Post: [Help] CoD:AW Poor Framerate
Options
11-21-2014, 03:46 PM
#1
Angel.
Banned
I have a GTX 970 GPU and a AMD FX-6300 CPU and 8 GB of RAM. My issue is, is that AW doesn't run at anything more than 40 FPS at best.
Can anyone help with this issue? I've tried reinstalling, lowering all settings, nothing works.
12-12-2014, 04:19 AM
#11
Angel.
Banned
Originally posted by Millz
While you 6300 could be holding the 970 back, it's plenty to run Advanced Warfare. I would venture on saying that the issue at hand is either with your drivers or with Advanced Warfare. If you've already made sure your drivers are up to date, (knowing Call of Duty) I'd say it's their garbage optimization. Hold out until another patch, if it keeps happening you might want to look into making sure that your hardware isn't defective.
Well, at this point I'm pretty sure it's just Call of Duty.. Every other game works completely fine. The only thing I have noticed is that I have coil whine right as I startup my PC. (lock screen for Win
I flick the GPU a couple times and that fixes it though lol
12-12-2014, 07:05 AM
#14
Rawr
Can’t trickshot me!
Originally posted by Ghozt007
Most demanding games only use 2 cores of CPU so lets take CPU out of equation.
Most games only use 2 cores. Yes, that is true.
But taking CPU out the equation is completely illogical. Some dual-core CPUs are far more powerful than other dual-core CPUs. Intel dual-cores > AMD octo-core, in terms of per-core performance.
If that weren't the case, then why aren't we using dual-core CPUs from 10 years ago in modern gaming rigs?
Your argument is invalid.
12-12-2014, 10:22 PM
#15
Millz
Worth the Weight
Originally posted by Rawr
Most games only use 2 cores. Yes, that is true.
But taking CPU out the equation is completely illogical. Some dual-core CPUs are far more powerful than other dual-core CPUs. Intel dual-cores > AMD octo-core, in terms of per-core performance.
If that weren't the case, then why aren't we using dual-core CPUs from 10 years ago in modern gaming rigs?
Your argument is invalid.
But taking CPU out the equation is completely illogical. Some dual-core CPUs are far more powerful than other dual-core CPUs. Intel dual-cores > AMD octo-core, in terms of per-core performance.
If that weren't the case, then why aren't we using dual-core CPUs from 10 years ago in modern gaming rigs?
Your argument is invalid.
It's holding it back but you're being very dramatic about it. The fact of the matter is that this is Advanced Warfare, it's nothing special. A 970 with a Q6600 will still be running this game far past 60 fps.
12-27-2014, 08:45 AM
#16
OLDSCHOOLMODZHD
Uber Haxor
Originally posted by Millz
~
I hate to revive a some what dead topic but you people are idiots the fx-6300 is not bottle necking the 970 lol you realize we ran the 970 with an Athlon quad with no issues and against the Intel Pentium G3258 and the Athlon out ran it most of the time. The FX series is not shit like all the Intel fan boys say it packs a huge punch when all cores are used but it falls back when it comes to single thread performance because it is designed with the future in mind (multi-threaded applications).
Last edited by
OLDSCHOOLMODZHD ; 12-27-2014 at 08:47 AM.
The following user thanked OLDSCHOOLMODZHD for this useful post:
Copyright © 2024, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
