Splinter Cell Conviction on Asus g73

I recently bought Conviction, but it doesn't seem to perform as well as it should on my G73. With everything on high, full hd resolution, but no MSAA I get between 24 and 35 fps which is pretty low considering that I play most games with 2x AA and get better fps. For example in Batman AA, using forced 4x AA I don't get under 36 fps...
PS: my gpu is overclocked to 800/1300. other things worth mentioning: 8gb 1333mhz ram and the 720qm i7 without any OC. btw, is there a free software for CPU OC? besides setfsb which is about 10$ if I am correct. I wouldn't like to pay for something without trying it out 1st.

 

I got the similar results in that game, I think its normal.

 

what are the other example of "most games"?
Batman AA is not a very demanding game. my 2years old laptop ran it at 720p with highest details as well.

My theory is that splinter cell does have a lot of lights and shadows, these stuff usually is quite intensive for graphics

 

everything i tried except crysis, crysis:warhead, arcania:gothic and metro 2033 and now Conviction
examples: BF badcompany 2, black ops, mafia 2, dragon age origins, formula 1 2010, dirt 2, sc 2 (no AA), wow, MW2, Batman AA, TR underworld, AC 2, Borderlands, New Vegas, Dead Space, Bioshock 2, Far cry 2, fifa 11, gears of war, medal of honor, prince of persia the forgotten sands, badcompany 1, MW - these games I have currently installed; I run these games at 1080p, full settings, 2x AA minimum and no Physx if available and get a decent, playable framerate (35+)
but with conviction, I dont get a good performance. I just did the memorial level (where you pursue that fellow) and got 20 fps average during the pursuit with the settings I mentioned, which is unplayable, and it really doesnt look that good :/

 

I have the same issues, not quite as bad as you, but it is choppy in many instances on high. This is just an example of a terrible PC port. The shadows on this game should not have such a huge impact on performance. The reality is, most companies gear towards consoles because 13-16 year olds are their target market. So when the game finally makes it to PC, it's usually a half-... butt job, not optimized properly, and usually doesn't utilize the processing power of all cores. Unfortunately this game is quite broken on PC, but the good news is that it wasn't that good anyway

Edit: I actually get quite a bit of stuttering even on the lowest settings, which proves that it has little to do with the laptop. On a similar note, New Vegas was very broken as well without the DX9 patch, which shows how much companies really care about their PC audience.

 

Splinter Cell does this to me also. If you look the graphics in the game are very intense and have quite a few shadows , and that will slow down any card. The lighting in the game is bigger than normal also, look at the light being cast around the streets and rooms. I do not think you are having a problem , I think this is just due to the game. This is what makes the game as good as it is. Story line and the great graphics.

 

How do you suggest a less powerful XBOX360/PS3 runs it flawlessly then?

 

Thats easy, they are running a tuned game written for the XBOX 360. Same game , but not the same software.
The 360 is a fixed set of conditions on a fixed set of hardware where compilers are written to compile software just for this machine and no other.

 

for your list, there isn't much too graphic demanding games except crysis, BC2, dirt 2 and mafia 2. SC2 will drop to high 20s when you play in specific some maps with "reflection" on and using zerg. New Vegas has some kind of shuttering sometimes.
I doubt you have crysis at full details at 1080p with min 2x AA, I think you mean gamer setting?

It is likely to be due to bad port as well or a bad game engine. I would say it is more due to a bad port.

they run it at a lower resolution and if I remember correctly, xbox360 was also the leading developement console, so no big surprise here.
But it is not right to say they are less powerful. It is just games are not optimized to their hardware, especially for the case of ps3, where games like killzone 2 and uncharted 2 and GT5 really shows how capable this machine is

 

I said that EXCEPT crysis, metro 2033 and arcania gothic I run games properly at 1080p, highest settings, minimum 2x AA.

 

Exactly. Which brings me back to my original point: game developers could care less about optimizing for PC, Fallout and Black Ops being recent examples.

Resolution does not matter. These games run poorly on ANY resolution in some cases. PS3/XBOX360 are also both 1080p capable; res depends on your monitor/TV.

 

Ubisoft simply doesn't care about PC Gaming. Simple as that.

 

I second that. After seeing the problems that I have with Conviction, I decided to lower the res to 1600x900 from 1080p, and guess what? I got only 2-3 fps more by lowering the resolution. So I went back to 1080p. That is poor optimization idd.

 

Yup. You can go to 640x480 for all the game cares, it'll still awkwardly stutter every few seconds. Very frustrating. Luckily newer games such as Fallout and Black Ops have people coming out with fixes pretty quickly after release. Woulda been nice to finish Conviction nonetheless, it wasn't too bad of a game, but I simply got frustrated with the stuttering.

Non-related note: missed keystroke count- 8.