48 replies to this topic

[New Day]

Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Processor: AMD A6-3650 APU with Radeon™ HD Graphics (4 CPUs), ~2.6GHz
Memory: 8192MB RAM
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560
Resolution 1680x1050
?

EDIT: High settings
EDIT 2: With low settings I get ~20~25 FPS.

Edited by Niko Snow, 16 April 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[CommanderOSIS]

thats what I get with everything similar specs except I have an amd 8120 8 core. :/

[G4M3R]

No, you should not. I would expect with your PC around 30fps+. I am,

i7-2600k OC'ed ~4ghz
8 gigs RAM
GTX 580 DCII
1920x1080

Getting ~60fps even in Forest Colony.

Edited by G4M3R, 11 November 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[CommanderOSIS]

a lot of people do though. ever since the cryengine 3 switch fps for a lot of people has dropped dramatically.

[Dominatrix420]

You might want to consider another 8gig stick of ram. The game is a memory hog.
My system is similar to yours, but pentum i5. I have 16gigs, and I consistanty get 40-70fps across all maps
High setting on max resolution.

Edited by Dominatrix420, 11 November 2012 - 12:12 PM.

[Kabe]

Dominatrix420, on 11 November 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

You might want to consider another 8gig stick of ram. The game is a memory hog.
My system is similar to yours, but pentum i5. I have 16gigs, and I consistanty get 40-70fps across all maps
High setting on max resolution.

Is this game not 32 bit meaning it only uses 3 gigs?

[Nighpher]

Nope

Kabe, on 11 November 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Is this game not 32 bit meaning it only uses 3 gigs?

Nope.

[ShiroTenshin]

it's not cause lack of RAM, I'm running 12gb and the issue is present.

Running on i7 3770k at 5Ghz on a p8z77 premium with 2x 670 GTX SLIed along 2x 120gb SSD

So it's not hardware issue, it's game issue.

[Mota Prefect]

NamesAreStupid, on 11 November 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Processor: AMD A6-3650 APU with Radeon™ HD Graphics (4 CPUs), ~2.6GHz
Memory: 8192MB RAM
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560
Resolution 1680x1050
?

Your A6 chip is not designed for playing games, especially one using cryengine3.

[New Day]

Mota Prefect, on 11 November 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Your A6 chip is not designed for playing games, especially one using cryengine3.

Yeah, but I'm using a dedicated 560.

Edited by NamesAreStupid, 11 November 2012 - 02:39 PM.

[Liquidx]

You neglected to list the most important item that would affect your fps... in-game settings.

I run a core i5 3.3ghz quad core, 16gb ram, and an ancient nvidia 8800gt, and I get a fairly stable 30 fps in combat (40ish without) - but this is with all graphical settings on low. The moment I start bumping stuff up, the fps takes a huge hit and I can find myself in single digits very quickly.

Turn your details down and your fps will likely increase significantly.

[New Day]

Liquidx, on 11 November 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

You neglected to list the most important item that would affect your fps... in-game settings.

I run a core i5 3.3ghz quad core, 16gb ram, and an ancient nvidia 8800gt, and I get a fairly stable 30 fps in combat (40ish without) - but this is with all graphical settings on low. The moment I start bumping stuff up, the fps takes a huge hit and I can find myself in single digits very quickly.

Turn your details down and your fps will likely increase significantly.

I was thinking that I should be able to run it max, since I can almost do the same for Crysis 2.

[Troggy]

Yeah, I'm running an Ivy Bridge, I5-3450, a GTX 570 (a fair improvement on the 560), and 20 gigs of RAM. It runs great on medium settings, but is so-so on high. It's becomes a trade-off between playability and eye-candy (like so many games).

[CommanderOSIS]

Liquidx, on 11 November 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

You neglected to list the most important item that would affect your fps... in-game settings.

I run a core i5 3.3ghz quad core, 16gb ram, and an ancient nvidia 8800gt, and I get a fairly stable 30 fps in combat (40ish without) - but this is with all graphical settings on low. The moment I start bumping stuff up, the fps takes a huge hit and I can find myself in single digits very quickly.

Turn your details down and your fps will likely increase significantly.

my settings are all the way down and my fps will still drop to 12-15. the engine isnt optimized and a lot of people are having this problem.

[ZigZagJoe]

PGI ****ed things up to holy hell with the cryengine upgrade. Either drop detail levels to low or don't play.

Funny, really; a machine that exceeds recommended specs that played well at very high detail in windowed mode pre-patch can barely maintain a playable framerate full-screen with lowest settings after the patch. Best bit is that pre-patch graphics are more or less the same as post-patch. Or they would be, if you could run in the same detail levels as before.

To answer your question OP, first, complain to PGI, then set your detail level to low. And hope.

Mota Prefect, on 11 November 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Your A6 chip is not designed for playing games, especially one using cryengine3.

You are terrible and should feel terrible. Short of trying to play on the cheapest budget processors, there is no current production CPU that should have issues playing this game. Even assuming he was using integrated graphics (he's not) most current integrated GPUs could have gotten the game into a playable state pre-patch.

Edited by ZigZagJoe, 11 November 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[ODonovan]

Well, Piranha is going to have to decide which they want, a niche game that only folks with computers with the highest specs can run or a game for everyone which will bring them in a lot more money. Hmmm... Which to choose?



-Irish

[Karenai]

ZigZagJoe, on 11 November 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

PGI ****ed things up to holy hell with the cryengine upgrade. Either drop detail levels to low or don't play.

Funny, really; a machine that exceeds recommended specs that played well at very high detail in windowed mode pre-patch can barely maintain a playable framerate full-screen with lowest settings after the patch. Best bit is that pre-patch graphics are more or less the same as post-patch. Or they would be, if you could run in the same detail levels as before.

To answer your question OP, first, complain to PGI, then set your detail level to low. And hope.



You are terrible and should feel terrible. Short of trying to play on the cheapest budget processors, there is no current production CPU that should have issues playing this game. Even assuming he was using integrated graphics (he's not) most current integrated GPUs could have gotten the game into a playable state pre-patch.

*mustresistrant* *mustresist*

Had you have followed this game for some time, you would know by now that many over the top über specs get totaly unplayable fps numbers. And most of the time there is little you could do to make it better.
No, the game did not run better before the patch. Maybe for some, but that is only because for them something else broke. For most people the patch was a clear performance gain.

But back to OP: Your FPS is about right.

The AMD A6-3650 is...well how to put it gently, freeborne piece of old tech.
It is about the speed of a Core Duo 8600 in regard to games. The 560 is also not realy top notch.
My personal piece of junk is a Core Duo@3.6GHz paired with a gtx 260.
With all at high I look at 35-45 fps without any fighting (and some crazy even lower resolution then you use). Sadly not much changes with low setting. Only the resolution seems to have some effect for me.

But you will not be able to play on high settings and 1680x1050 unless they polish the Kernesky out of the engine.

Try some kind of hardware monitor, but my guess is, that you CPU is running around 95-99%, if your GPU ist not at 95-99% switching to a better CPU would help very much. (For me both CPU and GPU are hitting the performance wall pretty hard)

[Brenden]

I.... Actually don't know my system specs. It's a Dell Laptop, though. It has an Intel Core i3 and on low settings, I'm getting only 5FPS. Max.

[Liquidx]

Brenden, on 11 November 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

I.... Actually don't know my system specs. It's a Dell Laptop, though. It has an Intel Core i3 and on low settings, I'm getting only 5FPS. Max.

This is likely due to a poor graphics chip. 99% of laptops out there aren't built for gaming. There's nothing that they can do to the game to fix the game if this is the case - short of making it text based

run dxdiag to find out your specs.
start -> run -> type in dxdiag

[New Day]

Karenai, on 11 November 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

*mustresistrant* *mustresist*

Had you have followed this game for some time, you would know by now that many over the top über specs get totaly unplayable fps numbers. And most of the time there is little you could do to make it better.
No, the game did not run better before the patch. Maybe for some, but that is only because for them something else broke. For most people the patch was a clear performance gain.

But back to OP: Your FPS is about right.

The AMD A6-3650 is...well how to put it gently, freeborne piece of old tech.
It is about the speed of a Core Duo 8600 in regard to games. The 560 is also not realy top notch.
My personal piece of junk is a Core Duo@3.6GHz paired with a gtx 260.
With all at high I look at 35-45 fps without any fighting (and some crazy even lower resolution then you use). Sadly not much changes with low setting. Only the resolution seems to have some effect for me.

But you will not be able to play on high settings and 1680x1050 unless they polish the Kernesky out of the engine.

Try some kind of hardware monitor, but my guess is, that you CPU is running around 95-99%, if your GPU ist not at 95-99% switching to a better CPU would help very much. (For me both CPU and GPU are hitting the performance wall pretty hard)

Are you sure, because I can run a lot of new games at highish/very highish settings and get decent FPS. Do you think that overclocking would help? According to some sites I could bump up my speed from ~2.6 GHz to 3.5~3.8GHz, using the stock cooler.