69 replies to this topic

[Beezer]

For a while I put off upgrading from a dual core because I didn't want to get a whole new setup but I found a good deal on ebay for a compatible cpu on the cheap and jumped on it. I upgraded from a AMD Athlon x2 7750BE to a Phenom II x4 955 and the game runs smooth as butter now. No more choppiness, stutter and I can put the settings up to see these beautiful mechs. I'd say while dual cores are "playable", dips down into the low teens with updates over the past couple months had me playing less and less. I was previously playing on all settings low, now I can play on medium or high.

[Catamount]

The 955 is definitely not a bad little chip, something with some life left in it. If you run into bottlenecks at all, a $25ish air cooler should be enough to get a really decent OC out of that chip. Sadly I never got to play with overclocking on my Phenom II X4, I lost the OC lottery badly and the chip wouldn't budge past a couple hundred megahertz.

It's good to hear it's working out for you though.

[CooloutAC]

http://technewspedia...35-video-cards/
the game requires a beast of a machine. I mean my god they are using a 4.8ghz i7 cpu? am i reading that right? and a 7870 or 660 to get 60fps? wow.....

so i guess my 20-30 fps on my rig is normal.... even though i swear it used to be 10 fps higher when i started a few weeks ago.

Edited by CooloutAC, 12 October 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[Egomane]

Catamount, on 12 October 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

The 955 is definitely not a bad little chip, something with some life left in it. If you run into bottlenecks at all, a $25ish air cooler should be enough to get a really decent OC out of that chip. Sadly I never got to play with overclocking on my Phenom II X4, I lost the OC lottery badly and the chip wouldn't budge past a couple hundred megahertz.

Couldn't agree more!

I'm phasing mine out now, after four faithful years, selling it to a friend for still a few more years of service. It never let me down and gave me all the processing power I needed. While I could push mine to 3.8 GHz, I settled at 3.4 to reduce the power load needed, making it an equal to the 965.

[Catamount]

Yeah people underestimate the good old Phenom IIs way too much.

Sure, they're basically Nehalem i5s, but they were cheap Nehalem i5s (AMD sold them in discounted bundles at first, then just priced them well), and chip technology has absolutely not come far enough to obsolete them yet. In fact, the Phenom II X4 965 stayed in the active lineup with Steamroller for awhile!

I replaced my non-OCing 965 last year, but only because I got gifted a CPU and motherboard.

[Wraithlord77]

hmmm my system is fine but far from best and i run MWO on Medium gfx settings ,yea i do get the odd disconnect and game freeze but i put that down to NEW game only out of beta.

win 7 64bit
processer E6800 3.33GHz
6 Gig DDR3 ram
Asus motherboard (fairly standard)
Gigabyte GT640 2 Gig DDR3 (overclocked)

i also have to keep my screen res at or above 1440x900 as i use a HD tv which cant desplay below that res.

[Sen]

Quote

the game requires a beast of a machine. I mean my god they are using a 4.8ghz i7 cpu? am i reading that right? and a 7870 or 660 to get 60fps? wow.....

It's really not saying much. CPU utilization in combat with the 3930k is about 20-23%, believe it or don't. As for the GPU, as far as I can remember $200 has been the relative low price point for "decently good", so it's not TOO off the mark [considering you can get a 7950 these days for $200 give or take ten to twenty.

Edited by Sen, 15 October 2013 - 06:54 AM.

[Keeperovod]

Just upgraded to i7 3770K/16GB DD3/GTX780OC. And I still have 40-45 fps at any settings on Forest Colony. I seems. that MWO is totally unoptimized. If I change settings I have great change in average FPS but I always have FPS dropdowns.

If you want to play in 1080p with maximum settings any configuration equal ot faster that i5-2xxx/GTX560/4GB RAM will be enough. MWO can't use any more resources how I see it.

Edited by Keeperovod, 25 October 2013 - 01:24 AM.

[Barbaric Soul]

Keeperovod, on 25 October 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

Just upgraded to i7 3770K/16GB DD3/GTX780OC. And I still have 40-45 fps at any settings on Forest Colony. I seems. that MWO is totally unoptimized. If I change settings I have great change in average FPS but I always have FPS dropdowns.

If you want to play in 1080p with maximum settings any configuration equal ot faster that i5-2xxx/GTX560/4GB RAM will be enough. MWO can't use any more resources how I see it.

Heh, I get 60 fps at 1080p with a 2600k @ 4.5ghz and an 7970.

[SunderODeath]

Sen, on 15 October 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

It's really not saying much. CPU utilization in combat with the 3930k is about 20-23%, believe it or don't. As for the GPU, as far as I can remember $200 has been the relative low price point for "decently good", so it's not TOO off the mark [considering you can get a 7950 these days for $200 give or take ten to twenty.

Actually it is saying quite alot. I have a 3960X @4.8GHz alog with 2 780 Classfieds in SLI. And I can tell you from personal experience those numbers are decieving. While the total CPU usage may only be around 30%, MWO seems to be very poorly multithreaded. The game loads three cores primarily, with one at 80%-100% and the other 2 at around %50. As soon as the main core reaches 100% usage GPU usage starts to drop. So there is a huge CPU bottleneck in this game.

Even though the total CPU usage is only at around 30% one core is being completely hammered causing a CPU bottleneck. Its pretty clear at this point that the game really prefers faster single threaded performance (AKA clock speed).

Barbaric Soul, on 25 October 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

Heh, I get 60 fps at 1080p with a 2600k @ 4.5ghz and an 7970.

This is further proof that the game loves clockspeed. Keeperovod, if you OC 3770K to around 4.2GHz you should have no problem keeping 60fps. The 3770k is around %10 faster than the 2600k clock for clock. So if you could get your chip up to 4.5GHz it would be around %10 faster than a 2600k at the same clockspeed.

Hopefully this picture will change when DX11 is released.

[ArmageddonKnight]

I rarely drop form 60 FPS at which im maxed out with due to VSync.

The times i do are bassicaly down to the game itself, not the hardware, at which point it drops into the mid/low 50's)

I run a 3930k at 4.6ghz and a single GTX 780 Classified running a Air OC of 1256mhz core and 7200mhz VRAM
I run the game on its max settings and downsample at 2400x1350.

GPU usuage is usualy between 50% and 75%(nightvision/thermal vision)

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 28 October 2013 - 01:29 PM.

[SunderODeath]

We have almost the exact same setup and run the game at about the same settings, and the game behaves for me exactly as you describe it. It's just a shame that it dips below 60 fps at all considering the hardware we are running. If you bring up the task manager when playing you'll notice that the few times during the match that the Fps dips below 60 for a second or 2, one cpu core will likely be pegged at 100% during that time. But like I said, hopefully DX11 will bring the CPU usage down somewhat.

[Oldmanv]

So, i've been playing whole year with this rig:
i5 3570k at stock clock
8gig ram CL9 12800
and no additional videocard - so on my CPU's Intel HD 4000.
It was about 30fps at the beginning of 2013, after 12vs12 i have no more than 25 FPS, 22 is average.
(lowest settings in launcher, no changes in CFG-files)

I'm wondering, if getting GTX 650 will give me about 50 fps with moderate details?
Oh, by the way - my monitor is 1366x768 (and i'm totally ok with that), so the ingame resolution won't be higher.

[Goose]

While I'm confidant in saying "NO" to your question, I'm not highly confidant: It would, in fact, be a really neat test if you tried it, but that's serving me and my purposes, and not yours …

See: MW:O/ Crysis 3, when limited to DX9, requires a blend of CPU and GPU. Given you already have a descent CPU, it's anybodies guess as to whats enough or too much GPU, for it.

And then the DX11 version of the game will come along, and everyone will have to relearn everything …

I get the impression "it's a mistake to spend less then $250/ get less then a GTX760," but I like having furture-proofing in my bang-for-buck more then most people I know, and could easly be over-kill if you will never upgrade your monitor before your CPU.

Good luck …

[Catamount]

Oldmanv, on 02 December 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

So, i've been playing whole year with this rig:
i5 3570k at stock clock
8gig ram CL9 12800
and no additional videocard - so on my CPU's Intel HD 4000.
It was about 30fps at the beginning of 2013, after 12vs12 i have no more than 25 FPS, 22 is average.
(lowest settings in launcher, no changes in CFG-files)

I'm wondering, if getting GTX 650 will give me about 50 fps with moderate details?
Oh, by the way - my monitor is 1366x768 (and i'm totally ok with that), so the ingame resolution won't be higher.

OP, at that resolution, you could probably play on high with a 650 and do decently. That said, your stock-clocked 3570k will drag you down to the high 40s or so, so I would overclock it just the same. You can usually get around 4.2 without messing with voltage.

Edited by Catamount, 03 December 2013 - 08:38 AM.

[greywolf79]

So I have spent the last few months since the last post I made saving and buying piece by piece a new machine. I am interested in knowning why my specs fail the applet I found to test if it will run MWO since it is a better CPU (average of 170% performance of the E7400 I previously had, which passed the applet). I am now running -

Intel Pentium G2010 (socket 1155 dual core, 2.80 ghz) - same speed as E7400 (socket 775), newer architecture
2gb DDR3 1600 (PC3-12800) RAM - it was supposed to be 8gb but a 4gb and 2x1gb sticks were faulty (waiting on 2x2gb sticks)
Win 7 - 64 bit ultimate
B75 Intel chipset motherboard (MSI B75A-G43 MIII, not gaming model - but still good)
500 gb 7200 RPM hard drive (was using a 5400 RPM 320 gb laptop hard drive in the other desktop)
ATI/AMD Radeon HD 6570 video card
Crappy screen - Element 23 in HD TV as monitor, connected via HDMI for video and sound
1440x900 resolution
DVD +/- RW burner from an older HP with lightscribe, should be at least 16x burn with 4x or better DL support
750w Power supply, not 80+ (so performance is estimated at 70%, but still well beyond what I need)

Other than the crappy screen, this seems to run with 4gb ram - but had to drop back to 2gb due to the faulty ram.

I guess 2 questions really if possible - 1, why does this better CPU fail a test that an older one passed? and 2, will MWO run even poorly on 2gb ram?

[Catamount]

greywolf79, on 06 December 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

So I have spent the last few months since the last post I made saving and buying piece by piece a new machine. I am interested in knowning why my specs fail the applet I found to test if it will run MWO since it is a better CPU (average of 170% performance of the E7400 I previously had, which passed the applet). I am now running -

Why are you relying on an unintelligent, poorly coded script to tell you if you can run the game or not? Is not the most accurate way to judge this to simply download and run the game? That 2GB of RAM is going to hurt you, a lot, and that CPU is definitely going to hold you back some, but you should have no problem at least playing. OCing the CPU would help your case a lot. Getting it into the middle of the 3-4ghz range, at least, should be extremely easy to do, as well.

Quote

750w Power supply, not 80+ (so performance is estimated at 70%, but still well beyond what I need)

Eh, I'd keep an eye on that unit at least.

The 70% efficiency doesn't mean you only get 70% of the power, it still gives 750W (at least, it's claimed to), it's just that your machine would have to pull ~1070W (750/0.7) from the wall to deliver it, while at 80% that drops to a mere 940W, so basically your unit would throw off 130W more raw heat from the conversion than even a bad 80+ unit, 320W in total, which your PSU components then have to deal with and your case has to vent.

That in itself would be a concern if you pulled serious power, but the bigger concern is that units that don't even manage a basic 80PLUS rating, especially ones that fail to meet that benchmark so spectacularly, are almost invariably bad PSUs. Cheap high-wattage units are a no-no when buying PSUs. They can fail, or slowly fry your components with poor ripple and voltage regulation.

That's a concern for the long-term, though. For now, just get the game running.

Edited by Catamount, 06 December 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[greywolf79]

I have run the game with the bad 4gb stick, ran ok but crashed due to RAM faults. I am waiting on replacement sticks now to get it up to 6gb total and that should work. I was just more curious why the applet would say that I cannot run it - but bad programming or knowledge on the programmer's side makes sense. I will hold back from playing for a couple weeks, but that makes me sad.

[Ocilfa]

I should be getting a Dell Venue 8 Pro tablet rather soon. Obviously, it probably wont even run. However, it would be fun to do a video showing it "trying". I'll post a video when I get the chance.

[greywolf79]

That video sounds awesome. I wish portables would catch up to desktops in the power and price department...