19 replies to this topic

[Alukard X]

I'm using old Pentuim Dual-Core e5400 (@3300). (4Gb RAM, Amd 6770, W7-64)
Before last patch game was using my CPU for about 50%, but after last patch it was rised to 98% and I get lower (unplayable FPS) from min.22fps(before patch) to min.4fps(after patch).
Many people in game chat write's same thing.
P.s. I'm really sorry for my English =(

[Longtom]

I have the same problem as this guy, and my processor is better, plus it is 20% overclocked. I can run Crysis 2 with no issues, but with MWO my CPU pegs out at 100% during a match with 4-10 FPS. My processor is 70% simply sitting in mechlab staring at my mech.

Something is wrong with the game, and until it is fixed, I can not play.

[Henchman 24]

I have a HTPC I have to use from time to time with a Phenom II x2 560BE, 4g of ddr3 1600, and an HD5750 1g, and I never see even yellow numbers on the F9 FPS meter, it's all in unplayable territory now, before it was harsh...but somewhat playable...now, no way.

In stark contrast...Planetside 2, when turned on low, or medium....plays exteremly well, even in some big fights.

[Sen]

2nd post I've seen like this today. Again, there is only one single 100% promise it'll fix it solution guys:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116504

I know it's not what anyone wants to hear, but it's evolution. . . people have been hearalding the arrival of multi core gaming for at least the last 7 or 8 years that I can remember. . it's only going to get worse from here on out.

[Vulpesveritas]

Sen, on 22 November 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

2nd post I've seen like this today. Again, there is only one single 100% promise it'll fix it solution guys:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116504

I know it's not what anyone wants to hear, but it's evolution. . . people have been hearalding the arrival of multi core gaming for at least the last 7 or 8 years that I can remember. . it's only going to get worse from here on out.

And for the future, plan ahead and get a better processor for the future in my opinion. And better computing for today for non-gaming workloads as well.
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819113284

[Sen]

In your opinion: But since you're trolling, let me copy and paste from the last thread I just answered you in : )

[color=#959595]But you wanted benchmarks here, so let's throw those down, shall we?[/color]

http://www.hitechleg...ll=&limitstart=

http://www.tomshardw...eview,3328.html

http://techreport.co...sor-reviewed/14

[color=#959595]Lemme throw a quote from that last link, because it's particularly relevant here:[/color]

[color=#959595]"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly [/color]bad[color=#959595] for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition."[/color]

[color=#959595]But wait, because I *DID* read [and re-read] the O/P's post. . let's review what part he's ACTUALLY LOOKING AT USING:[/color]

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819113286

[color=#959595]Vizshera FX 6300[/color]

http://www.techspot....6300/page8.html

[color=#959595]The relevant text here:[/color]

[color=#959595]"[/color][color=#959595]With AMD's aggressive pricing, the updated FX series isn't necessarily in an indefensible position against Ivy Bridge when purely comparing speed and price, but it's not exactly an open and shut case either. The FX-6300 may offer 22% more performance than the i3-3220 for about the same price, but our Piledriver-powered test rig also consumed around 86% more power than the Ivy Bridge machine (227 watts versus 116 watts).[/color]

[color=#959595]The bottom line is that the Piledriver FX series provides a quick, affordable upgrade for folks still using lower-end K10 hardware, but there isn't a lot to see for those running high-end [/color]Phenom II X4[color=#959595] and [/color]X6 processors[color=#959595], regardless of how cheap the new parts may be. For those building a fresh rig from scratch, [/color]Ivy Bridge[color=#959595] will likely still be more attractive thanks to its superior single thread performance and efficiency."[/color]


you offer opinion: I offer FACT. i'd love nothing better than to see AMD get competitive again, but it just isn't happening. . epecially when you factor power draw into the equasion

Edited by Sen, 23 November 2012 - 05:56 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Sen, on 23 November 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

In your opinion: But since you're trolling, let me copy and paste from the last thread I just answered you in : )

[color=#959595]But you wanted benchmarks here, so let's throw those down, shall we?[/color]

http://www.hitechleg...ll=&limitstart=

http://www.tomshardw...eview,3328.html

http://techreport.co...sor-reviewed/14

[color=#959595]Lemme throw a quote from that last link, because it's particularly relevant here:[/color]

[color=#959595]"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly [/color]bad[color=#959595] for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition."[/color]

[color=#959595]But wait, because I *DID* read [and re-read] the O/P's post. . let's review what part he's ACTUALLY LOOKING AT USING:[/color]

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819113286

[color=#959595]Vizshera FX 6300[/color]

http://www.techspot....6300/page8.html

[color=#959595]The relevant text here:[/color]

[color=#959595]"[/color][color=#959595]With AMD's aggressive pricing, the updated FX series isn't necessarily in an indefensible position against Ivy Bridge when purely comparing speed and price, but it's not exactly an open and shut case either. The FX-6300 may offer 22% more performance than the i3-3220 for about the same price, but our Piledriver-powered test rig also consumed around 86% more power than the Ivy Bridge machine (227 watts versus 116 watts).[/color]

[color=#959595]The bottom line is that the Piledriver FX series provides a quick, affordable upgrade for folks still using lower-end K10 hardware, but there isn't a lot to see for those running high-end [/color]Phenom II X4[color=#959595] and [/color]X6 processors[color=#959595], regardless of how cheap the new parts may be. For those building a fresh rig from scratch, [/color]Ivy Bridge[color=#959595] will likely still be more attractive thanks to its superior single thread performance and efficiency."[/color]


you offer opinion: I offer FACT. i'd love nothing better than to see AMD get competitive again, but it just isn't happening. . epecially when you factor power draw into the equasion

I'm not trolling, I am giving personal opinion. Power draw isn't a huge deal for buyers in the USA. We're talking a user running 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 on the difference between an i5 and an FX-8350 spending less than $5 more on their energy bill, unless all they're doing in their time on their PC is super high-end games and benchmarks, and at that point they don't care about power consumption unless they fall into a very small minority of benchmarkers who don't overclock. . Not a huge deal for the much, much higher multi-threaded performance for future applications. You yourself said "it's only going to get worse from here." And it's true, games and all applications are becoming more and more multithreaded as time passes, and this trend is only going to continue. For future use there is a distinct advantage to the FX-8350. Even in modern and older workloads for gaming, in the vast, vast majority of cases you won't see a difference even in lightly threaded scenarios, as an FX-8350 won't bottleneck a GPU enough for you to hit less than 60fps due to CPU functionality, and as such unless you're one of the few who have a 120hz monitor while most of us are still running 60hz monitors, and aren't using it for the 3D components of it, you won't notice a difference. Even if you are running said 120hz monitor and no 3D, you're not liable to see much of a difference as it is.

[T Hawk]

You guys are the perfect example of what is wrong with the people from today. The game doesn't use hardware like it should and instead of telling that to the developers again and again so that someday they just have to take care of the problem you go ahead and buy some new oversized processor to make the game run slightly better.

It is their fault that these problems exist because of their sloppy coding and the game would probably run smoothly on way older computers if they'd give a **** about getting their things straight.

Vulpesveritas is right with what he said by the way, AMD processors might have a problem with power consumption, but in the end you're hardly noticing it on your bills and that is what counts.

Edited by T Hawk, 24 November 2012 - 12:30 AM.

[Devolve or DIE]

Henchman 24
<p class="author_info">

Member

• 
  
• [color=#e5740f]Elite Founder[/color]
  
• 
  
• 278 posts

• LocationRhode Island

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:50 PM
I have a HTPC I have to use from time to time with a Phenom II x2 560BE, 4g of ddr3 1600, and an HD5750 1g, and I never see even yellow numbers on the F9 FPS meter, it's all in unplayable territory now, before it was harsh...but somewhat playable...now, no way.

In stark contrast...Planetside 2, when turned on low, or medium....plays exteremly well, even in some big fights.


this is exactly my situation, prior to the last patch I was getting playable frame rates out of this game. That is no longer the case.
I have also played Planetside2 since closed beta, had some frame rate issues before,
now?
That game runs sweetly, even in HUGE battles.
I can only hope that the Coders repair the issue, it is NOT A HARDWARE ISSUE. Please quit shilling for your favorite processor, it makes you look like a fool.
As you may or may not know, they are easily parted with their money.

[Gherkin]

Exactly the same problem here,
running an e8400 (c2d) @ 3.600MHz

As soon as the battle begins I'm at 98% with 10-25fps, and as soon as the actual fighting starts I drop to 3-5fps.
Tried reverting the OC (3Ghz) and also increasing it to 3.8Mhz but northing changed at all.

Conclusion: the Games performance is bad and the Devs should feel bad.

[Aznpersuasion89]

i have never had any unplayable FPS issues. something has to be wrong with your hardware guys. my rig is in my sig and i AWLAYS get atleast 30 FPS with ~50% GPU load. my bet is old hardware not suited for this game. simple

[Vulpesveritas]

Aznpersuasion89, on 24 November 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

i have never had any unplayable FPS issues. something has to be wrong with your hardware guys. my rig is in my sig and i AWLAYS get atleast 30 FPS with ~50% GPU load. my bet is old hardware not suited for this game. simple

it's highly CPU intensive (compared to most games) plus it's coded for quad cores and above. So it makes sense that dual cores are struggling.

[xenoglyph]

Hell, I have a QX9650 @ 3.8 GHz and an AMD 6950 and the game is barely playable for me sometimes.

[riteus]

There is something wrong with this game. I have Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450, 8GB DDR2, nVidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB DDR3. It is more than enough horsepower to run any game.

When I first played Mechwarrior Online, it ran fine with my cpu used at 40%. This was within the first 5 patches. After the Death Knell patch the performance of the game slipped. And now I get terrible framerate with my computer using 80-90% cpu.

[cSand]

riteus, on 01 March 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

There is something wrong with this game. I have Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450, 8GB DDR2, nVidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB DDR3. It is more than enough horsepower to run any game.

Well, it is enough horsepower to -run- any game.. it's definitely aging my friend

[Davila Sombre]

Since i've upgraded to my new baby - i7 3770k, 16Gb RAM and 690GTX, i have no probs with ingame freezes and other buggy "features", that i had met with my old PC. I think that this game is not optimized well. It uses alot of PC resources, that it shouldn't.

[Thorqemada]

riteus, on 01 March 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

There is something wrong with this game. I have Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450, 8GB DDR2, nVidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB DDR3. It is more than enough horsepower to run any game.

When I first played Mechwarrior Online, it ran fine with my cpu used at 40%. This was within the first 5 patches. After the Death Knell patch the performance of the game slipped. And now I get terrible framerate with my computer using 80-90% cpu.

That was a fine system in its days but for today games it really needs a graphic performance boost desperately.

[Phaesphoros]

(oh well got some problems with my browser and quoting)
@riteus: I go a similar setup; Q9450, 4 GB DDR2, 8800GTX, but swapped graphics card due to the "whistle" noise for a GTX 460. MWO runs so-so at lowest settings, I'd say 40 fps average with drops to 20 in some situations, 60 in the mechlab.

Try some 1 to 2 year old graphics card, should be cheap and improve your performance dramatically. (iirc Q9450 is from 2008, 8800GT from 2007 - it's old)

Edited by Phaesphoros, 02 March 2013 - 04:02 AM.

[riteus]

While my graphics card might not be the best, it is adequate to run the game. My system monitor reports that I'm consuming 80%+ of my cpu and doesn't mention my graphics card being the limitation. This was never the case prior to one of the patches after the New Year. It always used to run fine. Now it just chugs along skipping large frame rates and freezing every now and then. Not sure why a patch ruined the game for me. Definitely makes me NOT want to play anymore and move onto another game, which is incredibly disappointing since I am a lifelong Battletech fan.

[Mercules]

You have a Dual Core Processor. Upgrade. I assembled a whole new system specifically to play this game.