Framerate with gtx 970 at 1080 and 1440? Thread - MISERY mod for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat

Hey guys.

It's been a while since I played misery. I'm thinking of buying a Gtx 970 and was wondering how the game is running with everything maxed and misery installed.

I have an I5 3570k 3.4Ghz, 8Gb RAM.

How much FPS can we achieve ruinning it maxed at 1080 and 1440?

I have the R9 290 and same CPU but Overclocked at 4.5GHZ. I play at higher resolution and limit at 30 FPS. I can run in low hundreds, but because of constantly changing AI load the rate will plummet down every time new AI come online. Fixing rate at 30 FPS makes things much smoother and WAY cooler. My monitors max refresh is around 87 so frame rates above that are pointless anyway. You can't tell any difference between 30 and 120 FPS. 8GB of RAM will work fine as long as you don't have a ton of stuff running in background. I'll eventually get a second R9 290 and run them in crossfire. I have temp comparisons at various frame rates on my profile page. Definitely use a limiter at or below your monitors max refresh rate. I pull over 7500 FPS on main menus without one. The lower resolution you're looking at should mean you can run at a higher alife.ltx switch_distance for smoother play, especially if you are kicking that black CPU up a few notches.

I recently got a 970 and it runs misery pretty well. Things are on higher settings but I don't max everything. I am sure that my old i5 750 is what gives me any slowdown, considering it came out in 2009. But going from a 5850 to a 970 made a very big difference. Your CPU is a fair bit faster than mine so you're going to get some pretty good performance.

Also everyone is different. 30FPS to me is very choppy and 60, my monitors max refresh, is a huge improvement for me. I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120FPS as well and my next monitor is going to be 120hz+ for sure.

The FPS won't be as steady, but 60 FPS will be manageable. Your room will just be a bit warmer and noisier depending on how the 970 sounds cooling. As Odizzido says faster CPU Core speed is key to higher performance in Xray engine games.

@Gordyne what is your monitors native resolution? I'm heading to a baseball game, but can try it later and post differences at lower resolution. Probably be later tomorrow, Monday latest.

Hey thanks for the info.

I play at 1600x900 but i'm planning to use DSR to get 1080p.

I intend to get at least constant 50+ fps. Problem is that the game is a bit unstable, sometimes u're getting 60 fps, then suddenly it goes to 25 lol.
I'm afraid of overclocks so I wouldn't go there.

Game's Anti-Alias doesn't work, are there any other alternatives to that? Or to DSR?

Try forcing AA in your control panel. And yeah, the game's V-sync option doesn't work either heh.

It's not the game being unstable, it's hardware that can't keep up with workload. You only get one core's worth out of your CPU in Xray engine. You are not getting your money's worth out of a K series processor if you're not at least bumping your max multiple in bios up 2-3. The only reason to use a K series is for overclocking but I understand your reluctance. Whatever your monitors native resolution is will yield the best picture your monitor is capable of. Going higher will not improve your graphics, it will make them worse.

Oh I don't mind running in 1600x900(my native res) it's just that no amount/techniques of AA can deal with the shimmering caused by deferred shading.

I thought maybe DSR > AA in deferred rendered games.

It seems that AA doesn't fix aliasing on shining objects no matter what I do.

I remember Crisys 3 suffers from the same problem and the only real solution was to dwonsample the image using a 3rd party software.

Edited by: Gordyne

Oh try running sun quality medium and sun rays low. I also turn SSAO off. The sun rays especially tank performance on my system.

As to DSR I took a quick loot at it. I initially tried 2715x1527 expecting my performance to tank but was pleasantly surprised that frame rates were pretty good. However this added a lot of fuzz to the game which I didn't like so I pushed it up to 4X my native res, 3840x2160. This killed frame rates for me, but it did get rid of almost all of the fuzzyness and the trees looked significantly better. It's not something I will be running though.

Also just to test I tried running 4X your native res and my performance was bad again. I wouldn't be optimistic about being able to run DSR.

OK, keep in mind I'm playing 2.2 Beta, but your numbers should equal or better these on 2.1.1. All numbers are at 500 switch_distance for alife. I averaged 60-70 FPS running across Zaton with occasional dips to the high teens and 110-150 FPS on stalker ship. CPU temp 63C 44.8W, 59C GPU at 29% fan and I used 6.7GB of RAM total with lots of IE windows open in background. Then I Limited at 60 FPS and repeated tests. I averaged very steady 59-60 FPS with occasional dips to 35-45. CPU 2 degrees cooler at 34.1W and GPU 3 degrees C cooler at 26% fan. You can see my original temps at 1920X1080 on my profile page. So, you should easily be able to run limited at 60 FPS or maybe a little higher with Anistropic filtering off, no antialiasing, SSAO off and Sun shadows off. If you can do that at a little higher alife, like maybe 550 or 600 you will have even fewer dips in FPS. I use 500 because it's a nice balance and works well in Jupiter where things are nearly twice as busy. Now I am running at 4.5GHZ with a very moderate overclock. You will use less memory at 1600x900 and probably easily maintain 60 FPS at mid-level alife switch_distances. You can play around with your Nvidia card and you may be able to also leave some of the other high-end video options on. Every other option besides those turned off was completely maxed out.

Check out my tips on my profile page and you can quickly set up and optimize your new GPU when you get it.

p.s. Before going back to my native resolution this morning, I tried limiting at 60HZ with everything except sun shadows turned on at maximum. CPU temp the same as before, GPU 5C higher and GPU fan 4% higher at 30%. That's with 4x AA, Anistropic Filtering maxed, HBAO at low. I averaged 59-60 FPS with slightly more frequent dips to Teens vs. dips to 35-45 with high load settings turned off.

Strange, my Gtx 460(768MB) was able to hold 50-60 fps at most times with dips to 20's. That with some options turned off, I would expect a 970 to perform much better than this.

I'll be getting one in two or three weeks. I'll just hope the will be nice to me hehe.

Again, I'm playing next release beta which is more demanding at this point. More spawns, perhaps there will be some tweaking making it less of a load before release. Besides the small differences between Nvidia and AMD GPU's you should do pretty well. Definitely better than with GTX 460 by a long shot. The interaction between loads on GPU, CPU and Memory combinations really makes each rig a little different than the next. I just ordered my second R9-290, I hope my power supply is ready for crossfire