8 replies to this topic

[MnDragon]

Ok maybe someone who is a little smarter than me with computers can tell me WTF:

If RECOMMENDED system requirements are:

CPU: Core i3-2500 / AMD Athlon II X4 650
GPU:GeForce GTX 285 / Radeon HD 5830
RAM: 8 GB
OS: Windows 7 SP-1 64-Bit
DirectX: DX9
HDD Space: 8 GB

And I am currently running:

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 810 2.6GHz
GPU: GeForce 650 Ti 1GB DDR5 RAM
RAM: 8 GB
OS: Windows 8.1 64-Bit
DirectX: DX9 (Gods please go to DX11 soon^TM)
HDD Space: Way more than necessary

Why the Heck do I have to run everything at LOW settings to keep my FPS above 20?????

Edited by MnDragon, 05 December 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[itiziDITKA]

You are CPU bound. Not nearly enough Gigahertz. MWO is somewhat unusual in that most bottlenecks occur at your CPU and not your GPU. If you really want more frames, you will likely need to over clock. There are some other things you can try first. I suggest poking around the hardware and workaround forums for some more information.

[Durant Carlyle]

FYI: DirectX 11 likely won't increase performance at all. In fact, it's likely to reduce performance on most systems due to extra graphics features and quality being enabled.

And yes, MW:O requires raw CPU speed, not just multiple cores.

Note that the recommended spec is supposed to be i5-2500, which is MUCH more powerful than the Athlon II and your Phenom II. The six-year-old Core 2 Quad is more powerful than your CPU.

If you're going to keep your CPU, overclocking it is your only option. Hopefully your CPU cooler can handle that.

[MnDragon]

I have been considering upgrading (afterall my CPU is 7 or 8 years old ) I am currently looking at an AMD FX-6350 3.5GHz 6 core processor. My question is that should I upgrade to this, with no OC, what can I expect my graphics to be bumped up to? Ultimately I would like to be able to play on high graphics settings (you know, so it doesn't look like super Mario MechWarrior) and still be able to get a decent refresh rate (say 40ish FPS).

[Sen]

You may not want to hear this, but you'll get a lot more out of a stock intel core i5 than you will with the AMD. I know in these circumstances a lot of times it's price that's the determining factor, but you really DO "get what you pay for"

http://www.cpu-world...5_i5-4670K.html

The 6350's extra cores won't really help you in gaming, as most games don't use more than one or two cores. For those that do, the intel design is much more efficient at balancing lodes and is more power efficient as well.

Not that the 6350 is a bad processor by any stretch. . but they're only better at certain tasks. In gaming, they fall behind intel in performance by a margin that CAN be fairly significant, which means you almost have to go up to the higher tiers to get comparable performance to the intel lineup. At that point, you're almost better off going with intel anyway. . . as the vast majority of people will never utilize the capability of most 6-8 core processors anyway.

I leave the following links for your consideration:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116898

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116899

Please understand, my intention here is to try to give a counterpoint: a constructive alternative possibility that may help you find the performance you're seeking. My intention is *NOT* to blatantly push one manufacturer over another or start a fanboy war. . just to offer a different perspective on the situation.

Edited by Sen, 06 December 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[MnDragon]

@ Sen...I appreciate the constructive feedback, and while I will admit that Intel processors are typically better at handling games than AMD, I find it easier to OC AMD and they are way more forgiving. I have been an avid AMD user since before A slot Processors (I had several bad experiences with both Radeon and Intel that makes me NEVER want to purchase them again.) That said, I understand the limitations of AMD processors and will eventually OC my processor, I just want to get a feel for what kind of bench marks are out there for that particular (or similar) processor in regards to the game. I find myself in the Christmas season with a little bit extra money (I have a generous benefactor ) and I want to upgrade, so really it amounts to what processing speed should I get to, to run at High settings on an AMD processor and still maintain a decent FPS rate? The reason I was looking at multicores is because I would like to start video capture and then there is TS3 and of course looking at meme's while waiting for matches...

[WarGruf]

Hi there MnDragon,
I'm currently running an AMD Phenom II X6 1040T 2.7Ghz (boosts to 3.2) in an M4A77TD Pro mother board, I have 8 Gig of Corsair DDR3 and Crossfired 7770's running of an 800w PSU (Yes, its plenty). And even my FPS can drop to 25ish in 1600x1200 (limited by the CRT monitor) maxed details with AA enabled...

The game just isn't optimised yet, my frames can change from 65-75 all the way down to 25 in heavy combat

But going over your post you didn't say what Power unit your using!? That can have quite an effect if its not enough...

My old Phenom II X3 720 Black edition and one 7770 could kick out a healthy 45 Fps on max detail, granted at 1360x1024... But it was enough....

Hope this helps bud...

[MnDragon]

Ok just an update...I went ahead and got the FX 6300 and let me say the difference is night and day! I bumped my settings up to Very High to bench mark and I was averaging about 35 FPS on River City. I dropped it down to High and I was averaging about 30 on Terra Therma... I think I need to tweak the individual settings a bit, but other than that I am very pleased with my purchase!

[Smokeyjedi]

MnDragon, on 06 December 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Ok just an update...I went ahead and got the FX 6300 and let me say the difference is night and day! I bumped my settings up to Very High to bench mark and I was averaging about 35 FPS on River City. I dropped it down to High and I was averaging about 30 on Terra Therma... I think I need to tweak the individual settings a bit, but other than that I am very pleased with my purchase!

Technically the 6***series FX are triple "core" chips, so MWO has access to more threads while staying within the 4 instructional core "sweet spot" just as my 8350 @ 4.8ghz does, with 4 modules taking orders rather than 8 cores that require their own instructions.