58 replies to this topic

[Knyx]

I run a I7 3770k overclocked to 4.5 on liquid cooling, but my vid card is a 3gb 7970 ghz edition with a slight overclock. I think any framerate issues I have is my vid card. Interestingly enough though, my I7 was only like $200 and I bought it last year, the newer AMD 8 cores were barely cheaper

[Mycrus]

shr84, on 02 May 2015 - 01:46 AM, said:

Yah get a real life, with money consuming things you know, like family and car.....

36 yrs old
13 yrs working for the same company
10 yrs married
9 yrs old daughter

try harder brah..

check my profile to see my kid's rig.

[9thDeathscream]

Mycrus, on 02 May 2015 - 03:26 AM, said:

36 yrs old
13 yrs working for the same company
10 yrs married
9 yrs old daughter

try harder brah..

check my profile to see my kid's rig.

Lol

35yrs old
9yrs working shift work at a hospital.
20yrs with Wife 5 of em married.

12yr Boy 10yr Boy and 5yr Girl.

Always a bigger fish!

Moot point anyway, not everyone can afford the latest hardware!

Edited by Akulla1980, 02 May 2015 - 03:38 AM.

[9thDeathscream]

We have 3 diiferent desktops and MWO plays similar on all 3

1 i7 3770k@4.0 16Gb 2xR9204gb in CF

2 i73770 8Gb R9290

3 FX 8350 8Gb 79503Gb

Honestly not a lot of variation in frame rates.

MWO doesnt take much advantage on higher spec rigs.

[stjobe]

So, I have a
* i5-3570K quad-core @ 3.4 GHz
* 16 GB DDR3-1600 SDRAM
* ASUS P8Z77-V LK motherboard.
* GeForce GTX 760 with 4 GB GDDR5 SDRAM
* OCZ-Vertex 2 120 GB SSD
* Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB SSD
* Seagate ST1000DX001 1 TB SSHD
* 100 Mbps Internet connection
* Windows 7 Pro
* 64-bit DX11 MWO client

It's a pretty nice system, if not exactly bleeding edge. It hasn't faltered yet on any game I've thrown at it though - except MWO. While I generally get roughly 90 fps here I still regularly get spikes as low as 20.

I attribute that to bad optimization of ****** code. YMMV.

Edited by stjobe, 02 May 2015 - 03:59 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Stable performance in MWO is one of a handful of things in life that money can't buy.

If you throw this game at something like an i7 5960X, powering triple titan X GPUs, it still won't run well.

Even if by divine intervention you manage to make it run well, MWO still won't look good. It'll still be the same grainy, blurry mess, with barely functional AA features, and LoDs that kill even color past 300 meters. That's just how it is, people.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 02 May 2015 - 04:44 AM.

[DjPush]

Went from AMD 8350 to I7 4790K... It was night and day. AMD average FPS was 40 to 60. I7 average FPS is 80 to 120. However this is the only game that the AMD chip couldn't handle. Very strange.

I still get the occasional FPS tank to 18 or 20 also. usually with heavy particles like steam from mechs or PPC explosions.

Edited by DjPush, 02 May 2015 - 06:59 AM.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Have I imagined this (please correct me if I have) or did one of the dev team not state fairly recently that the version of the Crye engine that MWO uses can't be upgraded further as it would leave behind huge swathes of older machines?

For what it's worth I'm running an OC'd i7-960, 16GB of PC2100 RAM and an Nvidia 760Ti card. I get between 30 - 65 fps at 1920 x 1080 with mostly eveerything maxed out except AA which is off.

[Naelbis]

My rig seems about average for what is posted here but I run a steady 60FPS until I start running everything at High+. Then I start randomly dropping down to the 40's. I just wish I could figure out why the game keeps CTD every stinking match. Repair tool says no issues, system diagnostics say no issues but there is something conflicting somewhere that is making it dang hard to play and enjoy myself.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Naelbis, on 02 May 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

My rig seems about average for what is posted here but I run a steady 60FPS until I start running everything at High+. Then I start randomly dropping down to the 40's. I just wish I could figure out why the game keeps CTD every stinking match. Repair tool says no issues, system diagnostics say no issues but there is something conflicting somewhere that is making it dang hard to play and enjoy myself.

That was happening to me until recently. The problem I found was with the app that Asus provides with their graphics cards to over-clock the card. For some reason MWO, unlike literally any other of the 100+ games I have installed, really hates over clocked graphics cards. Might be worth you checking to see if your card is OC'd as well.

[Clint Steel]

Sir Wulfrick, on 02 May 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

Have I imagined this (please correct me if I have) or did one of the dev team not state fairly recently that the version of the Crye engine that MWO uses can't be upgraded further as it would leave behind huge swathes of older machines?

I've heard this too. They should run a poll (from the launch client) that asks what your system is capable of. I feel most people who game are on systems that can handle dx11.

[QuantumButler]

>AMD processor

You realize those are cheaper than Intel because their real performance is significantly worse than Intel despite what the on paper specs are right?

When you buy substandard parts expect substandard results.

Sir Wulfrick, on 02 May 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

Have I imagined this (please correct me if I have) or did one of the dev team not state fairly recently that the version of the Crye engine that MWO uses can't be upgraded further as it would leave behind huge swathes of older machines?

For what it's worth I'm running an OC'd i7-960, 16GB of PC2100 RAM and an Nvidia 760Ti card. I get between 30 - 65 fps at 1920 x 1080 with mostly eveerything maxed out except AA which is off.

The version of cryengine they're using is an Ancient relic built for Xbox 360 so yes of course it can't be upgraded further.

The "older machines" they refer to in this case are barely functional dualcores from over 5 years ago that should be scrapped anyway and can't run the game in it's current state in a playable framerate no matter what PGI claims [I'm sorry, 8-15 fps is NOT playable]

Edited by QuantumButler, 02 May 2015 - 02:42 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Alleged min-specs. Try to contain your sneers and laughs.

[Bill Lumbar]

QuantumButler, on 02 May 2015 - 02:41 PM, said:

>AMD processor

You realize those are cheaper than Intel because their real performance is significantly worse than Intel despite what the on paper specs are right?

When you buy substandard parts expect substandard results.



The version of cryengine they're using is an Ancient relic built for Xbox 360 so yes of course it can't be upgraded further.

The "older machines" they refer to in this case are barely functional dualcores from over 5 years ago that should be scrapped anyway and can't run the game in it's current state in a playable framerate no matter what PGI claims [I'm sorry, 8-15 fps is NOT playable]

Seeing how I just came from a FX-8350 OC to 4.6-5ghz and a ATI XFX 7970 3gb with a 1440P 32" monitor and purchased a I74790K OC'ed it to 4.8ghz and used the same graphics card, I just can't buy your "BS" claim about AMD CPU's. Sure, The I7 does seem just a bit smoother with this game, my FX-8350 played this game just fine, with the exception that ALL players seem to have with MWO and even high end rigs. I love the claims that some make about AMD Processors on the forums.

[AEgg]

Vassago Rain, on 02 May 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

Alleged min-specs. Try to contain your sneers and laughs.
-snip-

Their processor requirements are entirely believable. GPU requirements, not so much.

I actually have a system on an old Core 2 Extreme and a 6950, and it runs the game playably (30 FPS min) at medium-low settings.

My main system is an i5-2500k and an R9 290 and I get between 35-70 FPS on max everything at 2560x1440 (with AA off of course).

That said, why are we all replying to a necro'd thread from January?

[Vassago Rain]

Bill Lumbar, on 02 May 2015 - 05:05 PM, said:

Seeing how I just came from a FX-8350 OC to 4.6-5ghz and a ATI XFX 7970 3gb with a 1440P 32" monitor and purchased a I74790K OC'ed it to 4.8ghz and used the same graphics card, I just can't buy your "BS" claim about AMD CPU's. Sure, The I7 does seem just a bit smoother with this game, my FX-8350 played this game just fine, with the exception that ALL players seem to have with MWO and even high end rigs. I love the claims that some make about AMD Processors on the forums.

AMD processors are bad. Fact.

In MWO, AMD processors suffer GREATLY. This is a documented fact, and why the hardware subforum doesn't recommend AMD. If you're mainly playing MWO, you're doing yourself a great disservice by buying AMD.

It's because MWO doesn't care one bit about 40 cores. It wants one or two super powerful cores, which intel is much better at. In MWO benchmarks, the most expensive AMD CPUs get blown out of the water by the dual core pentium K - which costs very little.

That's just how it is, man, how it's always been, and how it's always gonna be, until the day PGI does some actual optimizations.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 02 May 2015 - 05:28 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

"AMD processors are bad. Fact. Opinion."

Corrected that for you Vass. Some of us use our computers for much more then a game that seems to not be optimized very well for Intel or Amd systems. While many on the hardware forums have great information to share with others regarding choices in hardware and how it performs, to say some of the things like you just said here, is nothing more then your opinion.

I have ran both rigs, I know how both perform while playing MWO, and both are very playable even on my 1440P 32" monitor.
Does my new Intel rig perform better then then my FX-8350 rig, yes it seems a bit smoother, and the FPS are up for sure. Was it needed because my FX-8350 was a bad CPU.... NO it sure wasn't. Now if I was to go with a 144hz monitor, and was pushing for the absolute best FPS and butter smooth game play with all the eye candy cranked while doing so, yeah, going Intel would make the difference for sure. But then again, I would have to have a really top end graphics card to do so, either way.

Didn't you just claim in a post above it doesn't matter how much money you throw at a gaming rig when playing MWO... and with what Russ has said about not updating the Cryengine any further so they can help this game stay "playable" with more of the player base, I have concerns with this game is going. Why do many PC gamers build mid-highend systems in the first place? To push the limits and eyecandy and play games on. Games that continue to blow us all away with better graphics, smoother play, and push the limits. From the way it sounds, not to many plans to push the limits from where we are at now. WTF? Seriously?

[DjPush]

LordBraxton, on 09 January 2015 - 10:32 AM, said:

I love my PC, and have no regrets going AMD\Radeon rather than the pricey intel\NVidia options.
　
I have an 8core 4.0ghz processor and a 3g7770, 8g of ram etc. etc. It's a solid rig going on two years old, and runs everything flawlessly. EXCEPT for MWO.
　
Any tips on running MWO on AMD hardware? It looks like it's only using like 1 of my 8cores. This game is so terribly optimized it makes me weep.

There is another issue here not game related. You are only active on 1 core? That never happened with my FX8350. Is there a problem with your chip?

[Sir Wulfrick]

QuantumButler, on 02 May 2015 - 02:41 PM, said:

The version of cryengine they're using is an Ancient relic built for Xbox 360 so yes of course it can't be upgraded further.

The "older machines" they refer to in this case are barely functional dualcores from over 5 years ago that should be scrapped anyway and can't run the game in it's current state in a playable framerate no matter what PGI claims [I'm sorry, 8-15 fps is NOT playable]

If that really is the case, and I'm not doubting that it's true at all, then PGI should feel suitably ashamed and upgrade immediately. I also find their claimed reason to be highly suspicious - I actually own and use a machine that doesn't have a DX11 graphics card: the card is I think a 5800 part from about 5 years or so ago. Everything since then should be DX11 capable.

Given that MWO is now >3 years down the road from inception PGI has no excuse for not using the latest version of the Crye engine. Unless they either can't afford it or are so hell-bent on profiteering that they won't spend the money on it...?

[Bill Lumbar]

DjPush, on 02 May 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

There is another issue here not game related. You are only active on 1 core? That never happened with my FX8350. Is there a problem with your chip?

Same with my FX-8350, it split the load across most of the cores if not all, some more so then others. I never even did the core parker on the FX rig, and I didn't modify any of the config files for the game. All settings High- Very High, AA off, parts on medium and only because of the PB locust I bought and those MG'S!

Most of the time I never saw much more then 50% usage across any of the 8 cores, one time I encoded a 55 gb fraps capture with Windows Movie maker at the same time I was playing in CW match, and the game was still playable. Very little "lag" or stutters, but their was some, still very playable and I did well on the match score. Core usage jumped up to around 80-90% across all cores, FPS did dip down to around 17 for a low, but avg was around 50 fps even while doing all that work load. This is why I laugh when some claim that my FX-8350 is a "bad" processor. For the $169.00 I paid for it, seems pretty damn good to me for what it cost me.

To top it off I sold it for the same money I had into it because of the deal I got at Microcenter on the combo with the motherboard. Win win

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 02 May 2015 - 07:24 PM.