Jump to content

Is There Anyway For Me To Break More Then 30 Fps With This Setup?


17 replies to this topic

#1 HBizzle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 522 posts
  • LocationDC

Posted 19 October 2013 - 12:14 PM

Currently have a i5-3210M @ 2.5
8 GB Ram
Nvidia GT 630M
Windows 8

On low I can get up to around 40 FPS, but nothing more. On medium I bounce above and below 30 FPS.

This month I was able to run the Battlefield 4 beta at over 30 FPS on High settings with this same laptop, so why the hell can't I do that with an older game engine that is less graphically intense and has shorter draw distance.

So does anyone know anything else I can do to improve my in game performance? This is ridiculous that it can't run higher FPS and it is an older engine.

#2 Grrzoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Partisan
  • 496 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 01:40 PM

actually they are using the newest version for cry-engine. but it does run on dx9, most likely you will see more inprovement when they put dx11 in.

I would recommend overclocking ona laptop but that hardware does have room.

i would think that you can turn it on low, and turna few things up your performance will actually get better. The main issue with the mobile graphics option is the shared memory storage with the on board ram. Try turning off background programs that use the ram when you play and possibly you can eek out a few more fps.

#3 Edustaja

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 730 posts
  • LocationFinland

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:05 PM

What's worse Is that I get 20 fps on a GTX-560 with a AMD FX-6100 on low...

#4 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:22 PM

View PostHBizzle, on 19 October 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Currently have a i5-3210M @ 2.5
8 GB Ram
Nvidia GT 630M
Windows 8

On low I can get up to around 40 FPS, but nothing more. On medium I bounce above and below 30 FPS.

This month I was able to run the Battlefield 4 beta at over 30 FPS on High settings with this same laptop, so why the hell can't I do that with an older game engine that is less graphically intense and has shorter draw distance.

So does anyone know anything else I can do to improve my in game performance? This is ridiculous that it can't run higher FPS and it is an older engine.



You have a low-end mobile GPU and an older mobile CPU, 30 FPS is pretty good for that setup. You could lower all the graphics settings. Also, Cry Engine 3 is pretty cutting edge.

#5 KableGuy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 229 posts
  • LocationThe left armpit of the United states

Posted 19 October 2013 - 10:54 PM

View PostEd Steele, on 19 October 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:



You have a low-end mobile GPU and an older mobile CPU, 30 FPS is pretty good for that setup. You could lower all the graphics settings. Also, Cry Engine 3 is pretty cutting edge.

There is a Cry Engine 4 you know.

#6 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 19 October 2013 - 11:12 PM

View PostBitMonger505, on 19 October 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

There is a Cry Engine 4 you know.


"pretty cutting edge" does not mean the most cutting edge.

#7 Chavette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 12:14 AM

View PostBitMonger505, on 19 October 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

There is a Cry Engine 4 you know.

Its just called CryEngine now and it is fairly easy to update an existing game from CE3.

#8 1Sascha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • LocationMunich, Germany

Posted 20 October 2013 - 01:26 AM

I have an Asus K55J laptop that's around, err, 8 months old. i5 3210M, GTX 635M, 6 GB DDR, Win 8 64.


I occasionally run my strategy games on it, and I'm happy with its performance there (considering it's a non-high-end laptop). Civ 5 runs pretty good on it for example, albeit with a lot of stuff turned down.

But I wouldn't want to run any sort of graphics-intense action game on that thing. I tried out Bioshock Infinite on it once (just to look at the intro, mind you) and it was a borderline slideshow.

My old desktop-PC with its Core2Quad, GTX 460, 2x2 GB DDR2 and messed up Vista-64 installation ran Civ 5, Bioshock Infinite and pretty much everything else a lot better than that laptop. In fact, it ran all my games surprisingly smoothly, considering its age. And that desktop was struggling once MWONL went 12v12. Almost unplayable, even with a lot of eye-candy deactivated.

Quote

This is ridiculous that it can't run higher FPS and it is an older engine.


What do you expect from a setup like this? It's not meant to be a high-end gaming rig, after all. I *guess* before 12v12 it would've been an ok-ish setup, but ever since that patch came out, FPS have gone down quite a bit for everyone. I mean, I'm getting the occasional dips into the reds now on Frozen City with my 2 months old, OCed desktop PC. And while it's not an ultra-high-end PC, that thing should be more than enough to handle this game (i5 4670k, GTX 660, 2x4 GB DDR3, MWONL running from SSD).

Just to put things into perspective...

Passmark bench results for:

GTX630M: 753
GTX635M: 965
GTX460: 2675
GTX 660: 4118

i5 3210M: 3808
i5 4670K: 7530

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/


S.

Edited by 1Sascha, 20 October 2013 - 01:47 AM.


#9 HBizzle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 522 posts
  • LocationDC

Posted 20 October 2013 - 02:39 PM

Let me clear up some misconceptions about this post. I understand this is not a high end gaming pc and dont expect to be able to play on Ultra settings or even high, but this game on an older engine wont even run well on Medium on a year old gaming laptop. Also the GT 630M has a dedicated gig of video ram, it does not share ram with the system.

Now onto my point which it seems most of you lost focus on, why does an engine that has not changed much in the last year run poorer then a more graphically intense engine? I can run high settings on the BF4 Beta and it stays around 30 FPS, on medium it stayed above it all the time. MWO should run better then that being over a year older, and based on a game engine even older then that.

#10 Grrzoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Partisan
  • 496 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 02:49 PM

if you made this post just to complain about the game not running as optimized as bf4 please be aware this is a studio of about (now ) 40 people versus the 200+ that are on the battlefield team each year. Not to mention BF does not create a new engine for every year but merely makes a years worth of updates to it.

trying to compare how this game runs on a laptop that is just entering its second year of production vs. a franchise that has had years, and hundreds of millions of dollars in development , tweaks and optimizations.

in other words it's not a fair comparison.

#11 1Sascha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • LocationMunich, Germany

Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:51 AM

Quote

if you made this post just to complain about the game not running as optimized as bf4 please be aware this is a studio of about (now ) 40 people versus the 200+ that are on the battlefield team each year. Not to mention BF does not create a new engine for every year but merely makes a years worth of updates to it.


Plus MWONL is using a third party engine, not one of their own design nor one that was written with this sort of game in mind.

If this game had been developed by Crytek themselves, I'm sure we'd see a lot less performance issues/hic-ups.

Come to think of it.. the choice of engine is kind of an odd one, considering the scope of BattleTech and it makes me a bit apprehensive regarding the future of this game and where it will be heading. CW is all well and good, but if it's just going to be a layer of "strat-candy" on top of the same repetitive, limited gameplay we have right now ...


S.

#12 The Gunman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 220 posts
  • LocationLow Orbit

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:47 AM

View PostHBizzle, on 20 October 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Let me clear up some misconceptions about this post. I understand this is not a high end gaming pc and dont expect to be able to play on Ultra settings or even high, but this game on an older engine wont even run well on Medium on a year oldgaming laptop. Also the GT 630M has a dedicated gig of video ram, it does not share ram with the system.


GT630M?

Gaming Laptop?

Your joking right?

Edited by The Gunman, 22 October 2013 - 04:31 AM.


#13 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 21 October 2013 - 06:25 AM

Alright, no need for derision guys :)

OP, the problem is that a even high-end laptop is only high end for a laptop. It's low-mid end on the overall spectrum. Your machine is respectably decent, for a laptop, but despite what you no doubt paid for it, that still makes it fairly low-end, overall.

My "gaming laptop" is old now, from early 2010, but when I bought it it was $1150. It was a QUARTER as powerful in gaming as the $1000 desktop I built alongside it (Mobility Radeon HD 5730 vs 2x HD 5770).


By their very nature, laptops are "spare nothing for mobility" machines. You cannot expect them to give good gaming performance, especially in the midrange, and especially after some aging. This game runs about as well as I'd expect. Yes, I know, you get X performance, at A settings in other game, H, but this isn't other game H. BF4 is a console-born shooter intended to run on midrange APU setups with a highly optimized engine; MWO is a PC exclusive running on a very-demanding, very non-optimized engine setup, in DX9, where CE3 makes computers cry, and an aging midrange laptop is just not goi g to produce stellar performance there, plain and simple.

If you were shooting for performance, a desktop was the thing to get for that money., and would have done well, for that money. If you're patient, DX11 will probably improve things, a lot. It's a much more efficient API and CE3 especially runs much nicer with it. In the meantime, however, complaining that you're on a laptop will not alleviate the situation. It's the compromise you made for mobility.

#14 ArmageddonKnight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 710 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 06:29 AM

OP i beleve ur being rather delusional on what u expect your laptop to handle.

I do not mean to insult you or anything here so please odnt take it that way.

You really need to go online and readu p on the performance and the difference between the grpahics cards available and also between laptop hardware and desktop hardware.

A 630m is NOT a gaming card by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.videocard...h_end_gpus.html
Take a gander, u see how far down the list it is.

IMO the lowets score u woudl want ur GPU to have is around 1900 ...ur current one gets 754.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 21 October 2013 - 06:34 AM.


#15 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 21 October 2013 - 06:48 AM

Frankly I'm not sure how the OP is getting 30fps on "high" in BF4 on that GPU in the first place, unless that's not an average.

Tom's Hardware's testing suggests his laptop should struggle to manage a 30fps average on low at 720P

http://www.tomshardw...nce,3634-4.html


Again, OP, I'm sorry but it's the nature of laptops. Based on current pricing, I'm guessing you paid $700-$800 for that machine, maybe $600 if you got one hell of a deal. If you wanted that money to net gaming performance, it would have on a desktop, but not any laptop in that range. This is why I haven't updated my gaming laptop since 2010. I can no longer justify the $1000 minimums it takes to get passable performance.

#16 Epic Fail

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 82 posts
  • LocationIowa

Posted 21 October 2013 - 08:33 AM

View PostHBizzle, on 19 October 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Currently have a i5-3210M @ 2.5
8 GB Ram
Nvidia GT 630M
Windows 8

On low I can get up to around 40 FPS, but nothing more. On medium I bounce above and below 30 FPS.

This month I was able to run the Battlefield 4 beta at over 30 FPS on High settings with this same laptop, so why the hell can't I do that with an older game engine that is less graphically intense and has shorter draw distance.

So does anyone know anything else I can do to improve my in game performance? This is ridiculous that it can't run higher FPS and it is an older engine.


I run a 580M just fine... 60 FPS with most all on ultra....

Go into your Nvidia settings and let the game decide for everything. Adding all that extra Jazz on top of the game's rendering.

I have AA turned off, because let's be honest, even on my big monitor I am whipping around so much that the lines never look straight anyway....
But overall I get a solid 60 unless I am zoomed all the way in and face to face with a mech launching something that does particle fuzz., then I will drop down to about 40 or so.


Also as a gaming laptop owner, Never buy a gaming laptop, they are worthless in about a year... Luckily mine is a "desktop replacement" and I payed enough to make some people barf. (thanks to my company for the purchase!)



Further Edit***

WHAT UP BIZZLE! I didnt even ralise it. Next time you are in TS hit me up and I will try and give you what hand I can. I have a couple tricks we can try for us HHGD'ers

<S>

Edited by Epic Fail, 21 October 2013 - 08:46 AM.


#17 HBizzle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 522 posts
  • LocationDC

Posted 21 October 2013 - 04:44 PM

I am aware of everyone's points, but the fact the game is not optimized says a lot about the development process.

#18 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 22 October 2013 - 06:24 AM

Yes. It says they emphasized getting it up and running for the most people as soon as possible via a DX9 client, instead of emphasizing people being able to play at 1337 settings on underwhelming hardware.

When DX11 comes along, the engine will behave much more nicely, and that will matter a lot more than small performance tweaks, but were I them, with their budget, I would have started with DX9, too. Had they not, and started with the better, but less accessible API, you STILL would not get good performance on that hardware.

I understand that laptop limitations are frustrating; I've dealt with them more than most. There is, however, no sense in trying to blame the MWO devs for that. You should be glad you're cheating unrealistic performance out of BF4 somehow, but that is not a basis for comparison with other games, especially because your machine should struggle in that game on low, let alone "high".

Edited by Catamount, 22 October 2013 - 06:25 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users