26 replies to this topic

[helboyDJ]

I constantly get 9-19 FPS.
My computer is:-AMD FX 8150(8 cores 3.6 Ghz)
-Gainward GT520 nvidia chipset with 1GB of VRAM
-8 GB of Ram at 1333Mhz
Please all you tech savys out there can you tell me if i really need to upgrade my comp or is it just bad game optimization?

[Taryys]

Mine is a quad core Althon 1.9 with an older 1GB Radeon card and I am getting similar frame rates
I think we are just waiting on Cryengine/GPU optimization.

[Sug]

I see GT520's for 40-60$ and the 40$ ones don't even have fans. You might need a better graphics card.

[icey]

The GT520 is terrible and would struggle to run minecraft (ok not really, but its bad - its an ultra-basic display adapter that isnt really designed to run 3d games)

Get yourself a GTX660 or radeon 7870 or something in that neighbourhood or better as your budget allows - NVidia is favoured for this game because of CryEngine and TWIMTBP optimisations

your CPU should be ok though.

[dxwarlock]

Yea its the 520 thats whats doing it. Looking it up to find an equal to give an example, even a 9800 from 5 years ago beats it in dx9 usage.
it's the lowest of the low end 500 series. even the onboard i5/i7 video beats that card, sorry :\

You could pickup a decent card for around $200, it wont be "high end kick every games *** for 3 years" type card. but it would be like night and day compared to the 520.

You dont need to upgrade the whole machine, just the card. the rest is plenty good enough.

Edited by dxwarlock, 21 November 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Dakkath]

upgrade the video card to a GTX 560TI 448 core, or 600 series and you'll get upwards of 50-60FPS with all settings maxed, around 30-40FPS in battles with lots of missiles.

My Core i5, with 560ti, 8gb of ram does this.

Edited by Dakkath, 21 November 2012 - 11:03 AM.
grammar

[armitage]

http://www.tomshardw...0-33-4000-gt520

You'd probably be better off running an intergrated gpu, yes the 520 is that bad.

[r4plez]

upgrade graphic card -top priority

[SkkyHigh]

evga makes some good quality cards and there warranty is awesome.
i use a gtx 560 only cause I'm going to be getting a second for SLI.
i get between 40-60 fps with very high settings.

i5 3.3ghz
16gig ram
evga gtx 560 1 gig

[Sevaradan]

your computer is horrible, replace it.

[Sayyid]

Samantha, on 21 November 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

My i7 3960x 32gb ram Quad GTX 690 get's about the same numbers as you.

it's laughable considering the graphics aren't great in mwo and I get more FPS in a 500+ player battle on Planetside 2 on max settings.

Lower spec machines seem to work worse and worse with each patch they put in, but one good thing is after this patch I don't seem to get the 4fps bug anymore. I'm shocked they actually fixed a core bug

I have a Athlon 5600+ dual core 2.8ghz CPU and I get better frame rates in PS2 than MWO after this last patch.

[MrPenguin]

Last patch screwed up FPS for everyone.

Also, the geforce 520 is pretty bad...

[Skyfaller]

helboyDJ, on 21 November 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

I constantly get 9-19 FPS.
My computer is:-AMD FX 8150(8 cores 3.6 Ghz)
-Gainward GT520 nvidia chipset with 1GB of VRAM
-8 GB of Ram at 1333Mhz
Please all you tech savys out there can you tell me if i really need to upgrade my comp or is it just bad game optimization?

I run an AMD Quad core phenom 2 @ 3.2ghz with 16gb of ram (I used to have 4gb up to last week but my FPS is not affected by the ram amount).

...and use an Nvidia GT240 vid card..which is much older and less capable than yours.

My game runs at 22fps and downs to 18fps in some thick fighting. @ 1600x1200 res.

I run the game on all minimum settings because I think the game looks better that way (no bull effects/fog/distance blurring & crap). If i run it at max detail the FPS drops to 18 on average and 12 in thick fights.

Its not excellent but its not a bother. Its no slideshow at all. The human eye sees at 25fps max and in every day life we see at 10fps.

Your machine must have some bottleneck. Make sure the nvidia card settings are set to allow the program to determine what is enabled/disabled...if your card has stuff like max FSAA or triple buffering forced on it can kill framerates on many games.

Also, put all settings on low in the game first and see how it runs. Then slowly, category by category (detail,particles, textures,etc) increase them until you see which one is killing your FPS.

[Daekar]

This is not the first person I've run into that had a 520 that was getting poor performance. If you look at the Tom's Hardware rating charts, it ranks with cards from 10+ years ago.

[Jeff K Notagoon]

MrPenguin, on 21 November 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Last patch screwed up FPS for everyone.

Also, the geforce 520 is pretty bad...

You don't speak for everyone. I have never had a problem with FPS in this game, current patch included.

[MadPanda]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 21 November 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

You don't speak for everyone. I have never had a problem with FPS in this game, current patch included.

If you drive in a monster truck I guess you won't notice the difference if you drive over a regular guy or an obese guy. We don't all drive monster trucks, some of us have regular cars and we feel the bumps on the road.

[MrPenguin]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 21 November 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

You don't speak for everyone. I have never had a problem with FPS in this game, current patch included.

Okay then, most* people.
Better?

[Sign]

Skyfaller, on 21 November 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

Its not excellent but its not a bother. Its no slideshow at all. The human eye sees at 25fps max and in every day life we see at 10fps.

This is about the most uninformed statement i've read in a while. The human eye sees in a continous spectrum, not in "frames". The amount of slides per second a person can distinguish is also pretty subjective, but it is far higher than either value you quoted.

Heck, the new Hobbit movie is filmed at 48fps and it's a HUGE percieved difference vs regular 24fps films, and I personally can distinguish pretty clearly between 30 and 60 fps.I wouldn't be surprised if others can distinguish differences between higher values than that, although the higher you go the less obvious the changes are.

Furthermore, you just won't notice anything above 60 in a computer as that's the usual max. monitor refresh rate anyway.

So no, "everyday at 10fps" is about as true as saying that our ear drums are digital devices.

And to get back on topic, yeah, it's de 520, change it and all will be well. The rest of the machine is pretty good.

[Odins Fist]

helboyDJ, on 21 November 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

I constantly get 9-19 FPS.
My computer is:-AMD FX 8150(8 cores 3.6 Ghz)
-Gainward GT520 nvidia chipset with 1GB of VRAM
-8 GB of Ram at 1333Mhz
Please all you tech savys out there can you tell me if i really need to upgrade my comp or is it just bad game optimization?

.
First issue, you have an FX Bulldozer, they were a fail chip, and did "NOT" beat the Phenom II CPUs in single threaded performance, they got beat... Secondly your GT 520 shouldn't even be considered a "5" series Video card, and I will show you why.. It's your Video Card that is the problem here... "PERIOD"
.
Memory DDR3
Memory Interface 64-bit <------ Really..?? (bad)
Video Memory 1024MB
Stream Processors 48 <------ Really..?? (even worse)
Core Clock 810 MHz
Memory Clock 1400 MHz
Shader Clock 1620 MHz
.
These stats are "BEYOND" awful, and your "WEAK LINK" is the Video Card, whoever sold you that piece of junk needs to lose their job..
Lemme guess, some kid at Best But sold you on that worthless card.

Edited by Odins Fist, 21 November 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[Naeron66]

Samantha, on 21 November 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

My i7 3960x 32gb ram Quad GTX 690 get's about the same numbers as you.

My i7 3450 8gb ram with a 1gb GTX650 gets 40-55FPS with everything set a high other than anti-aliasing and post processing (medium). So its not the game.