OK, I'll just update to 64-bit and 4 GB of RAM, then. Thanks mate ;)
P.S: I just ran Far Cry 2 with 8x AA and it got the same results as the 4x AA test.... this is just odd.
My monitor is a 19" LCD, so it's not old (just small :))
V-Sync disabled in both games
I'm guessing the problem must be the RAM, then. If I add 1 more GB of RAM, will it automatically perform at Dual-Channel mode? Also, you said I should play at Very High until I upgraded my system. Besides the RAM, is there any component I should update?
P.S: It seems that turning AA up has no effects while playing (in Crysis, the perfomance was basically the same with no AA and with 8x AA).
Thanks for the info
Hello guys, I joined the forum because yesterday I purchased an ATi 6950 2GB and, from what I've seen, my perfomance in games is really low when compared to other PC's.
For example, at 1280 x 1024 (I have a small monitor :() and 4x AA, Far Cry 2 at Ultra High Settings gets an average of 40 FPS. I know it's completely playable at that speed, but I just thought it would be much higher.
Another example is Crysis, 1280 x 1024, no AA, Very High settings, 30-40 average FPS.
Is it possible there's a problem with my PC (I did a clean Windows install and downloaded Catalyst 10.12 drivers as soon as I installed the card.
CPU - Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz
RAM - DDR2 Single-Channel 3 GB @ 333 MHz (5-5-5-15)
Motherboard - ASUS P5QC
HDD - 313GB Western Digital WDC WD3200AAJS-00B4A0 ATA Device (SATA)
Graphics Card - Sapphire ATi Radeon HD 6950 2 GB GDDR5 (latest drivers installed)
I'm guessing the problem could be the RAM or motherboard, but can they really cause a game like Far Cry 2 (which apparently should run at more than 60 FPS maxed out with 4x AA at 1920 x 1080) or Crysis to have such low perfomance?
Thanks in advance guys ;)
P.S: Sorry for my Engish, I'm 15 and from Argentina, so... yeah