Jump to content

When Are We Going To See Major Improvements For People With Core 2 Duo Processors?


105 replies to this topic

#101 Sayyid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 482 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:35 AM

View Postzverofaust, on 24 November 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:


Never, I hope. Welcome to 2012 gaming. Now go take your circa 2006 hardware and go play some 2006 games for which it was made and leave us soon to be poor credit debt up to our eyeballs but living large on the hog for now to our better games


Fixed it for you.

#102 Cerlin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 922 posts
  • LocationCalifornia or Japan

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:45 AM

View PostLeroy Jenkens, on 24 November 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

PS2 plays wonderfully on core 2 duo 6300 @2500 w/ 8 gigs ram and AMD 6850. It's butter tbh. 200 vs. 200 still 30fps. The bar has just raised for PGI. If fanbois will keep this game alive then good for PGI.

Myself as a non battletech fan who was looking for something better than WOT or EVE. I have to be honest. I loved this game until the economy nerf in CB. I got my refund thank goodness. I'm looking for the best return on my investment of time and money.

While WOT is a very fun game, which plays like butter on my rig too. They failed at clan wars. MWO promised better but have yet to deliver. EVE is just old without meaningful new content.

If any outfits are recruiting on east coast US servers PM me. I'll be there unless PGI wake up and smell the coffee.


Yet for me MWO runs perfectly and I cant get over 9 FPS in Planetside 2. Got to love the world (I have a quad core and 8 gigs...)

#103 Mavairo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,251 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:52 AM

Crysis 2. Extreme Settings (which is Infinitely better looking than this high end playstation 2 game level of graphics game, with far far better physics) 45 FPS.

Mechwarrior online.
At times. 18 FPS. Average FPS? 27 to 30.

Something isn't right there.

#104 Clay Pigeon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 1,121 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:59 AM

View PostBlackBeltJones, on 06 December 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

I have tested this game on a machine I built at work. Dual E5 2660, SSD, 64GB RAM, and Dual Quadro 5000, all liquid cooled too and it runs exactly like my crappy I5 quad core at home. With everything set to low on both rigs I still get very low FPS in combat.

true quad i5's should get decent frame rates if paired with a good GPU and not running at retardedly high resolution.

Also quadros aren't optimized for gaming. They're optimized for CAD and other workstation programs.

Edited by Clay Pigeon, 07 December 2012 - 11:00 AM.


#105 MstrHellraiser

    Rookie

  • 3 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:22 AM


When Are We Going To See Major Improvements For People With Pentium 3 Processors?


#106 Savagevidya

    Rookie

  • The 1 Percent
  • 5 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:54 AM

View PostGarth Erlam, on 06 December 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

You can check the second-to-last (I believe) Ask The Devs - our IT guy lists out our machines there.


Yeah, right. But they don't list their framerates, which he also asked for.

In the meantime, like others, I get better performance in more demanding games like the actual Crysis 2 (30 FPS on medium settings, 720p) then this POS on the exact same settings. There is an obvious discrepancy here, PGI.

Edited by A Living Savage, 07 December 2012 - 11:56 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users