Win 7 and Off

[12oclockhigh 0]

I've posted my specs in other threads but I'll do it again here. I have an AMD quad core 3.2 GHz.64 bit cpu, 4 gb. ram, ATI 5870 card, a m4a79t asus board and Win 7 64 bit. My other games, Crysis for example, maxed out, just scream on this system. I've also mentioned in other threads how in exasperation I took Off off this computer and installed it on my old XP 32 bit computer and it runs fine, a very decent 40 to 50 fps with settings at 54452 or thereabouts. I could really use some help here and would appreciate any reasonable suggestion. Please don't tell me to update my drivers or read the FAQ or condesendingly refer me to the noob section because I've been there and done that long before getting to this stage. Besides we are not talking about a few frames per second here.

Today I tried something different. I uninstalled CFS3 then re-installed and renamed the .exe file to cfs3win7.exe. It was a tip I'd read about on another forum I think. It also didn't work. When I fired up my 'puter I was still getting 5-10 fps without any tweaks and that's dismal.

[ConradB 0]

Boy you got a good rig there. OFF should be hummin'. It's been a few years since my last AMD / ATI rig. I blew it up. Pushed it too hard. But yours has enough umph that you shouldn't have to push anything. Hopefully some of the guys with your specs will have some ideas for you.

 

The one thing I remember was having to futs with my old AMD rig. It was more tempermental than my Intel setups.

[Maxiku 0]

Just a few ideas....

 

Do you get the same issues with CFS3 (patched to version 3.1 or 3.1a) as well as with OFF.

(ie: If you uninstall OFF and CFS3, then do a clean install of CFS3 without installing OFF - Do you get the same issues? If so - it might be useful to search some other CF3 forums to see if anyone else has encountered this issue and found a fix)

 

Have you tried disabling your anti-virus software for a few minutes to test whether there is any clash. (I had issues running CFS3 under the 2008 version of Kaspersky Anti-virus but later versions were fine for me)

 

I'm not familiar with the AMD multi-cores but are you able to force CFS3 & OFF to all run under a single core?

 

Have you tried unplugging any USB peripherals (apart from your keyboard, mouse and joystick)?

 

Have you tried running at an ultra low screen resolution (640 x480) just to see if it makes any difference to frame rates?

 

 

 

[12oclockhigh 0]

Just a few ideas....

 

Do you get the same issues with CFS3 (patched to version 3.1 or 3.1a) as well as with OFF.

(ie: If you uninstall OFF and CFS3, then do a clean install of CFS3 without installing OFF - Do you get the same issues? If so - it might be useful to search some other CF3 forums to see if anyone else has encountered this issue and found a fix)

 

Have you tried disabling your anti-virus software for a few minutes to test whether there is any clash. (I had issues running CFS3 under the 2008 version of Kaspersky Anti-virus but later versions were fine for me)

 

I'm not familiar with the AMD multi-cores but are you able to force CFS3 & OFF to all run under a single core?

 

Have you tried unplugging any USB peripherals (apart from your keyboard, mouse and joystick)?

 

Have you tried running at an ultra low screen resolution (640 x480) just to see if it makes any difference to frame rates?

 

 

 

 

Hi Maxiku,

 

You've given me something to think about. I have CFS3 ver 3.1. What is 3.1a? I've never really played CFS3 much but it does seem to run OK tho I've never checked frame rates. It's smooth enough for sure. I don't run anti-virus software. My experience is that they are more trouble than they are worth and I've owned computers since the early eighties. What is the thinking behind forcing OFF and CFS3 to run under one core? I think there are freeware programs that would do that. Maybe AMD Fusion does? So that could be an option. Tonight I will check and see what the cores are running at. I know for ROF all four cores were maxed out under WIN 7 while my GPU's were at zero so I switched that game to my XP machine and it runs fine now too. (The devs at ROF tho just tell you 'tough luck' if you run Win 7). USB periperals are the ones you've mentioned with the exception of my camera and Freetrack program. I have tried OFF without Freetrack running and there is no difference. And finally I will try the ultra low res suggestion for interest's sake. Overall my thinking is that there is something basic I am missing not just some tweak. Thanks very much for these suggestions.

[12oclockhigh 0]

Boy you got a good rig there. OFF should be hummin'. It's been a few years since my last AMD / ATI rig. I blew it up. Pushed it too hard. But yours has enough umph that you shouldn't have to push anything. Hopefully some of the guys with your specs will have some ideas for you.

 

The one thing I remember was having to futs with my old AMD rig. It was more tempermental than my Intel setups.

 

 

Hi ConradB,

I've had good luck with AMD and ATI. This machine does preform well. For example I can run Crysis and Bioshock maxed out. The graphics are simply amazing. That is why this issue with OFF is so frustrating to me. Fortunately my old machine runs it quite well so I play and tinker at the same time.

Edited February 2, 2010 by 12oclockhigh

[Von Paulus 8]

It's not easy to troubleshoot this. Undoubtedly your rig should perform better with OFF.

We should try to devise if it's a hardware or software issue. Do you have an extra disk where you could install XP?

You can also try to install the other graphic card you have and see if it's card related or not. I doubt that this will change anything, but we have to try everything to perceive why your rig is under-performing with OFF.

There is no problem with OFF and AMD processors as far as I know. The same with 5870, I've already tried one with OFF. Concerning Win7, both 32 and 64 versions, still no problem. So it must be something local in your rig or a combination of factors.

Sorry not to be much helpful, but I honestly don't find any reason why OFF doesn't perform well in your machine.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Von Paulus

[12oclockhigh 0]

It's not easy to troubleshoot this. Undoubtedly your rig should perform better with OFF.

We should try to devise if it's a hardware or software issue. Do you have an extra disk where you could install XP?

You can also try to install the other graphic card you have and see if it's card related or not. I doubt that this will change anything, but we have to try everything to perceive why your rig is under-performing with OFF.

There is no problem with OFF and AMD processors as far as I know. The same with 5870, I've already tried one with OFF. Concerning Win7, both 32 and 64 versions, still no problem. So it must be something local in your rig or a combination of factors.

Sorry not to be much helpful, but I honestly don't find any reason why OFF doesn't perform well in your machine.

 

 

I do have an extra hard drive and don't mind dual booting but there would be a license issue. My old machine was dual boot with Vista and XP Pro. I upgraded Vista to Win 7 on the new computer and left XP on the old machine which is turning out to be my ace in the hole for playing OFF. I also have XP Home edition running on a third computer but can't touch that. (my partner uses it and it chugs along nicely for her needs. Everytime I glance longingly at it she gives me a dirty look...) I have tried the other 5770 card I have and did manage 20to 25 fps with medium settings. That's what prompted the purchase of the 5870. Anyway, for now I am quite happy playing OFF on the old machine. I think I'll move the 5870 card over to it just to see what improvements that makes to an all ready well preforming game and in the meantime I'll keep tinkering with the Win 7 install. Sooner or later we'll get it. I really appreciate everyone's time and efforts so far. Thanks all....

[Von Paulus 8]

You can install XP just for testing purpose. You've 30 days to activate.

What we pretend to know is, if what is wrong is with your hardware or your software.

[12oclockhigh 0]

You can install XP just for testing purpose. You've 30 days to activate.

What we pretend to know is, if what is wrong is with your hardware or your software.

 

 

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I'll set up a dual boot with Win 7 and XP first chance I get, probably this weekend. By the way I moved my 5870 card over to the XP machine. Overall I think it runs OFF a little better than the 5770 but there's not enough improvement there to warrant the expense.

[12oclockhigh 0]

Just a few ideas....

 

Do you get the same issues with CFS3 (patched to version 3.1 or 3.1a) as well as with OFF.

(ie: If you uninstall OFF and CFS3, then do a clean install of CFS3 without installing OFF - Do you get the same issues? If so - it might be useful to search some other CF3 forums to see if anyone else has encountered this issue and found a fix)

 

Have you tried disabling your anti-virus software for a few minutes to test whether there is any clash. (I had issues running CFS3 under the 2008 version of Kaspersky Anti-virus but later versions were fine for me)

 

I'm not familiar with the AMD multi-cores but are you able to force CFS3 & OFF to all run under a single core?

 

Have you tried unplugging any USB peripherals (apart from your keyboard, mouse and joystick)?

 

Have you tried running at an ultra low screen resolution (640 x480) just to see if it makes any difference to frame rates?

 

 

 

 

@Maxiku

I tried forcing OFF to run at 640x480 through properties but the game seems to default to the OFF settings once it starts so no luck there.

[ConradB 0]

Hi Maxiku,

 

You've given me something to think about. I have CFS3 ver 3.1. What is 3.1a? I've never really played CFS3 much but it does seem to run OK tho I've never checked frame rates. It's smooth enough for sure. I don't run anti-virus software. My experience is that they are more trouble than they are worth and I've owned computers since the early eighties. What is the thinking behind forcing OFF and CFS3 to run under one core? I think there are freeware programs that would do that. Maybe AMD Fusion does? So that could be an option. Tonight I will check and see what the cores are running at. I know for ROF all four cores were maxed out under WIN 7 while my GPU's were at zero so I switched that game to my XP machine and it runs fine now too. (The devs at ROF tho just tell you 'tough luck' if you run Win 7). USB periperals are the ones you've mentioned with the exception of my camera and Freetrack program. I have tried OFF without Freetrack running and there is no difference. And finally I will try the ultra low res suggestion for interest's sake. Overall my thinking is that there is something basic I am missing not just some tweak. Thanks very much for these suggestions.

 

As long as you've got CFS3 v3.1, you're fine. Your question about the single core issue, is that multi-core cpu's can cause issues as the game wasn't designed to take advantage of that setup. Kinda' an Achilles heel for the game, as it would have really benefited from the use of multicore proccessors. Your AMD cpu software should automatically detedt that. The Intel multicores do. I have it in the Nvidia Control Panel, and just leave it on automatic. So if a game doesn't use multicore technology, it will default to just one core. The thing about forcing the game to use one core is an old issue that folks were having when the game first came out. In order to get it to run right, folks would have to disable on or more cores to get CFS3 to run decently.

 

You can try to disable all but one core for running OFF, and I think you can do it in setup parameters when you first boot up your rig. You should be able to disable them in there without having to use addditional software.

[12oclockhigh 0]

As long as you've got CFS3 v3.1, you're fine. Your question about the single core issue, is that multi-core cpu's can cause issues as the game wasn't designed to take advantage of that setup. Kinda' an Achilles heel for the game, as it would have really benefited from the use of multicore proccessors. Your AMD cpu software should automatically detedt that. The Intel multicores do. I have it in the Nvidia Control Panel, and just leave it on automatic. So if a game doesn't use multicore technology, it will default to just one core. The thing about forcing the game to use one core is an old issue that folks were having when the game first came out. In order to get it to run right, folks would have to disable on or more cores to get CFS3 to run decently.

 

You can try to disable all but one core for running OFF, and I think you can do it in setup parameters when you first boot up your rig. You should be able to disable them in there without having to use addditional software.

 

 

Is this the same as setting 'affinities' through task master? That seems easy enough. I'll give it a try and let you know. Thanks kindly. By the way I am very interested in dual booting as Von Paulus suggested. Seems to me that would narrow things down to OS or AMD.

[ConradB 0]

Not sure about the OS, as I think there are members who run it on Win7 with no issues, or they were simple enough to sort out. I think also there was mention of an improvement in gameplay, so it could be an AMD issue itself.

 

I think it is in affinities. My old AMD rig needed me to go into the bios at bootup and set it manually, as the software kept wanting to kick the second processor in which shot the game to "h-e double hockey sticks". If it won't work from the software side, you can try it by turning one off at bootup and entering the bios and shut all the extra ones down, and just run one cpu. I think AMD has better software than it did 5 to 6 years ago.

[12oclockhigh 0]

Not sure about the OS, as I think there are members who run it on Win7 with no issues, or they were simple enough to sort out. I think also there was mention of an improvement in gameplay, so it could be an AMD issue itself.

 

 

I think it is in affinities. My old AMD rig needed me to go into the bios at bootup and set it manually, as the software kept wanting to kick the second processor in which shot the game to "h-e double hockey sticks". If it won't work from the software side, you can try it by turning one off at bootup and entering the bios and shut all the extra ones down, and just run one cpu. I think AMD has better software than it did 5 to 6 years ago.

 

 

I agree and should have been more specific. It is my operating system and setup that is the issue. I'm hoping the dual boot will show, if the OS and graphics are the same, that it's an issue with the hardware and how that is handling things. From there...who knows?

 

I tried affinities last night and it seems to be controlling the cores but I didn't get into it too much. I'll have time to look more closely this weekend. A thought I had at the time is the game could run on one core and the graphics on the other three. That's interesting. I'll also have a look through the bios as well though I prefer not doing stuff like that for games.

[ConradB 0]

Yeah, it can be a pain to have to mess with the bios. Especially if you have other games and you forget to reset it. Hopefully it is simpler with the newer tech.

[Von Paulus 8]

As soon as you try the Dual boot tell us the results, please.

I'm also curious.

[Parky 8]

Please don't tell me to update my drivers or read the FAQ or condesendingly refer me to the noob section because I've been there and done that long before getting to this stage.

 

I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but you're absolutely certain you're running the 64-bit graphics drivers for that card and your DirectX version is up to date, right?? It's an easy mistake to click the wrong link on the download sites. Just a thought......can't hurt to check.....and no, I'm not trying to be condescending. On that rig, you should be seeing some decent performance.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Parky

Edited February 5, 2010 by Parky

[12oclockhigh 0]

Last night I installed a dual boot system on my newest computer and used it to run some unscientific tests to obtain some unscientific results. The results and my opinions apply only to my system and the settings at the time. I certainly could have switched settings during the tests and was really tempted to on occasion when I felt a setting was just 'wrong' for the situation. However, I wanted a general benchmark and for that all settings had to stay the same. The tests involved OFF, an AMD quad 2.2 ghz 32 Bit CPU and an AMD Quad 3.2 Ghz. 64 bit CPU. I tried two different graphics cards, ATI's 5770 and 5870. Operating systems were Win7 64 bit and XP Home edition 32 bit SP3.

OFF settings across the board were sliders at 54454, Overrides had High Rez, Terrain Detail, Disable Validate device, and Disable Shadows checked. Texture info was set to the texture managed, rendertarget settings recommended in OFF's ATI help section. Graphics cards were set to HD Anti-Aliasing edge detext 4x, HD Anisotropic 4x, Cat AI Advanced, Mipmap to Performance, Wait for Vert. Refresh to On, Anti- Aliasing mode to Multi-Sample AA, and triple buffering checked. Monitor resolution was 1920x1200x32.

Actual game play testing consisted of starting the game in June of 1918 so the Weather was consistent, sunny with some clouds. I would run Quick Combat with six enemy planes in the vacinity, takeoff and fly South at rooftop level over Clairmarais. After traversing most of the town and noting FPS I would turn and charge the persuing enemy headon as this seemed to be where frame rates dropped to their lowest.

And the results. On my old machine, the AMD Quad 2.2 32 bit under XP SP3 with either ATI 5770 or 5870 cards OFF turned in FPS in the 30's to low 40's at rooftop level, and mid 20's when turned towards the enemy. There was some very slight stuttering but all in all gameplay was smooth and enjoyable. Obviously at higher altitudes the FPS improved considerably.

On my newer AMD Quad 3.2 64 bit machine with either Win7 or XP and either ATI5770 or 5870 cards FPS were disappointing to say the least with roughly 15 to 20 at rooftop level, 5 to 10 when turned towards the enemy. There was stuttering and a good lag or two. I didn't bother with higher altitude checking because I simply wouldn't play a game that performed like this one long enough to reach a higher altitude. By the way I do play many other games on this system and it performs wonderfully.

In summery, I know I was certainly restrictive in my 'settings' but OFF ran faster and felt 'cleaner' under my older slower CPU 32 bit system. I felt the XP 32bit OS was responsive. Tweaking would and could help big time here to improve an already decent performance. However, in the AMD 3.2 64 bit machine OFF ran much slower and felt stuttery, despite a significantly faster CPU. It also didn't seem to matter which graphics card I used. They both had similarly dismal results though if I had to pick one I'd go with the older, slower 5770. Overall I just got the feeling that my 64 bit machine doesn't like OFF and that's too bad for me. What's good for me however is that I have another computer that seems to like it just fine. So until someone more enlightened that I can help with a solution I'll be playing OFF on my old computer.

Edited February 6, 2010 by 12oclockhigh

[12oclockhigh 0]

I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but you're absolutely certain you're running the 64-bit graphics drivers for that card and your DirectX version is up to date, right?? It's an easy mistake to click the wrong link on the download sites. Just a thought......can't hurt to check.....and no, I'm not trying to be condescending. On that rig, you should be seeing some decent performance.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Parky

 

 

Hi Parky,

Yes, I've been careful with drivers and Directx X. I do see decent performance on other games. Crysis for example. This issue for me seems OFF specific on my computer. I do have the luxury of a second machine that runs OFF decently so I'm not complaining too loudly.

[Von Paulus 8]

Could you install CPU-Z, http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php , and run it and post here the cu-z txt report?

Edited February 6, 2010 by Von Paulus

[redwolf 19]

Sorry, can't be too much help only can say that I have a new quad core AMD system running Win7 64 bit and it runs beautifully (and a huge jump from my dual core winxp 32 bit system). So I would concur that it has nothing to do with AMD quad & win7 64 bit systems and the issue is somehow unique to your particular system set up (which I think you already believe anyways).

 

My system is a Phenom II X4-910 (Quad core 2.6 Ghz) with 8 gigs of ram running Win7 64 bit and using an ATI 4830 512mb video card with the latest win7 64 bit catalyst drivers. I didn't have to set any cpu affinities or do any special tweaking whatsoever. It ran wonderful from the get go. Sorry I can't be of more help, but just confirming that there isn't any sort of AMD quad core with Win7 64bit issues with the game.

[12oclockhigh 0]

Sorry, can't be too much help only can say that I have a new quad core AMD system running Win7 64 bit and it runs beautifully (and a huge jump from my dual core winxp 32 bit system). So I would concur that it has nothing to do with AMD quad & win7 64 bit systems and the issue is somehow unique to your particular system set up (which I think you already believe anyways).

 

My system is a Phenom II X4-910 (Quad core 2.6 Ghz) with 8 gigs of ram running Win7 64 bit and using an ATI 4830 512mb video card with the latest win7 64 bit catalyst drivers. I didn't have to set any cpu affinities or do any special tweaking whatsoever. It ran wonderful from the get go. Sorry I can't be of more help, but just confirming that there isn't any sort of AMD quad core with Win7 64bit issues with the game.

 

 

Thanks for the reply. I am glad your system runs well. It's a fun game for sure and I am enjoying it, even the 'problem' stuff is fun.

 

Could you install CPU-Z, http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php , and run it and post here the cu-z txt report?

 

 

Yes certainly. First chance I get this evening.

[12oclockhigh 0]

Could you install CPU-Z, http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php , and run it and post here the cu-z txt report?

 

 

Hi Von Paulus

Here is .txt report. Some very entertaining reading to be sure.

UPSTAIRS-NEWEST.txt

[Von Paulus 8]

If it wasn't too much to ask, could you do the same to your older rig?

I'm not sure if I'll able to examine both tonight, but tomorrow I'll do it.

You see I think your problem is CPU related. I'm no expert but I'm used to do some troubleshooting due my profession.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Von Paulus

[Von Paulus 8]

I think your core speed is too low at 802.7Mhz. The multiplier is 4x200 which is not the right value.

Look at the result of an equal CPU: http://www.legitrevi.../article/980/1/

You should be running at 3200Mhz; the multiplier should be 16 and not 4.

Like I've told you I'm not an expert, but this can happen for three reasons:

First your motherboard is not recognizing correctly the CPU. Maybe a motherboard BIOS version older than the CPU. Usually a BIOS update solve this things. Check last BIOS version in ASUS site and if your is older please consider to update it.

Secondly your motherboard might be badly configured for the CPU you have. I'll try to look tomorrow at the your motherboard manual and try to look for BIOS configurations that might induce the wrong value.

Thirdly, the Green Functions of your motherboard. I'm much more experienced with Intel than AMD, but I bet that BIOS has some green functions for controlling the CPU speed. The green when activated will slow the multiplier in order to not consume much energy. We know that sometimes some applications (games too) simply don't like these green functions activated; the result is that the multiplier is not "pushed" to the correct value. This only happens sometimes, and is dependent of BIOS, chipset version and software combination. I believe this is a technology that is still in development, so it's still not full proof. If that's the case you've to disable all Green CPU functions in BIOS.

 

I bet we we'll see a different core speed in your older CPU.

 

EDIT: Stupid of me! I didn't read the full article at the link I provided.

Now I'm almost sure that I know what the problem is; you have enabled AMD Cool'n'Quiet.

If you enable AMD Cool'n'Quiet the processor will automatically reduce it's internal multiplier down to x4 and lower the core voltage for power savings. At just 800MHz and less than a Volt of power running to the processor it becomes a more energy efficient platform.

Your problem is what I referred in the third reason. Green functions.

 

http://www.amd.com/u...ol-n-quiet.aspx

Edited February 7, 2010 by Von Paulus