1. #1
    Zarmr's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    17

    Still 20 FPS -_-

    Hello, I want to ask... I have FX-8320, R9-280X, 8 GB RAM and 7 OS... and WHY it is locked at 15-25 fps? No matter what settings ultra or low... still 15-25 FPS. Three patches are out and I am still waiting... pleas donť tell me "buy nvidia" or somthing like this... This rig beats minimum HW. So I didn't bought AC:Unity Gold Edition I just bought some free game from Ubisoft... Is that right ? I don't want to play game at 20 FPS when I should be able play at 50...

    Sorry for my bad English...
    Share this post

  2. #2

    NEVER buy a Game if you have a potato

    You'll never be able to play with 50 fps wit minimum hardware requirement. Not even at low.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Zarmr's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    17
    Hmm 8-core CPU overclocked at 4.2 GHz and R9-280X overclocked too, I think that this is not potato... I beat even recommended... As I can see, you has no knowledge about hardware... And than, how it is possible that most of people runs it on lower quality hw or what about the thing that it is absolutely same with ultra or low settings? I asked for some intelligent answer. Not for same ******** told by someone who knows nothing about this things. Maybe this is no best possible rig but still pretty good.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Well, my english is bad too, but you have o old (or lowprice) machine.
    btw, the FX-8320 is a Quad Core, not 8.

    compare here with a 3 years old i7 processor:
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1782&cmp[]=903

    you can still blame me, i'm not a pro.
    but im sure there is not much they can do.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by helvetiimiles Go to original post
    Well, my english is bad too, but you have o old (or lowprice) machine.
    btw, the FX-8320 is a Quad Core, not 8.

    compare here with a 3 years old i7 processor:
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1782&cmp[]=903

    you can still blame me, i'm not a pro.
    but im sure there is not much they can do.
    You smoked something ? FX-8320 is 8-core... http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/...43&cpu=FX-8320 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...320+Eight-Core and yes... i7 is better... and 4x more expensive...
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Old and lowprice ? Haha you are funny bro. It isn't best but it is very good. I bet that he can play most of games at ultra with no problem.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    The main thing stopping me from playing the game is my Raedon HD 7800. My CPU (AMD FX(tm)-6300 Six-Core Processor) can go up to 4.1ghz with turbo boost.
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by pesonen789 Go to original post
    You smoked something ? FX-8320 is 8-core... http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/...43&cpu=FX-8320 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...320+Eight-Core and yes... i7 is better... and 4x more expensive...
    uhm i think fx 8320 is an 8 core with 6 cores working and 2 sub cores, if im right. Though the game hasnt been touch as for graphics and optimisation, only fixed bugs etc.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by pesonen789 Go to original post
    You smoked something ? FX-8320 is 8-core... http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/...43&cpu=FX-8320 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...320+Eight-Core and yes... i7 is better... and 4x more expensive...
    No of Cores: 4 (2 logical cores per physical)
    in your link above. taht mean you have 4 cores + 4 virtual cores

    i dont know why the name is "eight-core", pearhaps AMD do something diffrent in the names.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by pesonen789 Go to original post
    You smoked something ? FX-8320 is 8-core... http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/...43&cpu=FX-8320 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...320+Eight-Core and yes... i7 is better... and 4x more expensive...
    Acuatlly he is kinda right.
    AMDs bulldozer design was a atempt to copy intels hyperthreating technology.

    With HT 1 physical core provides 2 logical cores. During a cache miss (core runing iddle cause its wating for RAM data) the second logical core+ increases the efficency.

    AMD tried the same by using 1 Module that consists of 2 physical cores which comes with a problems (google it if you're interested).
    A older Phenom 2 with 6 cores is actually faster then a Bulldozer with 3 modules and 6 cores at the same clockrate.

    Bulldozer is a massive fail and while 8 cores it actually correct it's marketing ********. Talking of 4 modules is adequate.
    Share this post