45 replies to this topic

[Marvin Martian]

I have a similar computer. My processor and RAM are the same. My video card is an AMD R7 260X, which is supposed to have similar performance to the 750Ti. I get about 75 fps when nothing is going on, 40s during normal gameplay, and it drops to the 30s if a lot is going on. I don't overclock. Everything is stock speed. I run most settings at medium, except object detail and texturing at high, and I turn off anti-aliasing.

[Xevius Von Morrigan]

Lemming of the BDA, on 06 June 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

Ive been playing forever on a crappy desktop with a graphics emulator, that will only get 8fps on the lowest settings.(whay even play, right.). Im upgrading soon and have $500 to spend, The rig Im looking at has an AMD FX 6300 hexcore, 3.5 Mhz, 8 G DDR3, and a Nvidea GTX 750 ti card. How much of a FPS jump can I expect?

I am using an old LLano CPU with R7 250X video card and I am able to reach 54-24 fps.
I think the <with a graphics emulator> part is the problem.... perhaps wrong/old video drivers?
Moreover there are some configuration files (in this forum) that can help with fps.

[The Shredder]

The build you are thinking will definitely improve performance, but you'll also gain if you swap the nVidia card for an AMD one. They tend to integrate better with AMD CPUs.
Another thing to consider is a slow-rebuild. If you got a case that will fit a regular-sized motherboard, than I would avoid mATX. Mainly because of cost-effectiveness. Sure it might be cheaper NOW, but if the motherboard goes and decides to take your CPU with it, you'll be up a crick.
Another performance booster will be the hard drive. If you can get at least a 128GB Solid State to load your OS and the game onto, saving your old drive or getting a new one for general data storage/old games, I can attest to it running the game more smoothly.
As for the number of cores debate. It becomes moot after a certain clock speed. I upgraded from a quad-core to an 8-core, with single core clock running 1.3 GHz faster than the older chip, and saw no discernible difference in performance. Upgraded my Radeon 6770 to a R280x and doubled the frame rates.
The 6-cores run about as well as a quad-core. Computers like things doubled, so a 6-core is similar in architecture to a tri-core, and the tri-core systems were essentially using the third core for parity (Largely) so with a 6-core system, two of your cores are actually handling zero tasks, unless you're running server software. For the money I'd just stick to a faster quad-core.
Quad isn't quite the same as a dual-core doubled up, but an 8-core is like a quad-core doubled. Net performance gain is pretty near zero for the average person, but if you get into the habit of assigning the affinity of the the programs, you can use the quad-core to multi-task pretty effectively. If you don't have dual monitors that doesn't mean as much for MWO usage, but you might find yourself wanting to edit game clips and such, and there the multi-threading will start to come into play.
Lastly, switching to a full 64-bit OS is something PGI wishes we all would do. I can say it made a difference here. Crossing my fingers that Windows 10 doesn't bugger things up, but at least it's a free upgrade that I CAN rollback if needed.
Rule of thumb: Think of your RAM and CPU cores like this - 2-4-8-16-32-64. Each step up should double the previous step, not just add two. I can say that running 12 GBs of RAM nets barely any performance difference over 8 GBs of RAM, but going to 16 nearly doubled RAM performance.
Anyway, if you apply the above rule to your upgrading, thinking of it in terms of the system you already have, you ought to be able to make a pretty decent selection of parts. Get a good motherboard, decent CPU and a 4 GB strip of RAM. Get another later when funding allows. If you start with a solid motherboard, you'll be able to upgrade it for at least a few years.
So yes, your options should get you into the realm of actually seeing the results of your shooting, and making Ravens and Locusts visible again when they run across your path. Likely at medium settings, too!

[The Lost Boy]

Thanks for all the advice. Im getting between 40fps durring peak use up to 70fps at slower moments. Its just what I wanted.

[Goose]

The Shredder, on 09 June 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

miscellaneous ramblings

[Lord Letto]

Goose, on 09 June 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

Edited by Lord Letto, 09 June 2015 - 08:14 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

The Shredder, on 09 June 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

The build you are thinking will definitely improve performance, but you'll also gain if you swap the nVidia card for an AMD one. They tend to integrate better with AMD CPUs.
Another thing to consider is a slow-rebuild. If you got a case that will fit a regular-sized motherboard, than I would avoid mATX. Mainly because of cost-effectiveness. Sure it might be cheaper NOW, but if the motherboard goes and decides to take your CPU with it, you'll be up a crick.
Another performance booster will be the hard drive. If you can get at least a 128GB Solid State to load your OS and the game onto, saving your old drive or getting a new one for general data storage/old games, I can attest to it running the game more smoothly.
As for the number of cores debate. It becomes moot after a certain clock speed. I upgraded from a quad-core to an 8-core, with single core clock running 1.3 GHz faster than the older chip, and saw no discernible difference in performance. Upgraded my Radeon 6770 to a R280x and doubled the frame rates.
The 6-cores run about as well as a quad-core. Computers like things doubled, so a 6-core is similar in architecture to a tri-core, and the tri-core systems were essentially using the third core for parity (Largely) so with a 6-core system, two of your cores are actually handling zero tasks, unless you're running server software. For the money I'd just stick to a faster quad-core.
Quad isn't quite the same as a dual-core doubled up, but an 8-core is like a quad-core doubled. Net performance gain is pretty near zero for the average person, but if you get into the habit of assigning the affinity of the the programs, you can use the quad-core to multi-task pretty effectively. If you don't have dual monitors that doesn't mean as much for MWO usage, but you might find yourself wanting to edit game clips and such, and there the multi-threading will start to come into play.
Lastly, switching to a full 64-bit OS is something PGI wishes we all would do. I can say it made a difference here. Crossing my fingers that Windows 10 doesn't bugger things up, but at least it's a free upgrade that I CAN rollback if needed.
Rule of thumb: Think of your RAM and CPU cores like this - 2-4-8-16-32-64. Each step up should double the previous step, not just add two. I can say that running 12 GBs of RAM nets barely any performance difference over 8 GBs of RAM, but going to 16 nearly doubled RAM performance.
Anyway, if you apply the above rule to your upgrading, thinking of it in terms of the system you already have, you ought to be able to make a pretty decent selection of parts. Get a good motherboard, decent CPU and a 4 GB strip of RAM. Get another later when funding allows. If you start with a solid motherboard, you'll be able to upgrade it for at least a few years.
So yes, your options should get you into the realm of actually seeing the results of your shooting, and making Ravens and Locusts visible again when they run across your path. Likely at medium settings, too!

So much is wrong with this post I actually can't be bothered to do more than say...... /ignore it

[Brother MEX]

I am currently playing on a MacBookPro 9,1 with a 650m GPU at the native display resolution of 1440x900.
Because of the new min. resolution of 1600x900 for the EXPANDED mechlab, I consinder getting a new gaming rig and would like to know how the perfomence of a ASUS ROG GR8 would be compaired to my old laptop.

Especially I am concerned about the CPUs, as my laptop has a 2.6 GHz quad-core (3720QM) and this STEAM console only has a Intel® Core i7-4510U :
http://cpuboss.com/c...-Core-i7-3720QM

MfG, MEX

Edited by Brother MEX, 10 June 2015 - 12:41 AM.

[Lord Letto]

That ROG GR8 is a Desktop, Not a Laptop if you want a Desktop instead of a Laptop and have $1250 US to Spend:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($325.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-L9i 57.5 CFM CPU Cooler ($41.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97N-WIFI Mini ITX LGA1150 Motherboard ($100.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory ($63.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial V4 32GB 2.5&quot; Solid State Drive ($35.95 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital BLACK SERIES 1TB 3.5&quot; 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($69.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 4GB Video Card ($299.99 @ Amazon)
Case: BitFenix Prodigy (Blue) Mini ITX Tower Case ($90.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: XFX XTR 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($96.98 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($12.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (32/64-bit) ($98.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1238.63
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-10 12:08 EDT-0400

[Brother MEX]

Lord Letto, on 10 June 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

That ROG GR8 is a Desktop, Not a Laptop if you want a Desktop instead of a Laptop and have $1250 US to Spend:
.... TECHNOBABBLE ...

Dear Lord Letto,

thank you for this information, BUT this isnt what I asked for !

Like the creator of this topic, I am not interested in a alternative gaming rig.
I am only interested in compairing the performance of my old laptop with this steam console !
accourding to CPU benchmark in my first post, my old laptop should have a
5(single core performace) - 25(Benchmark performance using all cores) % advantage ... what I dont know is if the disadvantage the DUAL CORE has against the QUAD CORE can be compensated by the better GPU ( Higher crysis 3 framerate 20.4 fps vs 8.4 fps, accourding to http://gpuboss.com/g...GeForce-GT-650M )

PS: Actually the ASUS ROC GR8 isnt a desktop, it is a STEAM MACHINE

Edited by Brother MEX, 10 June 2015 - 10:25 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Brother MEX, on 10 June 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

Dear Lord Letto,

thank you for this information, BUT this isnt what I asked for !

Like the creator of this topic, I am not interested in a alternative gaming rig.
I am only interested in compairing the performance of my old laptop with this steam console !
accourding to CPU benchmark in my first post, my old laptop should have a
5(single core performace) - 25(Benchmark performance using all cores) % advantage ... what I dont know is if this can be compensated by the better GPU ( Higher crysis 3 framerate 20.4 fps vs 8.4 fps, accourding to http://gpuboss.com/g...GeForce-GT-650M )

PS: Actually the ASUS ROC GR8 isnt a desktop, it is a STEAM MACHINE

Firstly can steam machines play non steam games? I presume you'd have to then install windows on it to do so.

Secondly the cost from a quick glance is around $920 on amazon.

Why would you pay that for that low spec?
If your not a builder you can get a better pre built for that cost.

[Brother MEX]

THAT ISNT THE QUESTION TOO !

I KNOW that I might get a better build for the same cash ...

DV McKenna, on 10 June 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

Firstly can steam machines play non steam games? I presume you'd have to then install windows on it to do so.

Secondly the cost from a quick glance is around $920 on amazon.

Why would you pay that for that low spec?
If your not a builder you can get a better pre built for that cost.

Despite the CPU tests, I am asking for experience with MW0 on DUAL cores compaired to QUAD cores ... does MW0 need 3-4 cores or is the SINGLE CORE performance more important ?

PS: The ASUS ROC GR8 uses 64-bit Windows 8.1 for its STEAM CLIENT, you can go back to Windows and use it as a normal desktop OR for other games like MW0 ( and doesnt PGI want to release MW0 for STEAM too ? )

Edited by Brother MEX, 10 June 2015 - 10:38 AM.

[Lord Letto]

Well I'd avoid Steam Machines Because)
1) AFAIK, SteamOS=Linux, Not Windows therefore Can't Play MWO (Unless you can figure out how to make it work in Wine: https://appdb.winehq.org/
2) Looking at Steam: http://store.steampo...com/app/353410/ Won't be available till November, so still like 5 Months Away

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Brother MEX, on 10 June 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

THAT ISNT THE QUESTION TOO !

I KNOW that I might get a better build for the same cash ...
Despite the CPU tests, I am asking for experience with MW0 on DUAL cores compaired to QUAD cores ... does MW0 need 3-4 cores or is the SINGLE CORE performance more important ?

PS: The ASUS ROC GR8 uses 64-bit Windows 8.1 for its STEAM CLIENT, you can go back to Windows and use it as a normal desktop OR for other games like MW0 ( and doesnt PGI want to release MW0 for STEAM too ? )

Well if you know you'll get a better build for the same cash...Why would you consider a worse build? :-/

MWO runs fine on a dual core haswell that can be overclocked to 4.5ghz.
its unlikely to run well on a dual core that can't be overclocked

MWO is CPU limited not GPU limited.

Your asking people for information. Don't get arsey when people use the technical knowledge to give you a better option.

They will eventually release it on Steam or reverse that decision and never release it on steam who knows.

Lord Letto, on 10 June 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

Well I'd avoid Steam Machines Because)
1) AFAIK, SteamOS=Linux, Not Windows therefore Can't Play MWO (Unless you can figure out how to make it work in Wine: https://appdb.winehq.org/
2) Looking at Steam: http://store.steampo...com/app/353410/ Won't be available till November, so still like 5 Months Away

The Asus one looks like it's just a poor desktop using windows 8 1 with steam client pre installed.

As opposed to running SteamOS which is Linux.

Edited by DV McKenna, 10 June 2015 - 10:48 AM.

[Lord Letto]

Brother MEX, on 10 June 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

THAT ISNT THE QUESTION TOO !

I KNOW that I might get a better build for the same cash ...
Despite the CPU tests, I am asking for experience with MW0 on DUAL cores compaired to QUAD cores ... does MW0 need 3-4 cores or is the SINGLE CORE performance more important ?

PS: The ASUS ROC GR8 uses 64-bit Windows 8.1 for its STEAM CLIENT, you can go back to Windows and use it as a normal desktop OR for other games like MW0 ( and doesnt PGI want to release MW0 for STEAM too ? )

MWO=Single Core Performance & IPC, Therefore Intel>AMD (Some Passmark Benchmarks: https://www.cpubench...ngleThread.html)
Quad Cores>Dual Cores
AFAIK, MWO Won't be Put on Steam, Likely because Same/Similar Reason Minecraft Won't Be Put on Steam, although I Could be Mistaken

DV McKenna, on 10 June 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

Well if you know you'll get a better build for the same cash...Why would you consider a worse build? :-/

Edited by Lord Letto, 10 June 2015 - 10:58 AM.

[Brother MEX]

Because a BETTER BUILD is RELATIVE ... I KNOW that I might get better performance for the same cash, but the other advantages are more important for me ( like LOW POWER CONSUMPTION, LOW NOISE, SMALL SIZE FACTOR, ... )

DV McKenna, on 10 June 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

Well if you know you'll get a better build for the same cash...Why would you consider a worse build? :-/

MWO runs fine on a dual core haswell that can be overclocked to 4.5ghz.
its unlikely to run well on a dual core that can't be overclocked

MWO is CPU limited not GPU limited.

...

The Asus one looks like it's just a poor desktop using windows 8 1 with steam client pre installed.

As opposed to running SteamOS which is Linux.

Actually SteamOS isnt available until November 2015 !
Which means that current steam machines, like the ASUS ROC GR8, use Windows or OSX with a steam client !

How big is the performace difference between QUAD and DUAL cores, by the same SINGLE CORE performance, in MW0 ?

IF the better GPU will allow me at least the same or better FPS, I DONT CARE ABOUT THE WORSE CPU PERFORMANCE !

Edited by Brother MEX, 10 June 2015 - 11:27 AM.

[Goose]

I reman dubious of systems so small

Read: Dual-Core with Hyperthreading, using a mid-level video card.

You want an exact comparison? You gon'a buy the both of them for me?

[Hatachi]

Brother MEX, on 10 June 2015 - 11:21 AM, said:

Because a BETTER BUILD is RELATIVE ... I KNOW that I might get better performance for the same cash, but the other advantages are more important for me ( like LOW POWER CONSUMPTION, LOW NOISE, SMALL SIZE FACTOR, ... )
Actually SteamOS isnt available until November 2015 !
Which means that current steam machines, like the ASUS ROC GR8, use Windows or OSX with a steam client !

How big is the performace difference between QUAD and DUAL cores, by the same SINGLE CORE performance, in MW0 ?

IF the better GPU will allow me at least the same or better FPS, I DONT CARE ABOUT THE WORSE CPU PERFORMANCE !

While i agree with the others that building your own would give you much better performance, if you do want to go the built route two major things I would say.

#1 Going to a small to medium sized case over an ultra small like that tower will greatly increase your options.

#2 MechWarrior Online is far more CPU intensive than GPU intensive. If you're mainly playing this game, putting more money on the CPU is a wiser choice.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Brother MEX, on 10 June 2015 - 11:21 AM, said:

Because a BETTER BUILD is RELATIVE ... I KNOW that I might get better performance for the same cash, but the other advantages are more important for me ( like LOW POWER CONSUMPTION, LOW NOISE, SMALL SIZE FACTOR, ... )
Actually SteamOS isnt available until November 2015 !
Which means that current steam machines, like the ASUS ROC GR8, use Windows or OSX with a steam client !

How big is the performace difference between QUAD and DUAL cores, by the same SINGLE CORE performance, in MW0 ?

IF the better GPU will allow me at least the same or better FPS, I DONT CARE ABOUT THE WORSE CPU PERFORMANCE !

I appriciate we are talking to a brick wall but ill try and explain this clearly.

It's not relative; it's certain you can build better for less or the same cost.
You can even keep your fringe benefits of low power; low noise and a small form factor.

Secondly actually SteamOS is available for download now. It's not shipping with current machines because it's beta; but it's available for public download.

Thirdly a quad core is what you want to play the game on absolutely and unequivocally that is the minimum.
Aside from the overclocked pentium K dual core.

Forthly and finally.... having a better GPU for a worse CPU is one of the worst things you could do for MWO which as already stated is CPU bound.

If your looking for someone to justify you wasting money on a steam machine because cool points; nobody who actually knows what they are talking about is going to.

[xWiredx]

We do have a semi-good comparison, guys. We have overclocked pentium results that we can compare to overclocked 4790 results. The 4790K at 4.5GhZ allows for high or very high particles (depending on how picky you are about stable frame rates vs average frame rates). The Pentium at the same speed allows for low or medium (again, depending on how picky you are).

The extra threads a 4790k can run concurrently means less background stuff is getting in the way of threads dedicated to MWO, the 4790k has extra on-die cache available, etc.

If you want to compare a compact system, though, you should compare it to other compact systems. Look at the performance and settings laptop users have, not what gaming desktop users have. Gaming desktop users very often have overclocked chips, more thermal breathing room, premium versions of components, etc that make comparison less even.

I have definitely answered the question to the best of my ability without spending hours searching (what the people asking the questions should be doing instead). Please for the love of sanity SEARCH.