Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

PC: Using 7870, but cannot hit 60 fps on Sleeping Dogs


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 84 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 7, 2012 9:16:30 AM PST
Iso says:
Me here, the noob.

Well I got my 700 watt PSU and 7870 installed (that video card was rediculously big), and got up an gaming. Maxed out Just Cause 2 at 1080p and that is a glorious looking game. However, tried the same with Sleeping Dogs and I was disappointed, it was middling around 40fps even though benchmarks have it well above 60 fps.

Is this likely a HDD issue or CPU issue?

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 9:21:13 AM PST
JJ4prez says:
You should be able to do it..easily...hmm..

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 9:22:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 9:44:06 AM PST
On sleeping dogs I avg 60-65 FPS on my 7770 with almost all of the settings on high. I'm only running a mild overclock at the moment.

I doubt it's an HDD issue....But your CPU shouldn't be bottlenecking the performance like that.

hmm..

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 9:23:44 AM PST
uncledonnie3 says:
It's a driver issue. AMD has beta drivers up right now that are supposed to increase performance in several games by quite a bit and one of them is Sleeping Dogs. I would just wait for the official release though.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 9:23:54 AM PST
jtshiel says:
Should've got the Xbox version.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 9:28:31 AM PST
That Emu Kid says:
It's because you touch yourself at night.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 9:32:24 AM PST
I agree, most likely a driver issue.

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 9:43:28 AM PST
Ed Jones says:
When in doubt, turn off shadows. Who needs them anyways?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 9:46:24 AM PST
That Emu Kid says:
I thought it was when in doubt turn off AA.

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 9:52:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 10:04:40 AM PST
got mayo?™ says:
Are you playing in windowed mode?

Benchmarks likely dont have SSAO engaged?

Theres a funky performance hit with SSAA--its only a good choice for multi- GPU users apparently.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-sleeping-dogs-face-off

Sleeping Dogs: High-End Anti-Aliasing Punishes PC

Unlike many of today's cut-and-dried PC ports, the computer version of Sleeping Dogs has been given some very special attention. United Front Games are all too keen to stress the inclusion of DirectX 11 upgrades and other advanced graphical features which set apart this version from the console games. But just how much better does it look, and what kind of hardware configuration do you need to run it at its best?


While the 360's near-native 720p resolution certainly gives that version a reasonably crisp image, it's clear that the PC game takes things a significant step further. Clean lines are joined with far less in the way of aliasing, aside from some minor sub-pixel artifacting which remains unprocessed. In short, it's rather good indeed. However, there is a major caveat that comes with acquiring this kind of image quality: the use of super-sampling.

Quite how well Sleeping Dogs will run on a range of systems is mostly dependent on which anti-aliasing setting you choose to activate. Dialling down other intensive features also helps, but this singular option is bar by the most impactful. The PC version offers up a range of edge-smoothing options, dubbed normal, high and extreme - the latter featuring a combination of post process-based FXAA along with super-sampling anti-aliasing (SSAA) to provide the cleanest image possible, which appears to max out at around 2x SSAA. Moving up the presets also reveals that the level of FXAA is also increased when going from normal to high, and SSAA when moving from high to extreme.

The decision to include super-sampling modes at all is somewhat puzzling, given that the technique requires colossal amounts of GPU processing power and memory bandwidth to create anti-aliased images. Super-sampling works by rendering the game in a higher resolution than the framebuffer before downsampling to form the final image for display. And this is what causes such a large performance hit to occur - the GPU is having to render far more pixels than will be displayed on the final output.


"Super-sampling anti-aliasing produces pretty much the best edge-smoothing you'll see, but the penalty on performance is extremely high indeed. FXAA with a high native rendering resolution is the better option for most PC owners."

Sleeping Dogs allows players to utilise super-sampling - rendering at a higher resolution then downscaling. The results are pretty much flawless but can impact performance horribly. Rendering at 1080p native with FXAA is a great alternative though. In these shots you see various AA permutations, with 720p on the left and 1080p to the right.

The screenshots above demonstrate the differences between the different anti-aliasing presets. The combination of FXAA and SSAA modes works very nicely at reducing the amount of shimmering edges on display, with far better sub-pixel coverage than what using a post-process edge smoothing solution alone would provide. However, running the game like this simply isn't playable on anything other than top-end hardware configurations: our Core i5 750 and GTX460 machine barely managed a consistent 20FPS update in 720p, and gave us a disastrous 10-15FPS in 1080p, for the most part resulting in an unplayable mess, with extremely laggy controls and near constant judder.

Dialling down to high settings boosts performance slightly, offering up an extra 10 to 20 frames per second depending on resolution, but the end result is still far below the threshold of what we'd consider to be a playable experience. Image quality is still excellent though, with just a few more jaggies on screen. Instead, the default 'normal' option gives us much higher frame-rates, and improved gameplay, providing a suitably smoother and better-looking release than either console version. However, image quality is dramatically reduced over the high and extreme presets when the game is in motion, with little sub-pixel coverage being provided by the FXAA, which is also running with reduced precision closer to that of the Xbox 360 release.

Ultimately, the choice of super-sampling modes is really only there for high-end users with top-spec systems featuring multiple GPU set-ups. Whether the impact in terms of performance is a worthy trade-off remains debatable - there's a real sense that the reduced image quality present when using the normal FXAA option isn't really an issue when running on 1080p and higher resolutions. The increased pixel-precision on offer helps to better hide the jaggies by giving the FXAA algorithm more information to work with, and as an added bonus you can get much higher frame-rates compared to the super-sampling modes.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 9:53:32 AM PST
Mel says:
I can max out JC2 on my 5670 at 1080p

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:24:34 AM PST
Iso says:
Damn, it is hard to stop.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:26:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 11:26:52 AM PST
Iso says:
Ah, it must be the SSAO. I maxed every single box, dropping it back down to Normal put it beyond 60 fps.

Maybe I will try the middle to see how that works.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:27:41 AM PST
SSAO does nasty things to your frame rate.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:29:37 AM PST
Iso says:
It was still pushing 40 fps with that engaged, not too shabby I guess.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:33:40 AM PST
Not bad at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:38:40 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 11:44:56 AM PST
Iso says:
So does the HDD only truly affect loading times?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:40:30 AM PST
Yup.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:44:20 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 11:45:04 AM PST
Iso says:
I meant to say affect anything besides loading times.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:45:03 AM PST
Nope. Just loading times and data transfer. Once a game is loaded it doesn't really do anything for you.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:46:04 AM PST
Iso says:
Alright, then I can check that off the list. I can wait the couple seconds.

Hell, with the 360 and PS3 I am used to that, it seems lightning quick on the PC with only a 7200 RPM.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:47:40 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 11:48:06 AM PST
Mel says:
wait a minute...
didn't you have a free 560 card
have you no impulse control?!?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:47:57 AM PST
I use 7200 RPM drives for my games and they're more than adequate. My friends with SSDs load a few seconds earlier, but those few seconds don't really matter that much anymore.

There is absolutely no gaming gain other than loading and saving. If you can wait a few seconds extra, then save yourself a few hundred bucks and stick with standard HDDs.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:50:26 AM PST
That Emu Kid says:
The frustrating this is that it really doesn't matter how fast your own computer can load LoL...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/08/26

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 11:51:56 AM PST
Iso says:
550 Ti. No impulse control whatsoever.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  16
Total posts:  84
Initial post:  Nov 7, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 8, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions