Arkham Asylum FPS Issues?

[ObsessiveSketch]

Okay, So here's the deal. I'm pretty sure my hardware can kick the shit out of this game, but both in game and during benchmark, characters move very slowly, and camera movement is choppy and slow to respond. I was hoping the friendly neighborhood Escapist members could give me some tips or ideas to help make this game run as smooth as bat-butter.

OS: Vista Premium 64bit
CPU: IntelCore2Quad @ 2.3 GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Graphics Card: GeForce 9500 GS (DirectX ver10.1)

Benchmark Measurements: (all #s are FPS)
Quality
Low: 24>59. Avg 43
Low + AA and Vsync: 20>45. avg 33
High: 19>42. avg 31
High + AA and Vsync: 14>40. avg 23
Very High: 17>35. avg 26
Very High + AA and Vsync: 12>107. avg 19

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[TheComedown]

It is your video card, it isn't quite up to running it on high, i had the 9500GT with a higher core and shader clock, and id average about 30 frames on medium/high at 1280*800, if you want to run it on that machine you'll just have to drop the resolution and settings.
I recently upgraded to the HD5770 OC edition and have no trouble running it on very high, cept have to keep the PhysX off as the software doesn't agree with the ATI hardware.

 

[TheComedown]

double post...move along

 

[DazZ.]

You have way too much RAM for the rest of your computer, your CPU and GFX card are way behind 8gigs.

Both of those need an upgrade to kick the shit out of the Unreal 3 engine. (Although the GFX card more so, with those models you want at least an x600 for gaming)

 

[TheComedown]

Buy an xb360/ps3... save shitloads from the constant updating and have the game running fine.

It's not constant upgrading if you get it right the first time. You really don't have to upgrade that much at all if you know what your doing, but the option is there, i know a few guys that like upgrading all the time simply because they can, its part of owning a PC, BUT it is not necessary and you can get yourself a decent rig that will last quite a few years without upgrading that wont cost you an arm and a leg.

 

[Sephychu]

Buy an xb360/ps3... save shitloads from the constant updating and have the game running fine.

Obvious Console fanboy is obvious. What TheComeDown says is true. You don't really save too much from owning a console, a decent rig won't cost you that much.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I didn't know Arkham Asylum was a first person shooter.
Jokes, I'm not that stupid.

 

[Sephychu]

Buy an xb360/ps3... save shitloads from the constant updating and have the game running fine.

Obvious Console fanboy is obvious. What TheComeDown says is true. You don't really save too much from owning a console, a decent rig won't cost you that much.

well, for hassle free gaming consoles are the way to go...I only use my pc for stuff that can be modded and online... and I've spent more in the last five years keeping pace with pc gaming than I paid for both consoles (2nd hand admittedly) while my 360 and ps3 are still running great looking games today without the need for updating graphics cards or processors. This is why consoles are better for gaming, whatever arguments pc gamers throw at me conele gaming is still a lot more hassle free. (at least until graphics reach there upper limit then it might be worth looking again seriously at pc gaming)

Fair game, I see where you're coming from, but I have a PS3, and 12 great games, and a PC with 30 odd games. Aggregated, they cost roughly similar. My PC is running all these games beautifully, and so is my PS3. I guess I bought the PC for the exclusives and games that work better with it, as I'm an RTS fanatic. What I stayed for though, is the community and the level of control you have over the games. Modding and all that sort of thing just isn't available on consoles. Furthermore, if something inside starts steaming, I like to be able to open up without being effectively charged the price of my console for it. That's purely on the gaming side though, the PC does the internet and music thing much better too, but we aren't talking about that.

 

[Shovel]

I didn't know Arkham Asylum was a first person shooter.
Jokes, I'm not that stupid.

I chuckled.

 

[Kouen]

You have way too much RAM for the rest of your computer, your CPU and GFX card are way behind 8gigs.

Both of those need an upgrade to kick the shit out of the Unreal 3 engine. (Although the GFX card more so, with those models you want at least an x600 for gaming)

I Dunno im running

Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300 2.8ghz
8Gb DDR2 800
HD4870

and i run that game sweet as hell

 

[DazZ.]

You have way too much RAM for the rest of your computer, your CPU and GFX card are way behind 8gigs.

Both of those need an upgrade to kick the shit out of the Unreal 3 engine. (Although the GFX card more so, with those models you want at least an x600 for gaming)

I Dunno im running

Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300 2.8ghz
8Gb DDR2 800
HD4870

and i run that game sweet as hell

A HD4870 beats the hell out of a 9500. You also have a better CPU, Duel cores are usually better at games because very few are optimised for quad cores (yet).

OP: But this proves what I said, you need a better GFX card more so than a CPU.

 

[Kouen]

You have way too much RAM for the rest of your computer, your CPU and GFX card are way behind 8gigs.

Both of those need an upgrade to kick the shit out of the Unreal 3 engine. (Although the GFX card more so, with those models you want at least an x600 for gaming)

I Dunno im running

Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300 2.8ghz
8Gb DDR2 800
HD4870

and i run that game sweet as hell

A HD4870 beats the hell out of a 9500. You also have a better CPU, Duel cores are usually better at games because very few are optimised for quad cores (yet).

OP: But this proves what I said, you need a better GFX card more so than a CPU.

True on the Graphics card although he is on a Quad CPU (Cant Remember if Unreal 3 Engine takes advantage of 4 cores though)

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

The reason a lot of dual core CPUs are better for some games than some quad core CPUs is that the speed of each individual core is higher, and most engines aren't particularly optimized to use more than one or two cores (although the newer the game is, generally, the more it'll help to have more cores). The OP may have a quad core CPU, but each one is fairly slow. This is less of an issue with newer CPUs that automatically raise their clock speed when only one or two cores are in use, and even less of one as more games that are better threaded come out.

Anyway, I completely agree that the OP's problem is that his video card is complete junk compared to the rest of his computer. It's not the RAM. It's not the CPU. It's the sad excuse for a video card (even when it was new, unfortunately). New games are only going to run so well until that's replaced.

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

Thanks very much for the help!
Gotta say, I though that it might be the Quad core, but I wasn't expecting the graphics card to be the issue. Ah well, if I'm upgrading may as well go big!

Thank you very much!!!
http://www8.atpages.jp/menturm/adiary/public/image/menturm/200907/dogeza.jpg