167 replies to this topic

[Catamount]

Ghost142, on 23 April 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

What?? No offence, but you're either trolling me or don't understand CPU's/Processors. I'm not quoting a brand, I'm quoting it's specifications. Quad-Core means it has 4 cores (A core basically being the CPU in it's self) each running at the CPU's specified speed (In my case 2.30GHz). I'm using a Desktop, and aside from my CPU not being 3.2 GHz or more my Quad-Core CPU is still considered nicely above average. To my knowledge the best CPU's currently available are 6 cores running at 3.2 GHz, and that many cores hasn't even been optimised for most games yet. You could debate the semantics of CPU threading and caching, but in the end it's the cores and speeds that matters. (And as a side note: most Laptops that are Quad-Core aren't even running past 2GHz.) I monitor my CPU as well and it has never been maxed out in any of my gaming (Example: Crysis, CoD:4)... MechWarrier: Online also utilizes all the cores evenly and only uses a average of 35% of it's total power spiking only at 50%. Given those statistics a Dual-Core CPU could even keep up. So it's not a CPU issue - period.
Now I really don't want to sound mean, and I'm sorry if this was just a misunderstanding or if I'm at all mistaken, I just want to make sure that I'm clear and don't leave much room to be trolled on if that be the case.

I understand CPUs quite well, in fact, certainly well enough to know you didn't answer the question in that tirade. What model of CPU are you running?

Most quad core CPUs clocked that low are modern are laptop CPUs, like the i7 2820QM or 3610QM (if we're not counting Turbo Boost). You said quad core, not quad threaded, so that leaves out any modern desktop CPUs. In fact, I'm still not sure what CPU you could be running, because even the Core 2 Quad Q6600 was higher clocked than that (2.4ghz).

[ArmageddonKnight]

Sounds like a C2Q Q8200 runs at 2.33ghz.

If so i can safely tell u that it WILL be bottlenecking ur gaming experiance. And is by no means above average.

Unless ur running a good 2nd or 3rd gen I5 or higher, u will likely be getting bottlenecking.

[Sug]

Gremlich Johns, on 20 April 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

If you are getting 25 FPS or higher, you're fine. your brain can't see any real difference over 25,

http://www.100fps.co..._humans_see.htm

[Viper69]

Barbaric Soul, on 20 April 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

As long as it doesn't affect the current highest graphical levels, I have no issue with it. If it hinders my gaming experience, sorry 'bout your luck. Go spend some money or spend more time looking for a better paying job.

Someone wins the **** of the year award!

Let me ask you oh wise sage. How would creating a setting that helps lower end systems effect the current top settings? Also thanks for the financial advice, you have any stock tips?

[ArmageddonKnight]

How?

Well a while back PGI done some runs through each map 'cleaning' them up to improve performance, they reduced the amount of ground clutter thus lowering the load on ur rig. Unfortunatly as good as it was for those with lower performance, it made the game look that little less good. This is just one example of many ways 'performance improving techniques' can degrade the overall high quality looks of a game and thus impact high end users.

[Viper69]

ArmageddonKnight, on 24 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

How?

Well a while back PGI done some runs through each map 'cleaning' them up to improve performance, they reduced the amount of ground clutter thus lowering the load on ur rig. Unfortunatly as good as it was for those with lower performance, it made the game look that little less good. This is just one example of many ways 'performance improving techniques' can degrade the overall high quality looks of a game and thus impact high end users.

I concede your point. I will sacrifice my pretty rocks so more people can play. Ground clutter should be a player side adjustment I would think, that way you can keep your pretty rocks and I can keep my performance.

[frag85]

Its based off the crysis engine. Its going to be graphically demanding, whether it looks the best or not. There are a lot of things going on in the scene which require quite a bit of GPU. The game seems like its been graphically optimized OK, so it comes down to most people I talk to that are getting poor performance are running old or low end hardware, myself included in the graphics department.

I've been using computers most of my life and it has always seemed after 3-4 years you pretty much have to upgrade or suffer poor performance. Sooner if you always buy low-mid range hardware. Depending on your CPU you can probably stretch upgrading your CPU to maybe 6 years or so. I barely manged 6 years out of the Pentium 4 I had from 2003-2009. Performance was getting pretty poor come 2007-2008. That being said, my current graphics cards are from 2009, and playing on mostly Low settings I'm barely getting 45-55FPS in MWO at the resolution I play. Its about time for an upgrade for me. I feel like I've gotten a good run out of my GTX275 setup.

My last several upgrades have been:
2000 Geforce 2 to a GF4 on a 1st gen P4 system $200ish?
2003 P4P800+478 socket P4 + 9800 Pro $1000
2006 X1950 Pro $300
2009 X58+i7 920+GTX275 $1000
2010 2nd GTX275 when I went back to running triplehead-3840x1024
2012 Z77+3570k (because my x58 board died and I could sell my 920 for more than a 3570k cost) $0
2013 New Video card probably this summer. probably spend $500-600.

This is based on the biggest bang for the buck upgrades and builds. I never saw the sense in spending 1/2 as much for something that won't cut it in a year or two (entry level CPU/GPUs), or spending 2x-3x as much for something that is 10% faster (flagship high end products).
I could probably manage to upgrade parts every year or two selling my old parts and spending the same $/year on average (about $300/yr). But if its not broke, don't fix it. I apply this to upgrades because I know what I have now, and what it can do. When you break it down, if you can save $10/week towards a computer, you should be more than capable of playing MWO. If you can do that, every 2 years you could build yourself a good upper mid-range PC.

Edited by frag85, 24 April 2013 - 11:47 AM.

[ArmageddonKnight]

Personaly im running on a 4 to 5 year cycle. Buying high/top end stuff that lasts, aswell as giving awsome performance for th 1st couple years.

I spend around £2000 on a rig, and it last 4 to 5 years with 'maybe' 1 upgrade that will stradle the period going from 1 rig to the next. that would be the GPU.

My last rig was a £2000 Dual GTX 8800, Intel QX6850 OC'd rig, it lasted just under 4 years before i replaced the 2 8800's with a 560ti, about a year later i built my current rig. The 560ti is still here with me waiting for the Nvida 780 to release which as of the 23rd seems like it will be coming out sometime in May
Once i have that its essentialy done and my total spending will be around £1700.
Im thinking about getitng a dedicated Soundcard, the Asus Xonar D2X, and replacing my aging Logitech g5 mouse with a MadCatz R.A.T MMO 7 along with its G.L.I.D.E 9 mouse pad. At which point my total spending will be closer to £1900.

Future plans then are to OC the CPU from the 4.6ghz air OC i have now, to a 5ghz OC on a custom water loop when its needed which may well be in 4 or so years. may get another year of use out of it then.


All in all it works out at a simular price to buying a uper mid end gaming rig every 2 years.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 24 April 2013 - 02:59 PM.

[AdultPuppetShow]

Ghost142, on 23 April 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Ouch! You should be getting much better. If what I read is right and it does have 400 Stream Processors, and a 900MHz Memory Clock, you should be getting like 30FPS.

I've got an A8 4500m with an onboard HD7640g with a crossfired 7670m. If he should be getting 30 FPS, then there's no way I should be getting 10 FPS like I am now.

The biggest problem is both the A6 and the A8 aren't exactly heavy in the raw processing power department, and due to CPU bottle-necking and a lack of engine optimization thusfar means that the graphics aren't the issue, it's the background computations that are slowing things down.

[Saxophonist]

I said yes, simply because I think the game needs an influx of new players. I'd also like higher settings available for people like me who are hanging out at 60+ FPS.

[Vxheous]

My home system is a i5 3670K @ 4.6Ghz, GTX 570, and I run 1920x1080 ultra with every, 60 fps constant with v-sync. My laptop is a i7 2630QM, GTX 560M, and I run 1920x1080 low, and my fps is around 40. When I overclock my GTX 560M, It jumps to about 50-55. Prior to the previous few patches, both systems were constant 60 fps v-sync, but now the laptop definately plays a lot worse. Considering that I've only had the Asus G74sx for about a year and a half and it's a gaming laptop, it's pretty bad that I have to run it on low.

[Nihilus84]

Vxheous, on 28 April 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

My home system is a i5 3670K @ 4.6Ghz, GTX 570, and I run 1920x1080 ultra with every, 60 fps constant with v-sync. My laptop is a i7 2630QM, GTX 560M, and I run 1920x1080 low, and my fps is around 40. When I overclock my GTX 560M, It jumps to about 50-55. Prior to the previous few patches, both systems were constant 60 fps v-sync, but now the laptop definately plays a lot worse. Considering that I've only had the Asus G74sx for about a year and a half and it's a gaming laptop, it's pretty bad that I have to run it on low.

This is the issue, It's pretty clear most people including myself having poor FPS performance (sub 60fps) are running MWO on laptops and since the last big patch, mobile graphics chip performance plummeted. I was originally running at 60+ and now it's dropped to <40 on my Nvidia GT 555m, i7-2630QM CPU.

It must be a driver related issue with the mobile chips, they changed/added something and it's either not being tested sufficiently on laptops by their QA or they deemed it a worthwhile loss of performance to warrant it. Either way it's annoying considering my laptop runs Skyrim and other modern games at over 60 FPS on higher settings, and could this game until the patch.

As for the argument about not being able to notice 25+ frames, that's a pretty ludicrous and futile suggestion to make. Perhaps some people may not be able to notice, (how do we know we even see the same colours?) but one things for sure, the difference between 40-60+ fps (Vsync off) is clear as day to me on any game and it manifests it's difference in the smoothness of the game play and responsiveness. Try playing at 10 fps and see how well you can pilot your mech Anything up to about 60 fps makes a big difference and in some games even higher.

The above is perhaps apparent to most people when comparing COD to Battlefield 3 on the XBox, the difference in smoothness of gameplay is large (or should be) because COD sacrifices nicer graphics for 60fps, whereas BF3 looks nicer but runs at only 30fps.

Edited by Nihilus84, 01 May 2013 - 10:23 PM.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

I am playing at low and even lower due .cfg file on 40-60 fps so it is ok for me so long as PGI allow us to use .cfg files...or add DX11 ( I am able to play some high graphics games like Metro or Crysis 2 on high with 20-30 fps(only low I have resolution due old monitor) but I have to play MWO on low .cfg setting just bcuz of DX9 and my processor is bottleneck :x .

[GhstWlkr]

I think what many of you have forgotten is the CORPORATE side of this discussion. The majority of computer users and casual gamers do NOT own rigs for power gaming. They own rigs they bought at Wal-Mart to surf the web. To exclude these players would be to exclude a HUGE paying customer base, those who are willing to play, and pay for mc to keep up with the big dogs, but not shell out a couple grand for a big rig. And before you say it, no, I'm not one of them. I'm running Alienware, and handle the game just fine. I'm just saying not everyone is me, and the casual players deserve the opportunity to spend their hard earned money on MWO just like the rest of us.

[Bad Karma 308]

GhstWlkr, on 01 May 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

I think what many of you have forgotten is the CORPORATE side of this discussion. The majority of computer users and casual gamers do NOT own rigs for power gaming. They own rigs they bought at Wal-Mart to surf the web. To exclude these players would be to exclude a HUGE paying customer base,

So where should they make the cut off then?

How about we go back to the Rivia TnT days? An sx33 would be loads of fun.

Perhaps there are a few Tandy 1000 users still out there who'd like to play? Should we all give up our modern PCs and go back to a T1000 level of graphics....hmmm I sure miss the days of 8 bit graphics.

If you're playing against someone who's machine can't render something like a PPC shot in game, is it fair to them that they just got cored but couldn't see the incoming round?

How about when destructible environments come into play. What if someone is hiding behind a hill of earth that is being obliterated until they are fully exposed. The victim is now dead to rights but because his machine can't handle rendering the destroyed hill, he still thinks he's still protected, when in reality he's not. Would that be fair to him?

According to Steam's own hardware scan from their user base, less than half of the gamers PCs are DX11 capable. Which means that if it also reflects a similar amount of MWO gamers they may well lose out when the DX11 jump is made. For the reasons stated in the above paragraph, DX11 & DX9 users don't play well together.

So, I'm sorry, but this is PC gaming. And unlike consoles who's technology hangs around for 5-10 years, the advance of technology in PCs marches on to its on rhythm and waits for nobody.

Edited by Bad Karma 308, 02 May 2013 - 04:27 AM.

[shotokan5]

Look, here is a little info that might help. Many of us can not afford expensive hardware or video cards. Years ago I spoke to the big brains of the computer world. First the human brain normally sees between 20 to 25 fps. Do you see any lag in the real world? No, If you want 100 fps because they say its better rubbish. Yes, the brain can process it faster than that but it throws out trash. If you can't get the frame rate you need which is around 30 to 40 constant its ok. Servers will be placed in closer locations in the future which will help a lot. Having a gen 3 system why should I put together a system and have to watch the Howdy Duddy show because people cant wait till development is finished. Put away 20. US a month or more if you can. Talk to a friend or professional that really knows system he will tell you how much a self built will cost and what you need. I even can help having built systems before most people were born on this post. New Egg is a great place to start. If you have good credit they can help. Their is an old saying . You can whine about it or do something about it which are you? This post was not put here to put anyone down. I was building systems when they had punch cards. Like the big bang theory everyone has their own ideas.

Edited by shotokan5, 03 May 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Lord of All]

shotokan5, on 03 May 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

Look, here is a little info that might help. Many of us can not afford expensive hardware or video cards. Years ago I spoke to the big brains of the computer world. First the human brain normally sees between 20 to 25 fps. Do you see any lag in the real world? No, If you want 100 fps because they say its better rubbish. Yes, the brain can process it faster than that but it throws out trash. If you can't get the frame rate you need which is around 30 to 40 constant its ok. Servers will be placed in closer locations in the future which will help a lot. Having a gen 3 system why should I put together a system and have to watch the Howdy Duddy show because people cant wait till development is finished. Put away 20. US a month or more if you can. Talk to a friend or professional that really knows system he will tell you how much a self built will cost and what you need. I even can help having built systems before most people were born on this post. New Egg is a great place to start. If you have good credit they can help. Their is an old saying . You can whine about it or do something about it which are you? This post was not put here to put anyone down. I was building systems when they had punch cards. Like the big bang theory everyone has their own ideas.

Those Big Brains are wrong. And I was around during hollerith code myself. Yes the brain can only see a limited fps and is modified by blur and fill ins but it is not synched to the games 25fps. Maybe if you get a neural interface and synch those frames then you will not notice a difference.

[ArmageddonKnight]

Oh for crying out loud how can this debate about what the human eye still be full of such BS.

Look.... what 1 brainiac thinks and another thinks matters not. What matter is what THE PERSON PLAYING THE GAME can see. If they see a difference, then they see a difference, NO ONE can say otherwise. Its like me saying "i see a difference between 50 and 60", and som1 saying" no u dont", who is that person to tell me what I can and cannot see, he/she can not see through my eyes

So enough with that talk, each peson can see for themselves. Its not a bad thing if u cant see the difference, and its not a good thing that you can, each person is different. If u cant tell the difference and are fine with 25 FPS ..good for u, u dont need a all powerfull computer, if u can see the difference then great..but ull need more power behind ur rig. Just remember one thing, the eye/brain doesnt work in FPS so all this talk is kinda pointless anyway

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 03 May 2013 - 07:41 AM.

[Quinn Allard]

Heres a practical test for you limited fps guys. Go for a ride in a bone stock Mustang GT (the new 5.0), then immediatly afterward ride in a bone stock Corvette ZR1. The ZR1 might take a wee bit more effort to get the power down, however once the effort has been made the difference in performance between the two is night and day. Thats FPS. The Mustang is your 25fps. To the normal person (my wife) that is scary fast. The ZR1 is your 100fps, to a normal person its Scream-Your-Guts-Out fast. To someone who has driven fast cars, the Mustang is just meh, the ZR1 is Holy Sh*t That Was Fast! To us gamers, thats the difference between 25fps and last years tech, and a beast machine running latest and greatest at 100+fps. Is the ZR1 more expensive? You bet. More expensive to Insure? You bet. Worth. Every. Penny.

[Juicebox12]

Quinn Allard, on 03 May 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Heres a practical test for you limited fps guys. Go for a ride in a bone stock Mustang GT (the new 5.0), then immediatly afterward ride in a bone stock Corvette ZR1. The ZR1 might take a wee bit more effort to get the power down, however once the effort has been made the difference in performance between the two is night and day. Thats FPS. The Mustang is your 25fps. To the normal person (my wife) that is scary fast. The ZR1 is your 100fps, to a normal person its Scream-Your-Guts-Out fast. To someone who has driven fast cars, the Mustang is just meh, the ZR1 is Holy Sh*t That Was Fast! To us gamers, thats the difference between 25fps and last years tech, and a beast machine running latest and greatest at 100+fps. Is the ZR1 more expensive? You bet. More expensive to Insure? You bet. Worth. Every. Penny.

Worst analogy ever.....


The human eye on AVERAGE can see 60 fps. TV is at 24 fps, but i personally hate anything less then around 100 because i can tell the difference. Everyone is different, this includes eyesight amongst other features. And i don't get why all these people want gaming companies to go backwards with technology. If you cant afford to play pc games at a reasonable frame rate then please stick to consoles. The advancement in graphics push hardware advancement. You cant make an engine support ridiculously low end hardware settings and high settings without there being issues. I have friends who run this on non gaming laptops that are 1-2 years old with no issues at 30 fps on medium on high res. Advance, not regress.

Edited by Juicebox12, 03 May 2013 - 07:46 PM.