Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Videocards > Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce Drivers Section
Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce Drivers Section In this section you can discuss everything GeForce driver related. GeForce ForceWare and GeForce Exerience drivers are for NVIDIA Quadro and all GeForce based videocards.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old
  (#476)
CrazyBaldhead
Master Guru
 
Videocard: GTX 970
Processor: i5
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: 900w
Default 06-24-2016, 02:53 | posts: 228 | Location: Tennessee

Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrianZero1 View Post
Not sure if this has been mentioned (didn't read through this entire thread from 2012). But as much as I love the pretty physx in Borderlands 2, I usually have it off because it can cause items to fall through the floor. Go to pass an item to a friend and *bloop* through the floor it goes. Farming bosses, "ooh I saw a legendary!" aaaand it's gone.
Yeah, that's another known issue.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#477)
TheDeeGee
Ancient Guru
 
TheDeeGee's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 1070 AERO OC
Processor: Intel Core 4770K
Mainboard: Gigabyte Z87X-UD5H
Memory: Crucial Ballistix LP 16GB
Soundcard: SoundBlaster ZxR
PSU: Seasonic Platinum 760
Default 12-27-2016, 17:30 | posts: 4,860

Got Borderlands 2 this sale, and as i'm enjoying it the PhysX blows.

Can't even maintain 60 FPS at Medium PhysX including INI Tweaks for it.

That's on a 4770K @ 4,5 GHz and GTX 1070 (1920 x 1200)
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#478)
ESlik
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: EVGA x2 TitanX in SLI
Processor: i7 5930K @4.4ghz.
Mainboard: Asus ROG RVE-10
Memory: 32 gigs ddr4 @ 3200
Soundcard: ROG Xonar Phoebus
PSU: AX 1200i
Default 12-27-2016, 18:11 | posts: 2,314 | Location: Sault Ste. Marie Ont. CA

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeeGee View Post
Got Borderlands 2 this sale, and as i'm enjoying it the PhysX blows.

Can't even maintain 60 FPS at Medium PhysX including INI Tweaks for it.

That's on a 4770K @ 4,5 GHz and GTX 1070 (1920 x 1200)
Somethig isn't right. My wife runs that game at 1920 x 1200 with one GTX 980 with in game settings fully maxed, including Phys x. The 980 is also fully maxed, and DSR at maximum resolution. Maybe a driver issue? Try an earlier driver. Can't hurt.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#479)
TheDeeGee
Ancient Guru
 
TheDeeGee's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 1070 AERO OC
Processor: Intel Core 4770K
Mainboard: Gigabyte Z87X-UD5H
Memory: Crucial Ballistix LP 16GB
Soundcard: SoundBlaster ZxR
PSU: Seasonic Platinum 760
Default 12-27-2016, 21:55 | posts: 4,860

Naah it's issue with the Game i read.

No one can run a steady 60 FPS when intense action happens, not even people with a 1080 and Titan.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#480)
NeoandGeo
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Geforce GTX 970 @1420
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @4.4
Mainboard: GA-P67A-UD4B3
Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750w
Default 12-28-2016, 02:52 | posts: 706

Quote:
Originally Posted by ESlik View Post
Somethig isn't right. My wife runs that game at 1920 x 1200 with one GTX 980 with in game settings fully maxed, including Phys x. The 980 is also fully maxed, and DSR at maximum resolution. Maybe a driver issue? Try an earlier driver. Can't hurt.
That kind of performance would be an indicator that PhysX isn't activated and early on in the game. There are some spots in the middle to latter part of the story mode that can dip even with PhysX turned off and using lowered settings due to the sheer amount of draw calls that are being processed by an engine that wasn't built to handle it.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#481)
CrazyBaldhead
Master Guru
 
Videocard: GTX 970
Processor: i5
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: 900w
Default 12-28-2016, 05:23 | posts: 228 | Location: Tennessee

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoandGeo View Post
That kind of performance would be an indicator that PhysX isn't activated and early on in the game. There are some spots in the middle to latter part of the story mode that can dip even with PhysX turned off and using lowered settings due to the sheer amount of draw calls that are being processed by an engine that wasn't built to handle it.
The engine is UE3, so that's not to blame.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#482)
NeoandGeo
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Geforce GTX 970 @1420
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @4.4
Mainboard: GA-P67A-UD4B3
Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750w
Default 12-28-2016, 13:50 | posts: 706

Hahahahahahahahahahahah.

Hopefully that was a troll post, UE3 is a hideously outdated engine that was developed for the XBox 360 hardware. A lot of the blame is on Nvidia and PhysX being a bloated POS, but UE3 is one of the worst possible choices to pair it with with its pitiful performance with large amounts of draw calls and poor multithreaded performance structure.

Last edited by NeoandGeo; 12-28-2016 at 13:52.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#483)
CrazyBaldhead
Master Guru
 
Videocard: GTX 970
Processor: i5
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: 900w
Default 12-28-2016, 17:30 | posts: 228 | Location: Tennessee

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoandGeo View Post
Hahahahahahahahahahahah.

Hopefully that was a troll post, UE3 is a hideously outdated engine that was developed for the XBox 360 hardware. A lot of the blame is on Nvidia and PhysX being a bloated POS, but UE3 is one of the worst possible choices to pair it with with its pitiful performance with large amounts of draw calls and poor multithreaded performance structure.
You've obviously never done work on UE3. It used to be one of the best and most flexible modern game engines available. It is old and has been superseded but it can more than can handle the "draw calls" of Borderlands 2 (nice spewing random buzzwords you learned around, reducing draw calls is the developers' job). It was not "developed for the Xbox 360 hardware" as it has tons of features the 360 could not even benefit from. If there's performance issues due to tacked on PhysX features, that's entirely Gearbox's fault. You're either misled or just lying, either way you ought to keep the ignorance/autism to a minimum. Shoo, gamer.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#484)
NeoandGeo
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Geforce GTX 970 @1420
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @4.4
Mainboard: GA-P67A-UD4B3
Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750w
Default 12-28-2016, 17:45 | posts: 706

Well, starting out with your first sentence I thought I was about to be in for a good read, then you ruined any credibility you may have had with the phrase "used to be". Well, color me disappointed by your useless but still quite amusing babbling after that. You say the engine can handle the draw calls that Borderlands 2 is pushing through the engine, yet it is proven that the engine can't handle it, and breaks down on even $10,000 hardware at lowered settings.

If you can't help the discussion along, then just admit that you're trolling or hopefully just a paid shill from incompetent developers trying to do too much with tech that is over a decade old. I will give you one thing though, my 360 comment was wrong, the engine was developed for XBox 360 era hardware, not specifically for the console. But that proves my point that it's well past time to move on as simply adding band-aids to try and give the illusion the engine is modern just makes games play like absolute dogs***.

Last edited by NeoandGeo; 12-28-2016 at 17:53.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#485)
-Tj-
Ancient Guru
 
-Tj-'s Avatar
 
Videocard: ZOTAC GTX980Ti Amp!Omega
Processor: Intel i7 4770K OC 4.7GHz
Mainboard: ASUS Z87 Deluxe 2103
Memory: DDR3 G.skill 16GB 2400MHz
Soundcard: X-Fi Titanium HD @Bose A5
PSU: Nitro88+ 650W 52A
Default 12-28-2016, 17:57 | posts: 13,415 | Location: Proxima \/82

no physx 2.8 is bad 99% of the time, poorly threaded with over excessive gpu calls for each object crippling cuda pipeline and making async idle time holes, gpu usage drops 30-50% + fps drops.

They changed this object call a bit in physx3 but it can still do it - KillingFloor2 fluid.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#486)
NeoandGeo
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Geforce GTX 970 @1420
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @4.4
Mainboard: GA-P67A-UD4B3
Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750w
Default 12-28-2016, 18:04 | posts: 706

Yeah, PhysX does significantly worsen the problem, but even with PhysX on Low (Off for all intents and purposes) the engine has issues near the latter end of the game when you are fighting in the majority robot battles, there are simply too many objects being moved around for the engine to keep a steady framerate and GPU/CPU usage is very low. This is why the ports even on PS4/XBone run very poorly. This game should have avoided UE3 after the 2nd game.

But that quick cash-in of a barely competent $10 BL2 DLC released at full retail price, BL:TPS was too sweet for Gearbox to pass up. :p
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#487)
CrazyBaldhead
Master Guru
 
Videocard: GTX 970
Processor: i5
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: 900w
Default 12-28-2016, 18:38 | posts: 228 | Location: Tennessee

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoandGeo View Post
Well, starting out with your first sentence I thought I was about to be in for a good read, then you ruined any credibility you may have had with the phrase "used to be". Well, color me disappointed by your useless but still quite amusing babbling after that. You say the engine can handle the draw calls that Borderlands 2 is pushing through the engine, yet it is proven that the engine can't handle it, and breaks down on even $10,000 hardware at lowered settings.

If you can't help the discussion along, then just admit that you're trolling or hopefully just a paid shill from incompetent developers trying to do too much with tech that is over a decade old. I will give you one thing though, my 360 comment was wrong, the engine was developed for XBox 360 era hardware, not specifically for the console. But that proves my point that it's well past time to move on as simply adding band-aids to try and give the illusion the engine is modern just makes games play like absolute dogs***.
Just how thick are you? Does context mean anything at all to you? We're discussing Borderlands 2 in this thread, which was released in 2012. UE3 was NOT outdated back then. Holy guacamole.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#488)
NeoandGeo
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Geforce GTX 970 @1420
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @4.4
Mainboard: GA-P67A-UD4B3
Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750w
Default 12-28-2016, 19:17 | posts: 706

At the time of release it was nearly an 8-year old engine, that's pretty old especially with the shift to multi-core architecture, which UE3 fails miserably at. It literally held back a generation of games when developers refused to move away from it and just dealt with it mostly with brute force, with varying degrees of success.

These facts combined with incompetent developers like Gearbox trying to do too much with the engine to "modernize it" on top of throwing an overly bloated add-on (PhysX) into the mix was a recipe for disaster. Look at something like Dungeon Defenders, the game plays well up to a point, but once you have too many objects on the screen the engine lilterally falls apart and performance takes a huge nosedive. No amount of power can compensate when developers attempt to modernize an outdated engine.

Hence this thread, with the multitude of replies. Not sure why you continue to try and defend whatever non-point you were attempting to make. Thick is you I do believe.

Last edited by NeoandGeo; 12-28-2016 at 19:20.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#489)
HeavyHemi
Ancient Guru
 
HeavyHemi's Avatar
 
Videocard: 980Ti SC/TITAN SC PhysX
Processor: i7 6850K 4.5 Ghz 1.34 v
Mainboard: EVGA X99 FTWK
Memory: Corsair 3200mhz LPX 32GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Phoebus
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200
Default 12-28-2016, 21:10 | posts: 5,075 | Location: Wooing whilst wearing only socks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoandGeo View Post
At the time of release it was nearly an 8-year old engine, that's pretty old especially with the shift to multi-core architecture, which UE3 fails miserably at. It literally held back a generation of games when developers refused to move away from it and just dealt with it mostly with brute force, with varying degrees of success.

These facts combined with incompetent developers like Gearbox trying to do too much with the engine to "modernize it" on top of throwing an overly bloated add-on (PhysX) into the mix was a recipe for disaster. Look at something like Dungeon Defenders, the game plays well up to a point, but once you have too many objects on the screen the engine lilterally falls apart and performance takes a huge nosedive. No amount of power can compensate when developers attempt to modernize an outdated engine.

Hence this thread, with the multitude of replies. Not sure why you continue to try and defend whatever non-point you were attempting to make. Thick is you I do believe.
I know...and they literally did nothing to UE3 despite the latest engine update being in 2015...right? Well I guess adding muliti threading around 2010...er oops. PhysX context switching, is the main issue with Borderlands 2. There are a lot of games from Borderlands 2 era that run on UE3 really well.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#490)
NeoandGeo
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Geforce GTX 970 @1420
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @4.4
Mainboard: GA-P67A-UD4B3
Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750w
Default 12-28-2016, 22:05 | posts: 706

Yep, a lot of games do run well, that would be called competent developers not forcing the engine to go further than it can or should go. Also the games that run well are by and large fairly simplistic HD-UHD PS3/360 games. The engine has clear limits, and when they are pushed, especially by a terrible development studio, performance can suffer immensely.

You can't argue that the engine is very dated, and if used, the developer needs to take a bit of care and keep object/particle counts in check.

Last edited by NeoandGeo; 12-28-2016 at 22:07.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#491)
HeavyHemi
Ancient Guru
 
HeavyHemi's Avatar
 
Videocard: 980Ti SC/TITAN SC PhysX
Processor: i7 6850K 4.5 Ghz 1.34 v
Mainboard: EVGA X99 FTWK
Memory: Corsair 3200mhz LPX 32GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Phoebus
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200
Default 12-28-2016, 23:07 | posts: 5,075 | Location: Wooing whilst wearing only socks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoandGeo View Post
Yep, a lot of games do run well, that would be called competent developers not forcing the engine to go further than it can or should go. Also the games that run well are by and large fairly simplistic HD-UHD PS3/360 games. The engine has clear limits, and when they are pushed, especially by a terrible development studio, performance can suffer immensely.

You can't argue that the engine is very dated, and if used, the developer needs to take a bit of care and keep object/particle counts in check.
Okay, so you meant to wail at the developers and not the game engine. Interestingly, I can run the game quite well at 4K with every setting maxed. I do get the occasional 'chugging' but only during heavy PhysX scenes. This despite using a GTX Titan for PhysX. We agree somewhat, but for different reasons. The issue here is basically the PhysX implementation. I wasn't aware the Batman series (for example) were 'fairly simplistic PS3/360 games'
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#492)
NeoandGeo
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Geforce GTX 970 @1420
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @4.4
Mainboard: GA-P67A-UD4B3
Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750w
Default 12-29-2016, 01:07 | posts: 706

I meant to point towards both. The engine doesn't really have a place anymore and hasn't for nearly half a decade, and at developers who need to leave it behind, or if they have to cheap out on their customers, there needs to be great care taken to not try and develop anything above an HD/UHD 360 game with a game world to match.

Also if you think the Arkham games are anything above last gen games prettied up in an attempt to pass off as "next gen", then you have extremely low standards.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#493)
BuildeR2
Maha Guru
 
BuildeR2's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA 980 Ti ACX 1400/7800
Processor: i7 4770k 4.4GHz 1.265v
Mainboard: ASUS Z97-A BIOS 2801
Memory: 2x8GB G.Skill @ 2400Mhz
Soundcard: ALC892
PSU: OCZ FTY750W
Default 12-29-2016, 01:41 | posts: 2,184 | Location: TX

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyHemi View Post
Okay, so you meant to wail at the developers and not the game engine. Interestingly, I can run the game quite well at 4K with every setting maxed. I do get the occasional 'chugging' but only during heavy PhysX scenes. This despite using a GTX Titan for PhysX. We agree somewhat, but for different reasons. The issue here is basically the PhysX implementation. I wasn't aware the Batman series (for example) were 'fairly simplistic PS3/360 games'
I also run the game maxed out at 4k DSR with a nearly solid 60FPS, except for PhysX heavy scenes. I feel like you two should read this article if you haven't already and join me in shaking our heads at how badly optimized PhsyX is.

http://www.realworldtech.com/physx87/
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#494)
HeavyHemi
Ancient Guru
 
HeavyHemi's Avatar
 
Videocard: 980Ti SC/TITAN SC PhysX
Processor: i7 6850K 4.5 Ghz 1.34 v
Mainboard: EVGA X99 FTWK
Memory: Corsair 3200mhz LPX 32GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Phoebus
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200
Default 12-29-2016, 02:03 | posts: 5,075 | Location: Wooing whilst wearing only socks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoandGeo View Post
I meant to point towards both. The engine doesn't really have a place anymore and hasn't for nearly half a decade, and at developers who need to leave it behind, or if they have to cheap out on their customers, there needs to be great care taken to not try and develop anything above an HD/UHD 360 game with a game world to match.

Also if you think the Arkham games are anything above last gen games prettied up in an attempt to pass off as "next gen", then you have extremely low standards.
Indeed, as they came out quite a few years ago. I mean, who denies the passage of time? Who is arguing using it NOW? All of this is revolving around issues from years ago. I was merely pointing out AT THE TIME, those games did quite a lot with the engine.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#495)
Cave Waverider
Master Guru
 
Cave Waverider's Avatar
 
Videocard: Nvidia Titan X + GTX 1060
Processor: Core i7 3930K @ 4.3GHz
Mainboard: Gigabyte G1.Assassin2 X79
Memory: 32GB Corsair DDR3 1600
Soundcard: SB X-Fi CA20k2 (onboard)
PSU: Corsair Gold AX1200 1200W
Default 12-29-2016, 02:09 | posts: 658 | Location: Deep in the Caribbean...

Borderlands 2 works fine for me at maximum details and UHD resolution, as long as I have my GTX 1060 dedicated to PhysX.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#496)
HeavyHemi
Ancient Guru
 
HeavyHemi's Avatar
 
Videocard: 980Ti SC/TITAN SC PhysX
Processor: i7 6850K 4.5 Ghz 1.34 v
Mainboard: EVGA X99 FTWK
Memory: Corsair 3200mhz LPX 32GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Phoebus
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200
Default 12-29-2016, 02:14 | posts: 5,075 | Location: Wooing whilst wearing only socks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuildeR2 View Post
I also run the game maxed out at 4k DSR with a nearly solid 60FPS, except for PhysX heavy scenes. I feel like you two should read this article if you haven't already and join me in shaking our heads at how badly optimized PhsyX is.

http://www.realworldtech.com/physx87/
I've already read that. It's a matter of perspective. As the author points out, Nvidia is under no obligation to make their proprietary tech easier for the competition to use. And lets not forget his claims of being able to increase CPU efficiency by completely rewriting the API are just his opinion, a maybe. Their bottom line obligation is profit and tying PhysX to their GPU is for profit.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#497)
HeavyHemi
Ancient Guru
 
HeavyHemi's Avatar
 
Videocard: 980Ti SC/TITAN SC PhysX
Processor: i7 6850K 4.5 Ghz 1.34 v
Mainboard: EVGA X99 FTWK
Memory: Corsair 3200mhz LPX 32GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Phoebus
PSU: CORSAIR AX1200
Default 12-29-2016, 02:16 | posts: 5,075 | Location: Wooing whilst wearing only socks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Waverider View Post
Borderlands 2 works fine for me at maximum details and UHD resolution, as long as I have my GTX 1060 dedicated to PhysX.
It 'works fine' for me too...except there are still a few chugs under really heavy particle scenes. You might have enough raw power to stay above 60FPS as a min.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#498)
NeoandGeo
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Geforce GTX 970 @1420
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @4.4
Mainboard: GA-P67A-UD4B3
Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws
Soundcard:
PSU: Corsair 750w
Default 12-29-2016, 13:18 | posts: 706

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Waverider View Post
Borderlands 2 works fine for me at maximum details and UHD resolution, as long as I have my GTX 1060 dedicated to PhysX.
Works fine, is subjective. There are quite a few people that think FPS drops to the 30's and 40's in firefights perfectly fine, you are obviously one of those people.

You can even turn PhysX off and enjoy a mostly 60fps experience until the latter end of the game when the developers decided to take an artistic approach and have the engine fall apart and chug along simply with the amount of enemies and objects they pushed into the frame. Even low settings will have questionable performance in some of the final battles. Partly due to incompetent developers, and partly to do with the engine not being able to handle a large amount of draw calls.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#499)
Cave Waverider
Master Guru
 
Cave Waverider's Avatar
 
Videocard: Nvidia Titan X + GTX 1060
Processor: Core i7 3930K @ 4.3GHz
Mainboard: Gigabyte G1.Assassin2 X79
Memory: 32GB Corsair DDR3 1600
Soundcard: SB X-Fi CA20k2 (onboard)
PSU: Corsair Gold AX1200 1200W
Default 12-29-2016, 14:24 | posts: 658 | Location: Deep in the Caribbean...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Waverider View Post
Borderlands 2 works fine for me at maximum details and UHD resolution, as long as I have my GTX 1060 dedicated to PhysX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoandGeo View Post
Works fine, is subjective. There are quite a few people that think FPS drops to the 30's and 40's in firefights perfectly fine, you are obviously one of those people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyHemi View Post
It 'works fine' for me too...except there are still a few chugs under really heavy particle scenes. You might have enough raw power to stay above 60FPS as a min.
Yeah, that's probably it. It stays at 60 FPS all the time when I have the framerate limited to 60.

I've just disabled the limit and I can see big framerate swings from the 200s down to 70s, a huge drop that does indeed cause some rather noticeable stutter. I can imagine that it's even worse on systems where the framerate falls below 60. So there are definitely some optimization issues with the game.

Update: I've tried setting my Titan X (Pascal) for PhysX and the game does indeed drop below 60 FPS in heavy scenes now. As long as I use the GTX 1060 for PhysX (dedicated) and let the Titan X do the rest it stays above it, however. So I guess the dedicated PhysX card does help a little as well.

Last edited by Cave Waverider; 12-29-2016 at 14:42.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#500)
TheDeeGee
Ancient Guru
 
TheDeeGee's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 1070 AERO OC
Processor: Intel Core 4770K
Mainboard: Gigabyte Z87X-UD5H
Memory: Crucial Ballistix LP 16GB
Soundcard: SoundBlaster ZxR
PSU: Seasonic Platinum 760
Default 12-29-2016, 18:23 | posts: 4,860

Today i even got drops below 60 during some Robot Invasions, and that's with PhysX Low.

Still enjoying the game a lot though.

Also the GPU Usage never goes above 55%.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.