20 replies to this topic

[Makenzie71]

Motherboard went out so I'm considering using our old XPS 720. Specs are...

[color=#000000]E6750 Core 2 Duo[/color]
[color=#000000]GTX280[/color]
8gb
Win 7 x64

I know the processor is the choking point, but it'd be nice if it was decently playable. It meets the minimum requirements but I don't know if that means "it plays but only at 10fps". I'm considering snagging a quad core processor for the XPS or doing a new mobo for my game machine, but until that happens it would be nice if the game were playable.

[AEgg]

I would expect it to be playable, at low enough settings anyway. A GTX 280 is fairly old by it's by no means a low end card. My experience has been that MWO is primarily GPU dependant (not surprising, since it runs on CryEngine).

You'll do far better than 10-15 FPS. I have a C2D@2GHz paired with a 256MB x1800 and that's the kind of setup that pushes about 10-15 FPS. Your CPU is similar but the GPU is in a completely different league.

The 280 can max crysis 1 with a C2Q and still get about 40FPS, and the recent iterations of CryEngine tend to scale better than the original did. Worst case you'll have to turn settings down, but I'd still expect you to easily hit a stable 30+ FPS.

[hercules1981]

I have a quad core q 6600 with a 470 gtx and four gig of ram and run all medium settings at the 1300 something by 700 something resolution and only get about 25 average so I'm guessing u would be a little lower then that.

[Ovion]

I'm running a 9800GTX with 8GB ram and a 2.4ghz quad core, and I can run it fairly comfortably on medium settings.

[LORD TSARKON]

I have almost the same specs

My Computer:

Intel i3-2125 CPU @3.30 GHz
GeForce GTX 260
8 GB RAM
Windows 7 64 Bit

I can get on medium/some high settings about 40-60 Frames per second just like a did a YEAR ago when I picked up this game and computer (Jan 2013)..

The Depth of Field (BLUR), Film Grain (UGLY mode), and Cockpit Glass ([redacted]) pretty much killed my Frames per second to play Light Mechs but this latest Patch you can finally take all that crap off and enjoy the VIDEO GAME again instead of wannabe Realistic Mech game... make sure you turn those so called features off in the config file.

FYI... I used to play the game on High settings no problem with Light Mechs... but then last year all that crap was added and I had to lower everything to LOW or OFF... and still could barely use Light Mechs...

Now the Frames per second are ALMOSt to what it was a year ago.... almost...

Your Vid card is better but RAM is important as well

Edited by Egomane, 02 May 2014 - 01:27 AM.
No insults! Read the Code of Conduct!

[Makenzie71]

Played tonight and it runs great with my E6750 and GTX280. Never dipped below 45fps. While a really high end combo, it's still a six year old one. Just nice to know that this game can work really well even on outdated equipment.

[Bullseye69]

I get on my machine between 30 to 20 usually around 22fps.

My specs are :

Athlon 2 645 quad running at 3.3ghz
Ram 8 gigs
XFX R9 270X 2gb video card

I run at 12** res by 720

I have tried DX 11 and DX 9 I also tried to turn of the film grain and window and depth of field and no change at all.

I just about ready to throw everything out and call it quits on this game even after spending over $200 on stuff in game.

There is no reason that this game suck so bad on this system when I can pllay 1440 by 900 res and medium on Battlefield 4 at 45 to 65 fps. I know it difference game engine but there is a lot of eye candy and stuff going on in battlefield and still get good frame rates and really cool explosion and effects with the frame rate death i see in mechwarrior.

I have noticed in testing ground everything is butter smooth and running almost 60 frames rock steady. I have also nboticed I get better frame rate in third person mode not a lot better nut some which makes no sense to me since it having to draw my mech plus everything else on the battlefield.

The only thing I have not tried is a reinstall in over a year but I have run the repair tool.

Anyone have any ideas on how to boost perfromance. Please share them.

[Makenzie71]

People have a lot of issues with Radeon cards and gaming in general. Especially this game. That's where I would look if I were you...though I'm not an expert.

[Nick Rarang]

Bullseye69, on 02 May 2014 - 01:15 AM, said:

I get on my machine between 30 to 20 usually around 22fps.

My specs are :

Athlon 2 645 quad running at 3.3ghz
Ram 8 gigs
XFX R9 270X 2gb video card

I run at 12** res by 720

I have tried DX 11 and DX 9 I also tried to turn of the film grain and window and depth of field and no change at all.

I just about ready to throw everything out and call it quits on this game even after spending over $200 on stuff in game.

There is no reason that this game suck so bad on this system when I can pllay 1440 by 900 res and medium on Battlefield 4 at 45 to 65 fps. I know it difference game engine but there is a lot of eye candy and stuff going on in battlefield and still get good frame rates and really cool explosion and effects with the frame rate death i see in mechwarrior.

I have noticed in testing ground everything is butter smooth and running almost 60 frames rock steady. I have also nboticed I get better frame rate in third person mode not a lot better nut some which makes no sense to me since it having to draw my mech plus everything else on the battlefield.

The only thing I have not tried is a reinstall in over a year but I have run the repair tool.

Anyone have any ideas on how to boost perfromance. Please share them.

Unlike Battlefield 4, this game is very CPU dependent and it favors CPU's with high Instruction Per Clock (IPC) performance. Battlefied 4's Frosbite engine was originally designed for multiplayer use, thus they were able to find a way to make a multi player less CPU depent. PGI uses a version of CryEngine 3 which doesn't have that benefit because it was mostly a single player super eye candy game. I bet your system will run Crysis 3(also based on the same Cryengine) flawlessly even at 1980x1080p high settings; because at single player mode that game is more GPU bound. Your Radeon R9 270X has enough power and your Athlon 2 X4 645 mildly overclocked to 3.3 has enough power to feed your GPU. However that is not the case with MWO, as your Athlon CPU is essentially bottle necking your Radeon GPU. I suffer the same fate as you do because I have a AMD FX8350 overclocked to 5.0ghz and Radeon 7970 overclocked to 1200 Core / 1600 Mem and I run BF4 at Ultra Everything at 1920 X 1080p at 73 FPS average. In MWO, my system struggles and even at DX9 640 x 480 very low settings, my FPS sometimes dips in the 20fps in certain maps. It just means that my highly overclocked CPU cannot feed my GPU. I run this game at DX11 1920 x 1080p all very high settings with MSAA turned on Motion Blur On and Vsync off and that is the only settings where my GPU usage stays at 99%. If I turn off MSAA, GPU usage is only at 55%. Making the game more GPU bound at DX11 seems to smooth things out for my system. It averages 45FPS but still dips in the 20's for certain maps. You can overclock your AMD processor further to squeeze more performance, but I doubt if it can prevent 20fps dips.

The most ideal CPU for this game is an overclocked Intel Haswell processor (4670K/4770K) preferably running above 4ghz. If you play this game so much, then a 4670K, 8gb ram and z87 motherboard should be on your wish list to give you above 30fps dips. Also, try updating to the latest 14.4 whql drivers as it helped my system a smidgen specially with fps dips.

[Bullseye69]

Just did a reinstall of mechwarrior online and just did a reinstall after a clean of the new drivers helped a little. I was really hoping that the direct x 11 would hellp with the cpu bottle neck i have but it doesn't at all. Trying to not go the new mainboard a cpu and ram route but will probley buy a amd 990fx board and a fx6350 or a fx6300 with 8 gigs ram. It not so much the resolution or the detail just would be happy running it 1600 * 1050 at medium detail at a steady 40. really don't have the money to do a intel build so holding on to the ope that PGI will get the Direct X 11 to work like it suppose to.

My big beef with PGI is ther recommend specs I have everything they recommend except 250 mhz less on the cpu and even low setting run bad.

I built my nephew system for him a 8350 with R9280x and got to play around with it so I got to play mechwarrior online and it handle 1600 * 1050 res pretty good but the direct x was not up then I have no idea how it would do now but with your setup you should be able to run 1680 * 1050 steady on high at 60 frame but with they way the game is not optimized you can;t and that a shame. if it would run better then they might be more people giving it a try.

[Catamount]

Bullseye, since it's the CPU holding you back, why not get another CPU?

You have an AM3 board, so you could easily buy a Phenom II X4 965, which is 30-70% faster (depending on the benchmark). You could easily overclock that as well. You might not get far, depending on lottery and cooler, but hitting 3.6-3.8 is usually pretty easy.

You can get one for about $100, and it would keep your machine more relevant for at least year or two longer (not bad bang for your buck, imo), and if you did want to OC it and don't have a great cooler, you could pick up a 212 Evo for like $20-$30.

Edited by Catamount, 04 May 2014 - 07:35 AM.

[Summon3r]

Catamount, on 04 May 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

Bullseye, since it's the CPU holding you back, why not get another CPU?

You have an AM3 board, so you could easily buy a Phenom II X4 965, which is 30-70% faster (depending on the benchmark). You could easily overclock that as well. You might not get far, depending on lottery and cooler, but hitting 3.6-3.8 is usually pretty easy.

You can get one for about $100, and it would keep your machine more relevant for at least year or two longer (not bad bang for your buck, imo), and if you did want to OC it and don't have a great cooler, you could pick up a 212 Evo for like $20-$30.

bullseye this would be a decent route here.... if your talking about starting over and building a new system id highly recommend going with an i5, especially if your doing it mainly for MWO this game has a real liking for intel cpu and a real distaste for AMD :-/

[Catamount]

Yeah I'm a big AMD guy, but I have an i5 for a reason. i5/7 or FX, it really doesn't matter for most games (and in the future, some games may take a greater liking to the FX chips), but for MWO, here and now, Intel is definitely the way to go.

[Bullseye69]

I was figuring on a fx 6350 since it a 3.9ghz chip out of the box a new motherboard and ram and new os I have everything else needed.
My current motherboard is a old and uses ddr 2 and is rated am+2 and has some non official support beta bios for some am3 processors. The athlon 2 645 was the only on i could verify that would work a hundred percent so that why i purchased it.

Mostly build amd I have built intel in like 9 years so don;t know what would be good can anyone throw up a good chip motherboard and ram that i should look at and it needs to be cheap too. Coming of of be out of work for 5 years so don;t have a lot to spend i foolish thoguth that the new r9 270X under direct x 11 would help with the problem i was having. Fun thing when i tested my nephew new build using the old hd 7770 card i got better frame rates that what I getting now. His new graphics card the R9 280x just kills the game after i unparked his cores.

One other quick question does anyone see any performance increase going from windows 7 to Windows 8.1.

Any help appreciated.

[Catamount]

Well, to be clear, the Athlon II X4s are newer than the Phenom II X4s, though we could look into the CPUs if you gave us the mobo model.

The problem with getting a 6350 is that its real world performance is not better per core than a Phenom II, and yet it is a vastly more expensive CPU and a more expensive route to take.


If you wanted a more substantial upgade, give us a budget and we could see what we could do. AM3+ might have the advantage of future upgradeability beyond what you could get in the current Ivy Bridge/Haswell tradeoff, since Intel has stagnated, but at the same time, AMD may just not continue the FX line substantially for much longer, let alone on that socket (say, if they moved to DDR4, or just stopped trying to compete with Intel on gaming processors for awhile).

I would honestly tell you to plop down the cash for a used Sandy Bridge i5 long before I told you to get ANY FX chip, including the 8350 or even an upcoming 9000 series. You can get an i5-2500k for around $150-$180 if you look. If you have the budget for a new FX-6350, then you have at least $140 to spend on just a CPU. Why go FX when you could have a massively superior chip for just a smidge more? Surely you can scrape up the difference. I would even take a locked 2500 or 3570 over an FX6350 or 8350.

FX chips are just bad at MWO, and not as good at gaming in general, even if they're more than sufficient in most titles.

Edited by Catamount, 05 May 2014 - 09:47 AM.

[Summon3r]

bullseye, go here for all the info on all builds and pc parts... pcpartpicker.com. consider a i5-4670k there isnt a better gaming cpu out there then that atm

[Nick Rarang]

Catamount, on 05 May 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

FX chips are just bad at MWO, and not as good at gaming in general, even if they're more than sufficient in most titles.

I second that.

[Smokeyjedi]

Nick Rarang, on 05 May 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

I second that.

Except for you are saying my 8350 @ I7 3770 levels is bad? But is a I7 3770 not a lil bit high end?

[Golrar]

I agree with Smokeyjedi. I believe cpuboss.com had a review of the 8350 versus the i5 4670k and except for single thread processes, which I grant you is where the performance is at in MWO, the FX fared better if you take power consumption out of the picture (juice is cheap in my area). The value scores are identical. http://cpuboss.com/c...-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Looking beyond the horizon, with AMD hardware being in the PS4 and Xbone 1, you can see a lot more titles being designed to use multiple cores more efficiently. How else can you explain a so called next gen console running on 1.6-1.7Ghz quad core APUs? MWO programming architecture is behind the times, but I gotta have my mechs!

In my opinion, the cost factor with this information would make me go AMD right now. Right now newegg lists the i5-4670k at $240 and the FX-8350 at $200. The ASUS Z87 Subaertooth is $250, the AMD AM3+ 990FX Sabertooth is $170. That's a $120 difference. If you are buying a processor based on one game, then I envy your budget. But I'd rather put the money into a good GPU and cooling and overclock the beast that is the FX-8350. I just this week went from a Phenon II to the FX-8350 and I must say MWO runs great on the new platform. I am still in my break in phase, so no OCing for a little bit, but I am already seeing vastly superior game performance than with my OCed Phenom. And I am still running a rather basic GPU (GTX 650Ti). And I haven't even unparked my cores.

Of course, it is all personal preference and nobody is unbiased when it comes to Intel vs. AMD. I am heavily AMD biased because of the cost factor and my general dislike of anything Intel. My last Intel CPU was a P2-233Mhz. Since then I have been AMD all the way and never had a problem, ever. So the reliability is the same. You can look at reviews all day long. Half will show Intel is better, half will show AMD. It's all about what they tested it on and how. In the end, you're going to get what you prefer regardless of what we say. I had lots of people telling me i5-4670k and I got the FX-8350 anyway because of the cost. And I am glad I did.

[Smokeyjedi]

Golrar, on 08 May 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

I agree with Smokeyjedi. I believe cpuboss.com had a review of the 8350 versus the i5 4670k and except for single thread processes, which I grant you is where the performance is at in MWO, the FX fared better if you take power consumption out of the picture (juice is cheap in my area). The value scores are identical. http://cpuboss.com/c...-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Looking beyond the horizon, with AMD hardware being in the PS4 and Xbone 1, you can see a lot more titles being designed to use multiple cores more efficiently. How else can you explain a so called next gen console running on 1.6-1.7Ghz quad core APUs? MWO programming architecture is behind the times, but I gotta have my mechs!

In my opinion, the cost factor with this information would make me go AMD right now. Right now newegg lists the i5-4670k at $240 and the FX-8350 at $200. The ASUS Z87 Subaertooth is $250, the AMD AM3+ 990FX Sabertooth is $170. That's a $120 difference. If you are buying a processor based on one game, then I envy your budget. But I'd rather put the money into a good GPU and cooling and overclock the beast that is the FX-8350. I just this week went from a Phenon II to the FX-8350 and I must say MWO runs great on the new platform. I am still in my break in phase, so no OCing for a little bit, but I am already seeing vastly superior game performance than with my OCed Phenom. And I am still running a rather basic GPU (GTX 650Ti). And I haven't even unparked my cores.

Of course, it is all personal preference and nobody is unbiased when it comes to Intel vs. AMD. I am heavily AMD biased because of the cost factor and my general dislike of anything Intel. My last Intel CPU was a P2-233Mhz. Since then I have been AMD all the way and never had a problem, ever. So the reliability is the same. You can look at reviews all day long. Half will show Intel is better, half will show AMD. It's all about what they tested it on and how. In the end, you're going to get what you prefer regardless of what we say. I had lots of people telling me i5-4670k and I got the FX-8350 anyway because of the cost. And I am glad I did.

Its just apples to oranges......they both are fruit they both get eaten and both to certain people taste good. Some people think that money and the status it brings are all that matters.