PDA

View Full Version : Optimising...



Bbtufty
22nd Sep 2009, 20:05
I'm wondering what sort of settings I should be looking for. Running in 1600x900, vista 64 bit (I'm sorry too)

4 Gig RAM, Nvidia geforce 9600 GS, a 2.4?GHz quad core, 1TB HDD. I can run everything maxed and physx on medium at a minimum of 12fps according to the benchmark, but I'd really like to push that up, without having to turn off physx, since it's awesome =)

deders
22nd Sep 2009, 20:20
Is it a laptop you're playing on? If so then I'm sorry to say your 9600m GS only has 32 shader cores which is barely enough to run the game let alone do any physx calculations.
saying that, what are your other bencmark figures (max and average)?

lostsomething
22nd Sep 2009, 20:46
Yeah, the 9600 GS is simply too weak to handle the additional workload that the physx stuff brings.

I'm guessing that's probably not a laptop so you can probably get a better card. Wait until the Radeon 5xxx launch and there's bound to be some nice nVidia price cuts.

deders
22nd Sep 2009, 23:21
Yeah, the 9600 GS is simply too weak to handle the additional workload that the physx stuff brings.

I'm guessing that's probably not a laptop so you can probably get a better card. Wait until the Radeon 5xxx launch and there's bound to be some nice nVidia price cuts.

can you get a desktop 9600gs?

lostsomething
23rd Sep 2009, 00:12
Might have meant GSO or it could be an oem version. Quad cores are pretty uncommon on laptops though so, my main reason for thinking it was probably a desktop.

Bbtufty
23rd Sep 2009, 18:49
Yes indeedy, it is a desktop. HP Pavillion elite thing. Seems to be the only computer ever that comes with a 9600 GS =).
OK, the cost of a better graphics card and the fact that we still have the warranty on this thing means I guess I'll just stick with it.
And as to the benchmark, I think the minimum was 12, the max was something silly like 231, and the average was around 30

deders
23rd Sep 2009, 19:06
Even nvidia don't advertise those cards on their website. it seems it has 48 stream processors, some people are saying they are struggling to run high physx on a single gts260 which has 216. if you want it bad enough but don't want to void your warrenty then you could probably send it back and get whoever you have the warranty with to upgrade it for you.

Bbtufty
23rd Sep 2009, 19:16
My computer runs it OK with medium physx, but I what card would you recommend, and how much would that cost?

deders
23rd Sep 2009, 19:26
My computer runs it OK with medium physx, but I what card would you recommend, and how much would that cost?

for the scarecrow levels, on a single card I'd say at a guess, a gtx275 minimum. My computer just about does it with a little initial drop in frames that evens itself out to around 30 when there's a lot of debris flying around and that's with 2 9800gtx+'s, one dedicated just to physx calculations, just below what the developers recommend. as for prices, google it.

pleomax
23rd Sep 2009, 19:27
Nvidia 260Gtx is a good price at the moment, and a powerful card, google it.

Might need to check the psu though, it draws a bit of power.

http://www.vadim.co.uk/images/GTX260OC_angle_md.jpg

Ravenger
23rd Sep 2009, 19:38
Not worth buying a new card right now. The new ATI cards have just been reviewed, and are looking awesome. I imagine Nvidia won't be far behind with their new cards. This will have a big effect on the pricing of all the current cards - hopefully we'll see massive price drop over the next few months.

I'm in the market for a new card, but I'm going to wait until these new cards have been released and the old cards prices reduce before deciding which one to go for.

Bbtufty
23rd Sep 2009, 19:39
I have no money =) Guess I'll just stick with the steady 20 fps I'm getting now, but thanks for the help, I know what to look at if I ever do upgrade