know I might not get 60 fps but this is basically 30 fps. I'm very confused about this performance. My CPU is an i5-2500k and I'm using 4g of ram. Also I'm playing on a 1920x1080 moniter resolution. I made sure I got the latest drivers too.

    What am I missing here?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevie View Post
    Today I upgraded my GTX 460 SE to a GTX 670. I've noticed I'm getting really bad FPS in GW2. Like in Lions arch when I try to look around it can go from 25 down to 3 fps. I know I might not get 60 fps but this is basically 30 fps. I'm very confused about this performance. My CPU is an i5-2500k and I'm using 4g of ram. Also I'm playing on a 1920x1080 moniter resolution. I made sure I got the latest drivers too.

    What am I missing here?
    did u flush out the old driver first?

  3. #3
    How do I do that? didn't know about this.

  4. #4
    Herald of the Titans Saithes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Mun
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevie View Post
    How do I do that? didn't know about this.
    One option is to run the Driver Installer for say 310.70, then select Custom and check Clean Installation. The other is to completely Uninstall through Control Panel -> Uninstall a Program -> Nvidia Graphics Driver

  5. #5
    Don't forget to remove hidden files that might conflict with the new card. I guess running clean installation will take them away as well but can't tell you for sure as I always remove drivers manually before installing a new video card.

  6. #6
    Just did the clean install and it seems to have fixed it from dropping down to 3 fps every so often but it's still hovering around 30ish fps. Sometimes as low as 15 fps sometimes as high as 38. Is this normal? I was thinking I'd be around 50+ max settings.

  7. #7
    Guild Wars 2 is a semi-demanding game. I have a 2600k and 16 gigs of ram with the 670 GTX and those numbers look accurate.

  8. #8
    Well, you have really, really little RAM to be gaming new games. That could be, and is most likely your last bottleneck. Other than that, I found Guild Wars to be annoyingly bad at performance so it could also be the game....

    Are you using 32bit windows by any chance?


    edit:
    Can't remember having that bad frame rate, it was more like it was dropping from 60 to 40 and the occasional 30 when events gathered alot of folks onscreen at the same time.

  9. #9
    Well I actually have 8gb to be honest. But I use 32bit windows so it doesn't utilize it. I just dont have room to back up this hardrive and fresh reinstall to Windows 64 bit. You have to do full system sweep for that right?

  10. #10
    I have ran a GTX 670 for some time...i also had issues at the beginning of GW2. Belive it or not, one problem for me was I had an OC program running and GW2 didn't like that for some reason. Turned it off, and adjusted some settings in the Nvidea control panel, and I now run with every setting as high as it will go, and RARELY drop below 60 fps.

    So I am not sure what is wrong with yours, sorry I couldn't be of more help...but I do know from experience that a GTX 670 will run GW2 at 60 fps at max settings.

    Edit: Could certainly be what the above poster said about RAM. GW2 seems to be pretty CPU intensive, and 4 GB is kinda low, I run 16gb of RAM, so that can have an effect.
    Last edited by 4dahorde; 2013-01-03 at 01:29 AM.

  11. #11
    The Lightbringer Toffie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,761
    Seems normal, guild wars 2 is insanely demanding.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OntGvmUwuE
    Steam Big Picture Mode - 4570 - GA-H87N - MSI R9-290 - 120 GB Samsung 840 EVO
    Corsair 250D - Philips 55 LED TV - Corsair RM 550 - Corsair Vengeance Pro 8GB

    4770K - EVGA 780 Ti SC- Corsair 350D - V700 - Gryphon Z87
    Corsair Vengeance Pro 8GB - Samsung 840 250GB - H60

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by 4dahorde View Post
    I have ran a GTX 670 for some time...i also had issues at the beginning of GW2. Belive it or not, one problem for me was I had an OC program running and GW2 didn't like that for some reason. Turned it off, and adjusted some settings in the Nvidea control panel, and I now run with every setting as high as it will go, and RARELY drop below 60 fps.

    So I am not sure what is wrong with yours, sorry I couldn't be of more help...but I do know from experience that a GTX 670 will run GW2 at 60 fps at max settings.

    Edit: Could certainly be what the above poster said about RAM. GW2 seems to be pretty CPU intensive, and 4 GB is kinda low, I run 16gb of RAM, so that can have an effect.
    I should reiterate this fps was in Lions arch.. i went to EB and with 0 fighting was getting around 50-80fps.

  13. #13
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    617
    Quote Originally Posted by Toffie View Post
    Seems normal, guild wars 2 is insanely demanding.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OntGvmUwuE
    GW 2 isn't insanely demanding, its optimized terribly.
    CPU: I5 2500K @4.5ghz (1.285v), CPU cooler: Corsair H100 push/pull GPU: MSI R7970 Lightning @1200Mhz, Case: Corsair 650D, Ram: 16GB Corsair vengeance, Mobo: Asrock Z77 Extreme4, PSU: Corsair TX650M, SSD: Samsung 830 128GB, HDD: WD Caviar Black 1TB SPU: Xonar Essence STX

  14. #14
    Bloodsail Admiral WarpKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,036
    Yeesh, GW2 sounds almost as bad as Rift from what I'm reading in here.

    Giant performance blackholes everywhere :s
    Quote Originally Posted by Helden View Post
    Tumblrists gonna Tumble.
    Someone got there [sic] shit seriously triggered.

  15. #15
    Immortal Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    7,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevie View Post
    Today I upgraded my GTX 460 SE to a GTX 670. I've noticed I'm getting really bad FPS in GW2. Like in Lions arch when I try to look around it can go from 25 down to 3 fps. I know I might not get 60 fps but this is basically 30 fps. I'm very confused about this performance. My CPU is an i5-2500k and I'm using 4g of ram. Also I'm playing on a 1920x1080 moniter resolution. I made sure I got the latest drivers too.

    What am I missing here?
    Similar issue in the same location (Wombinator thread)
    CPU: Intel i5-3570k (4.5GHz) MB: ASUS Z77 Sabertooth (uefi 2003)
    GPU: Asus 280X TOP (1080MHz/1700MHz) RAM: Corsair LP/LV white 8GB 1600MHz
    SSD: Samsung 840Pro 256GB + Crucial m4 128GB (040H) PSU: Seasonic 620M CASE: Corsair 500R (White/Black) Monitor: LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2015 || AV-TEST 2014

  16. #16
    Brewmaster Majesticii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevie View Post
    Well I actually have 8gb to be honest. But I use 32bit windows so it doesn't utilize it. I just dont have room to back up this hardrive and fresh reinstall to Windows 64 bit. You have to do full system sweep for that right?
    Isn't 32bit maxed at 3072MB?

  17. #17
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    10,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Majesticii View Post
    Isn't 32bit maxed at 3072MB?
    4gb, but still, half the ram is literally wasted.

  18. #18
    Herald of the Titans Saithes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Mun
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    4gb, but still, half the ram is literally wasted.
    Windows address both System and Video memory together, so that 4GB includes video memory as well.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Saithes View Post
    Windows address both System and Video memory together, so that 4GB includes video memory as well.
    You're correct, but if he buys a 2 gb GPU, it's not gonna include all of the VRAM as system memory, which is explained here:

    The Growth of VRAM
    Another factor in the PC memory equation has been growing as well: video memory size. In the early days of Direct3D, the typical video card had 16 or 32 MB of Video RAM (VRAM). High-end video cards now have 512 MB, 640 MB, 768 MB, or more VRAM. When video cards had 16 or 32 MB of Video RAM, this memory was mapped directly into every process that used Direct3D for efficient access by the application and video driver.

    As video cards grew larger, this became unsustainable. A 768 MB hole in the 2-GB virtual address space of each process would leave very little space for applications. Similarly, taking 768 MB out of the 4 GB physical address space would be too constraining. This problem is exacerbated in dual GPU configurations (SLI®/Crossfire™).


    Therefore, video card manufacturers typically implement a 256 MB physical memory window for the video graphics memory, and modern drivers do not create direct process mappings for the entire VRAM size. Process address space is still consumed for working with the AGP aperture (64 MB, 128 MB, or more typically on modern game systems 256 MB in size). While PCIe uses a dynamic aperture, it too is mapped into each process that uses Direct3D.

    Beyond the direct impact of growing VRAM sizes, more process memory is needed to maintain the backing-store for handling “lost-device” situations so for textures, geometry, and other static data, filling up such large video cards and still fitting under the 2 GB limit is extremely challenging.

    The Windows Vista Display Driver Model (WDDM) was designed to address the lost device limitations inherent to the Windows XP Display Model (XPDM), allowing more efficient sharing of the GPU by multiple applications. WDDM does not require the entire 256 MB aperture be mapped in to the process space.

    Instead, it dynamically grows the amount as the VRAM allocated by the application increases. For Direct3D 10 applications, this eliminates the need to maintain two copies of resources like textures in memory, one for the VRAM and one in the backing-store for lost-device cases. The system deals with migrating the one copy between memory and the video card, as needed.

    Unfortunately, to maintain application compatibility with Direct3D 9 running on Windows XP, two copies of managed resources were still maintained for Direct3D 9 applications running on Windows Vista. This also required process space for maintaining resources like render frame buffers. Previously, render frame buffers were simply lost and recreated. Therefore, they did not require any process space under WDM.

    Since the elimination of the 256 MB aperture returned 256 MB of virtual address space to applications on WDDM that was already budgeted for under WDM, this change did not cause any problems until video cards with more than 256 MB of VRAM became available. Small games still had plenty of that 2 GB address space available, but many modern AAA PC titles were running out of space on WDDM.7 The WDDM VA hotfix (KB940105 for Windows Vista, included in Service Pack 1) 8 gives a bit of breathing room by only mapping video resources into the process that need direct CPU access. Games that use Direct3D 10 also have decreased memory pressure without the extra copies required for “device lost” handling.

    However, high-end games in development are routinely hitting the 2 GB wall even on Windows XP. In fact, this incident proves that many modern AAA PC titles are already within 256 MB of the 2 GB barrier. Otherwise, they would not have hit this problem until video cards were over 512 MB.

  20. #20
    Just know that GW2 is a game that depends on your CPU hugely. i5-3570K at 4.4Ghz and and GTX 670, barely 40fps at best in WvW. But I've quit GW2, so meh. Just so horribly optimized. Sitting around in LA with no one around me and it's 40fps... CPU Utilization at 80% -_-
    Quote Originally Posted by nnelson54 View Post
    More amusing than that is the fact that the entire basis behind Sinestra as a lore character is that she was the only dragon who was able to withstand the power of Deathwing's cock.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •