Jump to content

Is The Geforce Gt730 Gpu A Viable Option In 2017?


28 replies to this topic

#21 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 21 April 2017 - 02:55 PM

I still use a 680 GTX and I can run MWO at 1080P with everything at max except for shadows and particles which I set to low. I also use Vsync since I have a 60hz monitor and I usually get 57-60 FPS most of the time, although my FPS drops down to 40 or so when I first move into some map areas while everything buffers and then it jumps back up. Any, I find this playable enough, which is good, because I can't afford to upgrade my computer right now.

#22 bdgp

    Rookie

  • 1 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 01:10 AM

@ dragoon
ive heard that mwo doesnt play to nice with amd cpu's, am i miss informed or is there an advantage to running intel at all? i have a HP p6 2133w with a fm2 socket quad core amd @ 2.2 ghz i was thinking about throwing the 2gb gt730 on just to benchmark, test mwo, and post the results for anybody who is researching upgrades in the future. also, i have access to a intel core 2 quadcore 3.0ghz Q9650 for dirt cheap ( buddy scrapped his old rig) im gonna throw on the ep45-ud3r also for a benchmark and mwo framerate test just for future reference

#23 Vxheous

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • 3,822 posts
  • Location2 Time MWO World Champion

Posted 22 April 2017 - 06:41 AM

View Postbdgp, on 22 April 2017 - 01:10 AM, said:

@ dragoon
ive heard that mwo doesnt play to nice with amd cpu's, am i miss informed or is there an advantage to running intel at all? i have a HP p6 2133w with a fm2 socket quad core amd @ 2.2 ghz i was thinking about throwing the 2gb gt730 on just to benchmark, test mwo, and post the results for anybody who is researching upgrades in the future. also, i have access to a intel core 2 quadcore 3.0ghz Q9650 for dirt cheap ( buddy scrapped his old rig) im gonna throw on the ep45-ud3r also for a benchmark and mwo framerate test just for future reference


MWO doesn't play nice with amd cpus that aren't Ryzen, and it doesn't play nice with 9 year old computers either. The GT 730 is an extremely weak card that 2017 integrated graphics can probably beat

#24 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 22 April 2017 - 10:08 AM

View Postbdgp, on 22 April 2017 - 01:10 AM, said:

@ dragoon
ive heard that mwo doesnt play to nice with amd cpu's, am i miss informed or is there an advantage to running intel at all? i have a HP p6 2133w with a fm2 socket quad core amd @ 2.2 ghz i was thinking about throwing the 2gb gt730 on just to benchmark, test mwo, and post the results for anybody who is researching upgrades in the future. also, i have access to a intel core 2 quadcore 3.0ghz Q9650 for dirt cheap ( buddy scrapped his old rig) im gonna throw on the ep45-ud3r also for a benchmark and mwo framerate test just for future reference


Cry Engine games in general work better with Intel chips, unless they are heavily optimized.

#25 Lord Letto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • 900 posts
  • LocationSt. Clements, Ontario

Posted 22 April 2017 - 10:18 AM

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-7500 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($188.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock B250M Pro4 Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($74.49 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill NT Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($57.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 1050 2GB SSC GAMING Video Card ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair CSM 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $481.35
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-04-22 14:16 EDT-0400

Base Total: $521.35 Mail-in Rebates: -$40.00 Total: $481.35

#26 Gator the angry pimp

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 32 posts
  • LocationNorthern California, USA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:01 AM

lord letto just made it really hard not to say no, didnt he? hahahabababaha.maybe OP would be better running it on his pavillion-6 2133w? with linux for OS using crossover?

#27 Gator the angry pimp

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 32 posts
  • LocationNorthern California, USA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:40 PM

now wait just a damn minute here......

after pokin around google/boobtube for a minute there are several SEVERAL gameplay videos by multiple users benchmarking (using crysis 3) rigs with e8400 and e8500 intel chips and similar gpu's. now maybe im a little to medicated and need to put down the "smoking glass lamp", but if im not mistaken crysis 3 runs on cryengine (which is why people refer to crysis 3 user.cfg files as a reference for valid mwo user.cfg variable?)

now if crysis 3 runs cryengine, and mwo runs cryengine, and guys are getting 30-37fps in crysis 3 using similar if not identical hardware, then whats stopping the OP from getting similar results in mwo?

is mwo really so unoptimized that a user (using sllightly better hardware than pgi's minimum system requirements) cant pull playable fps when i just watchex 2 guys play crysis 3@1440 resolution (which is a big step up from 1024x7whatever)on medium?

and even more so, WTF PGI! mwo is FREE TO PLAY, you dont have to LIE about minimum system requirements to make sales, especiallly with the way u price gouge everyone on the price of mechs. minimum sys req's should provide A CLEAR BASELINE FOR WHAT THE MINIMAL HARDWARE A USER NEEDS TO PLAY THE GAME AT AN ACCEPTABLE FRAME RATE IS.
(and while im on a good one) GET OFF YOUR *** AND UPDATE THE TRIAL MECHS TOO.

this is all speculative of coarse, as i am not "the grand poobah" of hardware. just trying to get our boy here feelin like hes got a fighting chance. and im a little confused as to why the same game engine cant give similar results across titles when that seems to be the case elsewhere.

stay salty,
Gator

#28 Vxheous

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • 3,822 posts
  • Location2 Time MWO World Champion

Posted 26 April 2017 - 03:42 AM

View PostGator the angry pimp, on 25 April 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

now wait just a damn minute here......

after pokin around google/boobtube for a minute there are several SEVERAL gameplay videos by multiple users benchmarking (using crysis 3) rigs with e8400 and e8500 intel chips and similar gpu's. now maybe im a little to medicated and need to put down the "smoking glass lamp", but if im not mistaken crysis 3 runs on cryengine (which is why people refer to crysis 3 user.cfg files as a reference for valid mwo user.cfg variable?)

now if crysis 3 runs cryengine, and mwo runs cryengine, and guys are getting 30-37fps in crysis 3 using similar if not identical hardware, then whats stopping the OP from getting similar results in mwo?

is mwo really so unoptimized that a user (using sllightly better hardware than pgi's minimum system requirements) cant pull playable fps when i just watchex 2 guys play crysis 3@1440 resolution (which is a big step up from 1024x7whatever)on medium?

and even more so, WTF PGI! mwo is FREE TO PLAY, you dont have to LIE about minimum system requirements to make sales, especiallly with the way u price gouge everyone on the price of mechs. minimum sys req's should provide A CLEAR BASELINE FOR WHAT THE MINIMAL HARDWARE A USER NEEDS TO PLAY THE GAME AT AN ACCEPTABLE FRAME RATE IS.
(and while im on a good one) GET OFF YOUR *** AND UPDATE THE TRIAL MECHS TOO.

this is all speculative of coarse, as i am not "the grand poobah" of hardware. just trying to get our boy here feelin like hes got a fighting chance. and im a little confused as to why the same game engine cant give similar results across titles when that seems to be the case elsewhere.

stay salty,
Gator


Pretty much every game that runs on cryengine that's not made directly by Crytek is horribly unoptimized and usually runs worse than compared to Crysis.

#29 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:12 AM

Basically.

There are a lot of CVARs that lack documentation, or useful documentation, or are redundant, or do not have any kind of "massive performance hit" warning, etc etc etc

In addition, PGI probably has not paid excellent attention to the configuration and CVAR tuning necessary to get the game in the right spot.

On top of that, they are probably adding a lot of things that do excessive, unnecessary things in the name of immersion without understanding the performance hit they incur. There are probably also some decisions that don't make the most sense and have a hit on performance just due to how some things are executed. I mean, we're talking about a company who didn't throw the proper hardware or optimized database programming into the mix for 4 years on the back-end, so only god knows what they've done to the client.

This is probably most of the reason why all CryEngine games not made by Crytek perform worse. Nobody understands the nature of the beast, they just want their game to look good, and it costs them big time.

Edited by xWiredx, 26 April 2017 - 10:13 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users