31 replies to this topic

[Lord Letto]

I will be useing a EVGA GTX 560Ti 2GB I paid $120 Canadian for with my build, paired with a FX-4100 at 4.2-4.4GHz on Stock Voltage and 8 Gb Kingston HyperX 1.6GHz DDR3 Ram, Expecting Big things from it.

[Goose]

ICUBurn, on 04 August 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

a 660 ti is what i have and im running everything maxed at 60-70 fps at 1080. i believe the bare minimum for decent would be a 650 ti or a 7770.

That's good to hear, but I don't know how receptive any of these guys are to a $200 card.

I think I'll stick with recommending the 650 Ti BOOST w/2GB …

[Catamount]

I actually have to revise my earlier statements about MWO's current GPU requirement.

Based on what I've seen from my laptop (which used to play MWO perfectly at lower settings) and what I've heard from others, it appears that the minimums I gave are only about half to two thirds what's required to run the game at present. I don't think it'll stay this intensive, since it hasn't been before, and since various optimizations and DX11 should be forthcoming especially since some of the reason for the performance problems are known, but still, all of that said, MWO requires a fairly decent GPU just to by physically playable.

I wouldn't recommend anything below the equivalent performance of a Radeon HD 6670 until they get the performance problems sorted, which we can only hope they'll succeed at, and relatively soon.

Edited by Catamount, 12 August 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[Goose]

Yeah, well: Now that an i7-920 with a GTX680SC is a low spec box, I can't recommend anything.

Here's hoping they hotfix the hotfix …

[Bloodshed Romance]

Goose, on 12 August 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Yeah, well: Now that an i7-920 with a GTX680SC is a low spec box, I can't recommend anything.

Here's hoping they hotfix the hotfix …

that doesn't sound normal... at all....
if this is your CPU http://ark.intel.com/products/37147
it may be old (i'm not familiar with that one) but it doesn't seem like it would be a low spec system.. you sure your GPU is in a X16 slot on your board??? it might physically be a x16 but does the board support x16???

[Goose]

You're a good fella for asking, but trust me: It's that Damn Patch …

Edited by Goose, 13 August 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Catamount]

Goose, on 12 August 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Yeah, well: Now that an i7-920 with a GTX680SC is a low spec box, I can't recommend anything.

Here's hoping they hotfix the hotfix …

Well the CPU is definitely sounding like the weak link there, since my 7970OC+3570k@4.2 runs the game at max at 1080P, though granted it's down to 45fps

Is your 920 OCed at all? Could you OC it to squeeze performance out of it?

Edited by Catamount, 12 August 2013 - 07:27 PM.

[Farix]

Bloodshed Romance, on 12 August 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

that doesn't sound normal... at all....
if this is your CPU http://ark.intel.com/products/37147
it may be old (i'm not familiar with that one) but it doesn't seem like it would be a low spec system.. you sure your GPU is in a X16 slot on your board??? it might physically be a x16 but does the board support x16???

Just for comparisons, the i7-920 has a PassMark benchmark score of 5,023. The second gen i5-2300 had a score of 5,211 while the more popular i5-2500K, has a score of 6,385. All three of these processors have 4 cores. So just because it is called an "i7" doesn't mean a whole lot.

[Kaptain]

I know of atleast 4 computers running GTX280s, settings on high, getting FPS in the 30s-40s.

Spikes into the 60s and drops in the high 20s. Very playable.

CPU looks to be the limiting factor on every machine I have tested.

EDIT: Did some more testing and:
Q6700 @3.5ghz
4gb 1066 5-5-5-15 Ram
GTX280

Everything on Very High @ 1440x900 (until I replace the inverter in my main monitor)
FPS= High 30s-Low 40s most of the time
Sometimes Seeing 45-60fps on some maps
Rare drops into the low 30s.

So a refurbished GTX280 for $90 will play the game great so long as the rest of the system (cpu/ram/board) are not holding it back.

Edited by Kaptain, 16 August 2013 - 07:06 PM.

[StainlessSR]

StainlessSR, on 04 August 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

My system which is no great powerhouse but plays well,

I3 2100
hd6770 1g GDDR5
8g ram
1440 x 900
Fairly solid 30fps avg dips to 18 in a total furball (8+ mechs in close range brawl)
everything high except:
Enviroment = low
Anti-Aliasing = PostAA

Spoiler

Unfortunately, what card you recommend will vary upon several factors. What cpu is being used, how much system memory is installed, what is the budget, what is the target resolution that they are looking for, how tech savy is the person (can they or will they be willing to use a custom user.cfg) And last but not least, what you may consider decent or good fps may not be what others consider decent or good.

A great CPU can somewhat make up for a lesser GPU in still giving decent fps.

Unfortunately, even a titan will not help a weak CPU give decent fps as MWO is heavily CPU dependent.

Less than 4Gb memory won't work well (if at all), 6-8 with a 64bit OS is really needed but 4Gb on a 32bit OS can scrape by usually.

Most importantly, how much can they spend, telling someone with a budget of $150 to get a dual titan does nothing to help that person, also you have to realize that quite a few players are not in the United States and may not have access to the same range of products at the same cost as US consumers would.

The higher the resolution (that you want to run the game at), the more exponentially the stress on the computer (CPU/GPU), lower resolutions can get away with higher settings on the same equipment.(Blatently copy/pasted from here [post #4] since the poster had it so right)

Spoiler

it can be quantified numerically, actually.
1080: 1920 x1080 = 2073600
720: 1280 x 720 = 921600
480: 852 x 480 = 408960
As you can see, 720p is roughly 2.25 times the pixel count of 480p, whereas 1080p is roughly 2.25 times the pixel count of 720p. That means that you're looking at effectively the same jump in resolution from 720p ->1080p as you are from 480p -> 720p. That's a HUGE leap in terms of the amount of detail a program has to render. A good example would be take a game running on your PC, set the resolution to 1280x720 and record a demo with a fps counter running, then run the same demo back at 1920x1080 and look at the fps. I guarantee you will see a huge drop in performance.

You can use the user.cfg to change several variables that are not changeable in the group sliders offered in the options menu. This may allow a sub-par system to give decent performance at a given resolution but it requires testing of each changed variable to see if it actually helps or hinders average/min fps. A long process and not for the non tech savy as there really isn't any one size fixes all.

I recently updated my CPU to an I5 keeping the same ram and GPU. At same settings was at 58-60fps with with dips into mid 40's. With everything maxed I am running ~35-40 fps with dips to 28 in furball. (everything in full windowed mode)
Hope this helps.

[Goose]

Kaptain, on 15 August 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

… drops in the high 20s. Very playable.

Bla …

[Kaptain]

Goose, on 15 August 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Bla …

You may scoff but I'm very happy with that performance post patch. A few posts up there is someone with a MUCH better system than mine and they are getting occasional dips into the high 20s.