Intel i5 2430m 2.4Ghz
8GB Ram DDR3 1333mhz
AMD 6450m 512mb Catalyst 13.5b3
Low graphics between 20 - 30fps
Playable!
Edited by Mike W, 12 August 2013 - 07:48 AM.
2
We Need Benchmarks For Mechwarrior Online
Started by Juju Shinobi, Jun 24 2013 12:11 AM
59 replies to this topic
#41
-
-
- Storm
- 76 posts
Member
- LocationKittery, St Ives Compact
Posted 12 August 2013 - 07:47 AM
Sony SB13 Notebook
Intel i5 2430m 2.4Ghz
8GB Ram DDR3 1333mhz
AMD 6450m 512mb Catalyst 13.5b3
Low graphics between 20 - 30fps
Playable!
Intel i5 2430m 2.4Ghz
8GB Ram DDR3 1333mhz
AMD 6450m 512mb Catalyst 13.5b3
Low graphics between 20 - 30fps
Playable!
#42
-
-
- Moderate Giver
- 20 posts
Member
- LocationHalifax, Nova Scotia.
Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:08 PM
I used integrated graphics last night to play a few rounds and once I scaled my resolution down to 1280x800 (from 16801050) I was getting around 25-30fps with dips down to 18-22 in brawling.
For me that's perfectly acceptable and not much lower than what I get running triple screens at a resolution of 5040x1050 on my (now rma'd) 6950 2gb card. The processor is an i7 2700k (HD3000 integrated graphics), 8gb ram, ssd. Before this I used a Q9550 processor on a socket 775 board with 8gb ddr2 ram and the 6950 card, framerates in MWO jumped 35-50% when I upgraded the processor so I'm quite used to playing at +/- 25fps.
I hear Haswell integrated graphics can be another 50% better, if so then a 4000 series i5 should run MWO smoothly at low resolutions on low settings (35-40fps at 1024x768 I'm guessing), a perfect entry level for someone you're trying to convince to start playing. Borrow or buy a used a small 4x3 monitor and let them install a video card down the road followed by a decent monitor or tv set up and hd expansions if they need it.
For me that's perfectly acceptable and not much lower than what I get running triple screens at a resolution of 5040x1050 on my (now rma'd) 6950 2gb card. The processor is an i7 2700k (HD3000 integrated graphics), 8gb ram, ssd. Before this I used a Q9550 processor on a socket 775 board with 8gb ddr2 ram and the 6950 card, framerates in MWO jumped 35-50% when I upgraded the processor so I'm quite used to playing at +/- 25fps.
I hear Haswell integrated graphics can be another 50% better, if so then a 4000 series i5 should run MWO smoothly at low resolutions on low settings (35-40fps at 1024x768 I'm guessing), a perfect entry level for someone you're trying to convince to start playing. Borrow or buy a used a small 4x3 monitor and let them install a video card down the road followed by a decent monitor or tv set up and hd expansions if they need it.
#43
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 220 posts
Member
- LocationLow Orbit
Posted 13 August 2013 - 01:10 AM
The Gunman, on 10 July 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:
Intel Core i7-3820 @ 4.3GHz
32Gb of G.Skill DDR3 RAM
ATi 7970GE
180Gb Intel SSD
4x 3Tb Seagates in RAID5
RoG Rampage Extreme X79
Windows 8
Playing at 1920x1080, max settings in game and in catalyst.
Average around 85fps, +/- 10 depending on whats going on.
32Gb of G.Skill DDR3 RAM
ATi 7970GE
180Gb Intel SSD
4x 3Tb Seagates in RAID5
RoG Rampage Extreme X79
Windows 8
Playing at 1920x1080, max settings in game and in catalyst.
Average around 85fps, +/- 10 depending on whats going on.
Just upgraded to Triple Crossfired 7970s,
Playing at 5760x1080 max settings in game and in catalyst.
Average around 80fps, +/- 15 depending on whats going on.
#44
-
-
- Veteran Founder
- 4,242 posts
Member
- LocationLouisville, KY
Posted 13 August 2013 - 07:41 AM
Post 12v12 update CPU tests
All tests performed on caustic with HD7950@ 900/1200 as GPU is not a limitation as of 12v12 patch.
Prepatch:
FX8320 with 8 cores @ 4.2 GHz=78 fps max/ 55-60fps average/40 fps min
Post Patch:
FX8320 with 8 cores @ 4.2 GHz = 60 fps max/40 fps average/ 21 fps min (max stable clock with my chip)
Fx8320 with 4 cores @ 4.2 GHz= 60 fps max/42 fps average/25 fps min
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.4 GHz= 70 fps max/51 fps average/29 fps min
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.5 GHz= 80-90 fps max/56 fps average/ 32 fps min (stable in game, not in Prime95)
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.6 GHz= 100+ fps max/ 60 fps average/35 fps min (unstable in game, crashing every other match, sorry to the people I dropped with)
These results clearly show an increased CPU dependance post patch. I'm not sure why this is the case but it may be due to poor utilization of more than 4 cores in the mwo engine or it could be a dislike for the 2 cores for every module paradigm of the current amd cpus as someone with an fx6300 has indicated that they only effectively use 3/6 cores. Also please note that the hotfix didn't help.
An i5 costs at least $180. A Phenom ii x4 and a HD7750 costs the same and plays the game better. Granted an i5 would work in a pinch if you were going to upgrade shortly but if that were the case I'd just hold off a bit.
Still, it's cool to see that intel iGPU can play the game.
All tests performed on caustic with HD7950@ 900/1200 as GPU is not a limitation as of 12v12 patch.
Prepatch:
FX8320 with 8 cores @ 4.2 GHz=78 fps max/ 55-60fps average/40 fps min
Post Patch:
FX8320 with 8 cores @ 4.2 GHz = 60 fps max/40 fps average/ 21 fps min (max stable clock with my chip)
Fx8320 with 4 cores @ 4.2 GHz= 60 fps max/42 fps average/25 fps min
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.4 GHz= 70 fps max/51 fps average/29 fps min
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.5 GHz= 80-90 fps max/56 fps average/ 32 fps min (stable in game, not in Prime95)
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.6 GHz= 100+ fps max/ 60 fps average/35 fps min (unstable in game, crashing every other match, sorry to the people I dropped with)
These results clearly show an increased CPU dependance post patch. I'm not sure why this is the case but it may be due to poor utilization of more than 4 cores in the mwo engine or it could be a dislike for the 2 cores for every module paradigm of the current amd cpus as someone with an fx6300 has indicated that they only effectively use 3/6 cores. Also please note that the hotfix didn't help.
Dylan Pickles, on 12 August 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:
I used integrated graphics last night to play a few rounds and once I scaled my resolution down to 1280x800 (from 16801050) I was getting around 25-30fps with dips down to 18-22 in brawling.
[snip]
Borrow or buy a used a small 4x3 monitor and let them install a video card down the road followed by a decent monitor or tv set up and hd expansions if they need it.
[snip]
Borrow or buy a used a small 4x3 monitor and let them install a video card down the road followed by a decent monitor or tv set up and hd expansions if they need it.
An i5 costs at least $180. A Phenom ii x4 and a HD7750 costs the same and plays the game better. Granted an i5 would work in a pinch if you were going to upgrade shortly but if that were the case I'd just hold off a bit.
Still, it's cool to see that intel iGPU can play the game.
Edited by Narcissistic Martyr, 13 August 2013 - 08:03 AM.
#45
-
-
- Big Brother
- 17 posts
Member
Posted 13 August 2013 - 11:57 AM
Recently replaced a 7 year old Dell XPS (E6600 processor with a GT430 GPU) on which the game was unplayable. Now using an Alienware R4 that gives me a typical fullscreen 90+ FPS at 1920x1080 and all the graphics options maxed out. Sometimes somewhat higher, occasionally a bit lower, but 90+ is pretty consistent. (BTW, I got lucky and hit a heck of a deal from the Dell Outlet with a coupon - I couldn't BUILD the system myself for what I paid. ) Monitor is a 32" Samsung HDTV, the largest practical size for my desktop setup.
CPU: Intel i7 3960X (currently not overclocked)
Ram: 32 GB
HD: 2 x 2TB
Graphics: 2 x 680GTX SLI
OS: Windows 8 Pro x64
) Monitor is a 32" Samsung HDTV, the largest practical size for my desktop setup.CPU: Intel i7 3960X (currently not overclocked)
Ram: 32 GB
HD: 2 x 2TB
Graphics: 2 x 680GTX SLI
OS: Windows 8 Pro x64
#46
-
-
- Moderate Giver
- 20 posts
Member
- LocationHalifax, Nova Scotia.
Posted 14 August 2013 - 06:32 AM
Narcissistic Martyr, on 13 August 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:
An i5 costs at least $180. A Phenom ii x4 and a HD7750 costs the same and plays the game better. Granted an i5 would work in a pinch if you were going to upgrade shortly but if that were the case I'd just hold off a bit.
I'm the first one to root for using something old to do something new with, and really neither the Phenom ii x4 or HD7750 are really old. And I also am not up on amd motherboard compatibility nor do I know anything about the predicted future compatibility of 1150 socket boards. That being said if the phenom 965 is near the top of its class for it's mobo compatibility like the similarly rated intel processors then it would seem to make sense to go with a model that was on a newer board that could accept a number of yet to be released processors, not to mention higher end gpu bandwidth of pcie 3.0.
My suggestion was based on future upgradability for someone who has a steady income but can't or won't spend more than $400 at once but will have another $400 to spend in the foreseeable future. $400 will buy you a 4000 series i5, a decent 1150 mobo and 4-8gb of ram. Any old power supply above 250w should do without a graphics card, a bunch of hard drives and cooling, a used hard drive with enough space to install on is pretty easy to come by from a reputable computer service shop for $20 or less if not from a friend or previous rig. Power supplies and graphics cards go on great sales in the fall and if the builder can wait for them a near top end card can be purchased for less than $300. Maybe someone can help me out there too, I always heard that ati/amd cpu/gpu pairs were more effective that the same gpu with an intel cpu, but how much? would a 7750 be better off with a phenom 965 than say a haswell i5 4570?
Anyways, just trying to make a case for my logic, I budget a $200-400 upgrade every 6-12 months and it's worked out for me well exept when I had to replace the mobo, cpu and ram all at once, but even then I only went up to $450 last black friday and got a 2700k i7, z68 mobo and 8b ram, of course ram was super cheap last year, anyone know what gives there?
ramble, ramble, ramble
Edited by Dylan Pickles, 14 August 2013 - 06:51 AM.
#47
-
-
- Liquid Metal
- 1,040 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:37 AM
Narcissistic Martyr, on 13 August 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:
Post 12v12 update CPU tests
All tests performed on caustic with HD7950@ 900/1200 as GPU is not a limitation as of 12v12 patch.
Prepatch:
FX8320 with 8 cores @ 4.2 GHz=78 fps max/ 55-60fps average/40 fps min
Post Patch:
FX8320 with 8 cores @ 4.2 GHz = 60 fps max/40 fps average/ 21 fps min (max stable clock with my chip)
Fx8320 with 4 cores @ 4.2 GHz= 60 fps max/42 fps average/25 fps min
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.4 GHz= 70 fps max/51 fps average/29 fps min
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.5 GHz= 80-90 fps max/56 fps average/ 32 fps min (stable in game, not in Prime95)
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.6 GHz= 100+ fps max/ 60 fps average/35 fps min (unstable in game, crashing every other match, sorry to the people I dropped with)
These results clearly show an increased CPU dependance post patch. I'm not sure why this is the case but it may be due to poor utilization of more than 4 cores in the mwo engine or it could be a dislike for the 2 cores for every module paradigm of the current amd cpus as someone with an fx6300 has indicated that they only effectively use 3/6 cores. Also please note that the hotfix didn't help.
An i5 costs at least $180. A Phenom ii x4 and a HD7750 costs the same and plays the game better. Granted an i5 would work in a pinch if you were going to upgrade shortly but if that were the case I'd just hold off a bit.
Still, it's cool to see that intel iGPU can play the game.
All tests performed on caustic with HD7950@ 900/1200 as GPU is not a limitation as of 12v12 patch.
Prepatch:
FX8320 with 8 cores @ 4.2 GHz=78 fps max/ 55-60fps average/40 fps min
Post Patch:
FX8320 with 8 cores @ 4.2 GHz = 60 fps max/40 fps average/ 21 fps min (max stable clock with my chip)
Fx8320 with 4 cores @ 4.2 GHz= 60 fps max/42 fps average/25 fps min
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.4 GHz= 70 fps max/51 fps average/29 fps min
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.5 GHz= 80-90 fps max/56 fps average/ 32 fps min (stable in game, not in Prime95)
FX8320 with 4 cores @ 4.6 GHz= 100+ fps max/ 60 fps average/35 fps min (unstable in game, crashing every other match, sorry to the people I dropped with)
These results clearly show an increased CPU dependance post patch. I'm not sure why this is the case but it may be due to poor utilization of more than 4 cores in the mwo engine or it could be a dislike for the 2 cores for every module paradigm of the current amd cpus as someone with an fx6300 has indicated that they only effectively use 3/6 cores. Also please note that the hotfix didn't help.
An i5 costs at least $180. A Phenom ii x4 and a HD7750 costs the same and plays the game better. Granted an i5 would work in a pinch if you were going to upgrade shortly but if that were the case I'd just hold off a bit.
Still, it's cool to see that intel iGPU can play the game.
So it proterbing that the 8320,8350,and 9590 are all the same chip. My 8350 sits just above your frequencies by about 150-250mhz (probably barely lower voltages) and the 9590 is basically just the creme of the crop binned deluxe..... I feel like they successfully have pulled a fast one.........There goes the days of the Binning lottery...shame on you AMD, this is the very fibre we have been clinging to for years....Part of the fun of AMD is now gone........le sigh.
#48
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 313 posts
Member
- LocationMontreal
Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:47 AM
i7 920 @ 3.3 with HT off
7950 @ 950
1440p with most details maxed but AA off
Depending on the map, I get fps in the high-30s to low-60s.
Can anyone tell me if hyper-threading does anything for MWO?
7950 @ 950
1440p with most details maxed but AA off
Depending on the map, I get fps in the high-30s to low-60s.
Can anyone tell me if hyper-threading does anything for MWO?
#50
-
-
- Veteran Founder
- 4,242 posts
Member
- LocationLouisville, KY
Posted 14 August 2013 - 10:43 AM
Smokeyjedi, on 14 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:
So it proterbing that the 8320,8350,and 9590 are all the same chip. My 8350 sits just above your frequencies by about 150-250mhz (probably barely lower voltages) and the 9590 is basically just the creme of the crop binned deluxe..... I feel like they successfully have pulled a fast one.........There goes the days of the Binning lottery...shame on you AMD, this is the very fibre we have been clinging to for years....Part of the fun of AMD is now gone........le sigh.
Mine has a weak core in it that won't let me go any faster. I suspect most fx8320s are similarly flawed otherwise they'd be sold for more as 8350s or better. Not exactly overclocker friendly but it makes good business sense.
#51
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 3,463 posts
Member
- Twitch: Link
- LocationThat flattop, up the well, overhead
Posted 14 August 2013 - 11:18 AM
What I want (more or less): http://www.twitch.tv...goose/c/2751475 
What I get: http://www.twitch.tv...goose/c/2751533
While Forrest is still the Bad Map, River does have Teh Loop, and it turns out the tunnel is it's own special hell, so maybe it's better for benching.
And no: I don't have the patience to have kept playing at them settings, waiting for River to come up while I had teammates.
Oh: What I wind up doing: http://www.twitch.tv...goose/c/2751399
What I get: http://www.twitch.tv...goose/c/2751533
While Forrest is still the Bad Map, River does have Teh Loop, and it turns out the tunnel is it's own special hell, so maybe it's better for benching.
And no: I don't have the patience to have kept playing at them settings, waiting for River to come up while I had teammates.
Oh: What I wind up doing: http://www.twitch.tv...goose/c/2751399
#52
-
-
- Giant Helper
- 900 posts
Member
- LocationSt. Clements, Ontario
Posted 14 August 2013 - 11:38 AM
Gigabite 990FXA-UD3 (Rev 1.1)
AMD FX-4100 (OC to 4.2-4.4GHz on Stock Voltage)
Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus
OCZ GamexStream 700W Power Supply
EVGA 560 Ti 2GB
2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600MHz Ram
Seagate barracuda 500GB 7200.12 HDD
Bitfenix Outlaw Case
Startech DVI-I Male/VGA Female Adapter to use a normal VGA Monitor with my 560 Ti
That's my part's list for my computer, plan on putting Windows 8.1 Preview on there followed by MWO, Will Update on how it does once I have it all set up and going
AMD FX-4100 (OC to 4.2-4.4GHz on Stock Voltage)
Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus
OCZ GamexStream 700W Power Supply
EVGA 560 Ti 2GB
2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600MHz Ram
Seagate barracuda 500GB 7200.12 HDD
Bitfenix Outlaw Case
Startech DVI-I Male/VGA Female Adapter to use a normal VGA Monitor with my 560 Ti
That's my part's list for my computer, plan on putting Windows 8.1 Preview on there followed by MWO, Will Update on how it does once I have it all set up and going
#53
-
-
- 111 posts
Member
Posted 14 August 2013 - 04:18 PM
kinda interesting reading these. I have 5 PCs but my two main rigs are:
Custom ITX build
i5-3570k @ 4.2GHz (can go higher but not really needed for 1080p or anything I do)
8GB DDR3 1600MHz C9 (can actually run C8 on higher voltage but I've left it)
Galaxy GTX670 @ 1058MHz (pretty sure that's the speed)
Win 7 Pro
1080p Settings all Maxed
FPS never really oges under 80 and is often over 100
Got a really sweet 27" samsung 120hz 3D monitor
MSI notebook 17.2" GT70
i7 gen3
32GB DDR3 1600MHz (I dont know why it came with so much it's overkill, with loads of Chrome windows open and MWO running I'm using 5GB of RAM)
GTX675MX
1600x900 I run a mix if settings between med and max, most high or max
40-50 FPS
Got another rig that's an i5-3xxx & HD7850 that I never use
I have an old PC wigh a Phenom II 550 BE & HD7850 but never used it for MWO
I have a HD7870 brand new sitting in it's box doing nothing.
And I have another more mobile notebook a 13" Sony that has a gen3 i5 and HD76xx graphics but never used MWO but it can run modern games in 13--x768 window
I should really fire them up and see how they go.I used to tinker with PC's a LOT when I was poor/student and had to screw every drop of performance I could out of whatever hardware I could scrape together. These days it's a bit different. I enjoy building a PC but only need to every few years and money is not so much of a problem.
Custom ITX build
i5-3570k @ 4.2GHz (can go higher but not really needed for 1080p or anything I do)
8GB DDR3 1600MHz C9 (can actually run C8 on higher voltage but I've left it)
Galaxy GTX670 @ 1058MHz (pretty sure that's the speed)
Win 7 Pro
1080p Settings all Maxed
FPS never really oges under 80 and is often over 100
Got a really sweet 27" samsung 120hz 3D monitor
MSI notebook 17.2" GT70
i7 gen3
32GB DDR3 1600MHz (I dont know why it came with so much it's overkill, with loads of Chrome windows open and MWO running I'm using 5GB of RAM)
GTX675MX
1600x900 I run a mix if settings between med and max, most high or max
40-50 FPS
Got another rig that's an i5-3xxx & HD7850 that I never use
I have an old PC wigh a Phenom II 550 BE & HD7850 but never used it for MWO
I have a HD7870 brand new sitting in it's box doing nothing.
And I have another more mobile notebook a 13" Sony that has a gen3 i5 and HD76xx graphics but never used MWO but it can run modern games in 13--x768 window
I should really fire them up and see how they go.I used to tinker with PC's a LOT when I was poor/student and had to screw every drop of performance I could out of whatever hardware I could scrape together. These days it's a bit different. I enjoy building a PC but only need to every few years and money is not so much of a problem.
#54
-
-
- 401 posts
Member
- LocationMunich, Germany
Posted 15 August 2013 - 12:14 PM
New system up and running after a *long* night of building/tinkering/setting up/running into trouble/resorting to violence against the furniture due to Microsoft's ridiculously small printed product key on the Win 8 DVD-jacket (what the hell were they thinking??).
Anyhow:
Asus Z87-Plus
i5 4670K@4.00 GHz with Corsair H60
2x4 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 CL9
Gigabyte GTX 660 OC (comes OCed as stock, see no need to OC it further at this point)
OCZ Vector SSD (boot drive, reserved for OS and for certain applications such as MWONL)
Win 8 64 Home (Premium? System Builder version, anyway)
If anyone's using it, the Passmark-score for this system (full bench-run with all tests) is just a tad under 4800.
Reinstalled and jumped into MWONL, set everything to Max (reduced Post Processing to "High" after while, thought "Max" looked a bit overdone) @1920x1080.
Offline around 90 FPS, very steady and smooth. But offline never was a problem, even before the upgrade.
Getting 85 FPS max online, usually it fluctuates between high 50s and high 70s, depending on the situation. But so far, the numbers have always been in the green, and the game feels like a completely different animal. With this level of smoothness, I might even consider getting into lights now.
However: I did have one incident where I ran into the same kind of trouble I had experienced pretty regularly on my old rig: During an intense firefight the game started stuttering and nearly froze up on me. Happened when 2 or 3 enemy Mechs decided to move from medium- to up-close- and-personal-range to me. Wasn't nearly as bad as on the old machine and, so far, only happened once. But I think it's noteworthy that it still happened, even with the new, much more powerful system.
S.
Anyhow:
Asus Z87-Plus
i5 4670K@4.00 GHz with Corsair H60
2x4 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 CL9
Gigabyte GTX 660 OC (comes OCed as stock, see no need to OC it further at this point)
OCZ Vector SSD (boot drive, reserved for OS and for certain applications such as MWONL)
Win 8 64 Home (Premium? System Builder version, anyway)
If anyone's using it, the Passmark-score for this system (full bench-run with all tests) is just a tad under 4800.
Reinstalled and jumped into MWONL, set everything to Max (reduced Post Processing to "High" after while, thought "Max" looked a bit overdone) @1920x1080.
Offline around 90 FPS, very steady and smooth. But offline never was a problem, even before the upgrade.
Getting 85 FPS max online, usually it fluctuates between high 50s and high 70s, depending on the situation. But so far, the numbers have always been in the green, and the game feels like a completely different animal. With this level of smoothness, I might even consider getting into lights now.
However: I did have one incident where I ran into the same kind of trouble I had experienced pretty regularly on my old rig: During an intense firefight the game started stuttering and nearly froze up on me. Happened when 2 or 3 enemy Mechs decided to move from medium- to up-close- and-personal-range to me. Wasn't nearly as bad as on the old machine and, so far, only happened once. But I think it's noteworthy that it still happened, even with the new, much more powerful system.
S.
Edited by 1Sascha, 16 August 2013 - 01:01 AM.
#55
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 1,284 posts
Member
- LocationNorth America
Posted 15 August 2013 - 01:28 PM
Removed my old posts. After some more testing I found the data to no longer be accurate post patch.
Q6700@3.5 GHZ
4GB of 1066mhz Ram @ 5-5-5-15
GTX280 Overclocked and Undervolted
Performance:
Everything is on "Very high"
1440x900 (Using a backup because my main monitor is waiting on an inverted replacement)
FPS of high 30s to low 40s on most maps
Some of the larger / more open maps see FPS in the low 30s
FPS in cities / confined spaces 45-60
I also have a 965 BE amd X4 OCed @ 3.8
BUT it is being held back by the socked AM2 motherboards HTs of 1200mhz (vs 3000-4000mhz on am3)
It also has 4GB (800mhz @ 5-5-5-15)
GTX 280
Performance:
Everything is on "High" (vs very high)
Same resolution of 1440x900
FPS of low to high 30s
Spikes into 50s
Rare drops into the mid/high 20s
Please note with a better motherboard this system should play it as well as the Intel system I listed above, if not a little better.
Hope the info helps someone
Q6700@3.5 GHZ
4GB of 1066mhz Ram @ 5-5-5-15
GTX280 Overclocked and Undervolted
Performance:
Everything is on "Very high"
1440x900 (Using a backup because my main monitor is waiting on an inverted replacement)
FPS of high 30s to low 40s on most maps
Some of the larger / more open maps see FPS in the low 30s
FPS in cities / confined spaces 45-60
I also have a 965 BE amd X4 OCed @ 3.8
BUT it is being held back by the socked AM2 motherboards HTs of 1200mhz (vs 3000-4000mhz on am3)
It also has 4GB (800mhz @ 5-5-5-15)
GTX 280
Performance:
Everything is on "High" (vs very high)
Same resolution of 1440x900
FPS of low to high 30s
Spikes into 50s
Rare drops into the mid/high 20s
Please note with a better motherboard this system should play it as well as the Intel system I listed above, if not a little better.
Hope the info helps someone
Edited by Kaptain, 16 August 2013 - 11:23 PM.
#56
-
-
- 17 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 13 September 2013 - 07:50 AM
MWO Patch Number 1.2.240 (September 3 2013)
HPE-502c-b
N-Alvorix-RS880 Motherboard
Corsair 750TX (750W) PSU
AMD Phenom II X6 1045T Processor
ASUS GTX 660Ti DC2
8GB DDR3 RAM
1TB SATA 7200rpm
64-Bit Windows 7
Background Programs: Sophos Antivirus, Asus GPU Tweak, Samsung Easy Print, NVIDIA experience.
Network Ping average: 100ms
FPS average
-online firefight max settings + high res: 2-12fps
-online firefight lowest settings + low res: 2-12fps
-training grounds: 90-110fps
Something is wrong. Online game starting is fine at 22-25 fps but when I encounter an opponent (regardless of graphical settings) I get low fps and it sticks. CPU isn't maxed out nor the GPU. 16x PCIe 2nd gen on mobo is significantly limiting GPU?
HPE-502c-b
N-Alvorix-RS880 Motherboard
Corsair 750TX (750W) PSU
AMD Phenom II X6 1045T Processor
ASUS GTX 660Ti DC2
8GB DDR3 RAM
1TB SATA 7200rpm
64-Bit Windows 7
Background Programs: Sophos Antivirus, Asus GPU Tweak, Samsung Easy Print, NVIDIA experience.
Network Ping average: 100ms
FPS average
-online firefight max settings + high res: 2-12fps
-online firefight lowest settings + low res: 2-12fps
-training grounds: 90-110fps
Something is wrong. Online game starting is fine at 22-25 fps but when I encounter an opponent (regardless of graphical settings) I get low fps and it sticks. CPU isn't maxed out nor the GPU. 16x PCIe 2nd gen on mobo is significantly limiting GPU?
#57
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 2
- 710 posts
Member
Posted 13 September 2013 - 08:44 AM
Ill do a couple matches with fraps logging the FPS to see EXACTLY what i get but from my experiance and from what i can recall Im Solid at 60 fps 90% fo the time at max settings and downsampling at 2400x1350 resolution.
See this thread about specs.
http://mwomercs.com/...up/page__st__40
Ill up date this post with the rsults but do know that i cant stand screen tearing so it will be capped at 60FPS.
Battle1: Caustic Valley: 8 Min battle: 58-61 fps 59.9 average.
Battle2: Tourmaline Desert: 7min battle: 57-61 fps 59.7 average.
Battle3: Frozen City Night: 9min battle 56-61 fps 59.4 average.
Battle4: Frozen City Night: 2.5min battle: 45-61 fps 57.1 average (had LRMs exploding in face in this one
)
See this thread about specs.
http://mwomercs.com/...up/page__st__40
Ill up date this post with the rsults but do know that i cant stand screen tearing so it will be capped at 60FPS.
Battle1: Caustic Valley: 8 Min battle: 58-61 fps 59.9 average.
Battle2: Tourmaline Desert: 7min battle: 57-61 fps 59.7 average.
Battle3: Frozen City Night: 9min battle 56-61 fps 59.4 average.
Battle4: Frozen City Night: 2.5min battle: 45-61 fps 57.1 average (had LRMs exploding in face in this one
)
Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 13 September 2013 - 09:30 AM.
#58
Posted 29 December 2015 - 12:26 PM
150-175 fps.
Alienware 16gb ram I7 3.3 over clocked to 4.0 GeForcce GTX980
Everything set to MAX res and graphics, 1920 res. Win10
I run it on my iMac under win7, it's a old 2012 i5 iMac 27" w/AMD graphics card 7980M I think
1600x1200 all settings MEDIUM, MSAA I get 48-52 fps. Run's very nicely.
BUT I want to get a occulus Rift - so I ordered the new Alienware machine a week before Christmas.
Alienware 16gb ram I7 3.3 over clocked to 4.0 GeForcce GTX980
Everything set to MAX res and graphics, 1920 res. Win10
I run it on my iMac under win7, it's a old 2012 i5 iMac 27" w/AMD graphics card 7980M I think
1600x1200 all settings MEDIUM, MSAA I get 48-52 fps. Run's very nicely.
BUT I want to get a occulus Rift - so I ordered the new Alienware machine a week before Christmas.
#59
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 1,805 posts
Member
Posted 29 December 2015 - 12:35 PM
Talk about serious necro. Honestly.
Also, your numbers are just what you're randomly seeing. We already know and have documented in multiple, more current threads that your minimums and averages are indeed much lower.
Also, your numbers are just what you're randomly seeing. We already know and have documented in multiple, more current threads that your minimums and averages are indeed much lower.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
