Op, Yea it wasn't the 9800 gt. i have one of those, and it runs just fine on my computer. then again i have a quad core.
14
250 replies to this topic
#182
-
-
- Bad Company
- 34 posts
Member
Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:21 PM
Niko Snow, on 27 November 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:
All Performance / FPS / Lag related posts will be merged into this thread for simplified reference and overview.
Please attempt to respond to the following questions in your responses:
How had the patch generally affected your performance?
Whether there are specific points in the game when your performance changes.
What are your video settings, did you change them since last patch?
Average FPS ingame and in the menus for previous patch and latest patch (Press F9 to see your FPS)
System specs
Your advertised internet connection speed / Geographic location
Please attempt to respond to the following questions in your responses:
How had the patch generally affected your performance?
Whether there are specific points in the game when your performance changes.
What are your video settings, did you change them since last patch?
Average FPS ingame and in the menus for previous patch and latest patch (Press F9 to see your FPS)
System specs
Your advertised internet connection speed / Geographic location
Now, I have tried everything under the sun, short of wiping my entire computer and starting from ground zero, which just seems silly. This includes, but is not limited to, exchanging pak files, wiping cache, reinstalling (and to a different hard disk), a multitude of custom system/user.cfg's, RadeonPro, and every combination and configuration of those i could think of.
Computer still checks out fine in other games. No change there, so it shouldn't be hardware/drivers (video drivers are up to date)
How had the patch generally affected your performance?
FPS is beyond terrible, and likely because the client is now loading all 4 processor cores to 100%.
Just being logged in to the mechbay puts me from an unloaded 15% to over 60%.
Drop into a match, and all 4 cores stay above 95%.
Come back out, and I stay above 75%.
Yes, my problem worsens when I press the [LAUNCH] button.
In all seriousness, it seems to be mech-render related, but I can't tell. It's worse with more mechs around, and it dips to 2fps for just a second when I switch chassis in the mechbay and it has to re-render them from scratch.
What are your video settings, did you change them since last patch?
You name it, I've tried it.
Three patches ago, I ran on max/high, v-sync off, blur off.
Now, nothing I do makes an improvement of any kind.
Numbers below are with settings at:
windowed(marginally Better than full screen) @ 1024@768
everything turned all the way down/off, and a blank user.cfg.
Average FPS ingame and in the menus for previous patch and latest patch.
Spoiler
Your advertised internet connection speed / Geographic location
http://www.speedtest.../2341119315.png
System specs
Spoiler
Edited by RonanFrost, 29 November 2012 - 10:33 PM.
#183
-
-
- 3,748 posts
Member
- Location...
Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:34 PM
thanks for the correction/info everyone! happy tp hear it's not the specs. i suspected the servers for pings etc. it's just difficult to trace exactly what the cause of problems is when the game is all over the place at the moment.
so i guess i should wait for the community warfare for a decent server. cause at the moment this one can't hack it at all.
so i guess i should wait for the community warfare for a decent server. cause at the moment this one can't hack it at all.
#184
-
- 7 posts
Rookie
Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:09 AM
How had the patch generally affected your performance?
This latest patch made a big difference for me, going from 12-15 fps to 20-30 fps in game during fights.
Whether there are specific points in the game when your performance changes.
After 3-4 matches, many times my frame rate would drop to 5-10 fps, restarting the client seems to fix it.
Also forgot to mention that I'm running the game on it's "high"settings at 1920x1080 fullscreen. In game shows 100% cpu and MSI Afterburner shows I use about 60% of the GPU.
System specs
This latest patch made a big difference for me, going from 12-15 fps to 20-30 fps in game during fights.
Whether there are specific points in the game when your performance changes.
After 3-4 matches, many times my frame rate would drop to 5-10 fps, restarting the client seems to fix it.
Also forgot to mention that I'm running the game on it's "high"settings at 1920x1080 fullscreen. In game shows 100% cpu and MSI Afterburner shows I use about 60% of the GPU.
System specs
Spoiler
Edited by vexorg, 30 November 2012 - 12:53 AM.
#185
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 303 posts
Member
- LocationGreencastle, Indiana USA
Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:09 AM
Core i3 user, and I'm down to 20 or so FPS, lower teens during battle...and have been like that since closed beta. Only mid 20s sometimes.
#186
-
-
- 59 posts
Member
- LocationZurich Switzerland
Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:12 AM
i never realized any changes in the performance after patches.
still 50-60 fps... drop a few times to around 40.
still 50-60 fps... drop a few times to around 40.
#187
-
-
- 3,748 posts
Member
- Location...
Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:01 AM
so tempted to click the like button on fleshwounds post... just because of an iron maiden banner XD
#188
-
-
- The Defiant
- 81 posts
Member
- LocationSweden
Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:12 AM
I have recently switched CPU/MB and have prepatch data and after patch data .
Before Patch I used Core2 Duo 2,13 Ghz , 16Gb DDR2 RAM and a Nvidia 460 GTX graphicscard.
I then had at best around 20 Fps, but at Forest Colony my fps would drop down to unplayable 4-8 fps (All settings low)
After patch 20/11 same hardware I constantly had 4-12 fps depeding on stage.
I then upgraded my MB/CPU to a Intel i5 3570K CPU, 8Gb DDR3 RAM and same graphicscard. I now can play on very high settings and have 40+ FPS all the time no matter the stage.
So it's definitely the CPU that's been the issue..
Before Patch I used Core2 Duo 2,13 Ghz , 16Gb DDR2 RAM and a Nvidia 460 GTX graphicscard.
I then had at best around 20 Fps, but at Forest Colony my fps would drop down to unplayable 4-8 fps (All settings low)
After patch 20/11 same hardware I constantly had 4-12 fps depeding on stage.
I then upgraded my MB/CPU to a Intel i5 3570K CPU, 8Gb DDR3 RAM and same graphicscard. I now can play on very high settings and have 40+ FPS all the time no matter the stage.
So it's definitely the CPU that's been the issue..
Edited by sh4rpedge, 30 November 2012 - 03:13 AM.
#189
-
-
- 67 posts
Member
- LocationThe Netherlands
Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:41 AM
How had the patch generally affected your performance?
Can't recall which patch. However, some patches add 10 fps, another remove it again.
Whether there are specific points in the game when your performance changes.
Certain environments but mostly other mechs, the more mechs in view the lower the FPS drops.
What are your video settings, did you change them since last patch?
1440*900, High (without AA, PostProc, Blurr, low shadows etc) hardly changed settings. FOV = 90.
Average FPS ingame and in the menus for previous patch and latest patch (Press F9 to see your FPS)
In Menu 75 fps (VSYNC = ON) start of battles 50-60 FPS. Brawling 20-30 fps (at times lower than 20). Any patch.
System specs
Sabertooth 990FX motherboard.
AMD Phenom II, 6x @ 3,7Ghrz.
8GB DDR3, 1600Mhrz.
WIN 7, 64bit. on SSD
ATI Radeon 6870 @ 950Hrz, 1 Gb GDDR5 RAM.
Your advertised internet connection speed / Geographic location
Cable 50 Mbit, The Netherlands.
Can't recall which patch. However, some patches add 10 fps, another remove it again.
Whether there are specific points in the game when your performance changes.
Certain environments but mostly other mechs, the more mechs in view the lower the FPS drops.
What are your video settings, did you change them since last patch?
1440*900, High (without AA, PostProc, Blurr, low shadows etc) hardly changed settings. FOV = 90.
Average FPS ingame and in the menus for previous patch and latest patch (Press F9 to see your FPS)
In Menu 75 fps (VSYNC = ON) start of battles 50-60 FPS. Brawling 20-30 fps (at times lower than 20). Any patch.
System specs
Sabertooth 990FX motherboard.
AMD Phenom II, 6x @ 3,7Ghrz.
8GB DDR3, 1600Mhrz.
WIN 7, 64bit. on SSD
ATI Radeon 6870 @ 950Hrz, 1 Gb GDDR5 RAM.
Your advertised internet connection speed / Geographic location
Cable 50 Mbit, The Netherlands.
#190
-
-
- 13 posts
Member
Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:13 AM
. The patch didn't change anything in my performance, still suffering from single digit frame rate as a result of the previous patch.
#191
Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:29 AM
My PING is good (~100-150, which is typical for me in Germany), but since the Nov 27th patch I have experienced severe delay in ... everything. Because of that I have played little - maybe 20 matches - this week. In all of them I feel like I am hurting my team with the delay.
EDIT: My frame rate is fine as well (25-60fps depending). Turning down graphics settings had no effect on this.
- I press 'H' and wait 1-2 seconds.
- I press 'Z' and wait 1-2 seconds.
- I press 'R' and wait 1-2 seconds.
- I click to fire and ... wait for it ... waaaaiiiiit foooorrrrr iiiiit. And that's with a LgLas.
EDIT: My frame rate is fine as well (25-60fps depending). Turning down graphics settings had no effect on this.
Edited by Max Liao, 30 November 2012 - 04:30 AM.
#192
-
-
- Stone Cold
- 11,975 posts
Welcoming Committee
- LocationNewfoundland
Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:33 AM
low- and mid-range PCs are certainly a concern for the devs.
constructive feedback, exact numbers before and after, and a basic system spec rundown are all helpful information. Performance feedback is never a dead horse.
I find it strange that patches that don't even contain performance tweaks are resulting in performance issues. Have you tried clearing your shader cache regularly? Many users (myself included) see notable improvements if the cache is regularly destroyed and refreshed.
constructive feedback, exact numbers before and after, and a basic system spec rundown are all helpful information. Performance feedback is never a dead horse.
I find it strange that patches that don't even contain performance tweaks are resulting in performance issues. Have you tried clearing your shader cache regularly? Many users (myself included) see notable improvements if the cache is regularly destroyed and refreshed.
#193
-
-
- The Nimble
- 5,136 posts
Member
- LocationPlymouth, MN
Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:28 AM
I had a low ping, usually low 30s. I had horrible game play, especially on forest colony. Yes my FPS dropped over and over as the patches came out in Open Beta. I bought a new rig, quad core, better video card(the other should have worked fine... but as long as I was spending the money...), more ram, and so on. Game runs perfectly for me now.
Yes, the code may have issues, but those issues are being compounded by old processors and high ping times. You probably can't do much about the ping times, although some people have other options for ISPs and that could help. You could do something about your processor. Duo Core and Core 2 processors are going to bog down your game... HUGELY. I can tell you this from my experiences with my old computer. I thought I could get another year out of it, I was wrong.
Yes, the code may have issues, but those issues are being compounded by old processors and high ping times. You probably can't do much about the ping times, although some people have other options for ISPs and that could help. You could do something about your processor. Duo Core and Core 2 processors are going to bog down your game... HUGELY. I can tell you this from my experiences with my old computer. I thought I could get another year out of it, I was wrong.
#194
-
-
- Stone Cold
- 11,975 posts
Welcoming Committee
- LocationNewfoundland
Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:33 AM
In particular, this game is stupidly stenuous on the CPU where other games are not; this is something being worked on
#195
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 141 posts
Member
Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:29 AM
The Cheese, on 29 November 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:
This is going to come across as a troll attempt, but it's not. This is my true view on the subject:
I hope they're NOT working to improve performance on Core2 machines. It's not a good use of resources. The chips are, in technical terms, ancient paperweights. Even the very newest Core 2 Quad chip is over 4 years old, and the original Core2 Duo is over 8 years old. Time to upgrade, people. No computer is expected to last longer than 5 years.
There comes a time in every developer's life where they just have to stop trying to keep that dead horse alive. It's stunting their progress.
I hope they're NOT working to improve performance on Core2 machines. It's not a good use of resources. The chips are, in technical terms, ancient paperweights. Even the very newest Core 2 Quad chip is over 4 years old, and the original Core2 Duo is over 8 years old. Time to upgrade, people. No computer is expected to last longer than 5 years.
There comes a time in every developer's life where they just have to stop trying to keep that dead horse alive. It's stunting their progress.
I do understand your point.
But ... the performance of this game contradicts everything that's been happening in the last couple of years in the gaming world when it comes to performance. Somehow MWO manages to run a lot worse than any comparable game - be it dual cores or quads. Games like Far Cry 3, Crysis 2 (same engine) or ones like Assassins Creed 3 and the new Hitman - all those look a lot better than MWO and at the same time deliver a lot more fps.
MWO as of right now, seems to be heavily CPU limited - which is absolutely anachronistic for a first-person-shooter. But - I see that it's beta now so hopefully PGI is able to improve the performance significantly.
#196
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 7,511 posts
Member
- LocationWisconsin
Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:31 AM
OP
There are three type of "Lag"...
For what ever reason MW:O tasks the CPU threading far greater than virtually any game I've played. Would be interesting at some point much further down the road to see a white-paper on how this game utilizes resources... but I digress. That said, the Dual core processor experience may at some point improve to being acceptable/tolerable at the lowest settings but I would not hold your breath. (This coming from someone who was in the Dual Core boat until I surrendered and got a AMD bare bones upgrade kit just recently... Only set me back $300.00, FWIW).
As several folks eluded to above, while I appreciate the financial burden of upgrading, the reality is you (as was I) are saddled with a processor that just is not suited for the demands of this particular game.
Long an short your CPU has reached the end of it's practical application. While a lot of games run fine on it now... it's days are numbered and if not MW:O, many of the forthcoming games in the near future will likewise prove this reality as well.
There are three type of "Lag"...
- Lag caused by insufficient core hardware on the client side or the server side.
- Lag caused by a GPUs inability to keep up with the demands of the game.
- Lag caused by the quality of the net-connection.
For what ever reason MW:O tasks the CPU threading far greater than virtually any game I've played. Would be interesting at some point much further down the road to see a white-paper on how this game utilizes resources... but I digress. That said, the Dual core processor experience may at some point improve to being acceptable/tolerable at the lowest settings but I would not hold your breath. (This coming from someone who was in the Dual Core boat until I surrendered and got a AMD bare bones upgrade kit just recently... Only set me back $300.00, FWIW).
As several folks eluded to above, while I appreciate the financial burden of upgrading, the reality is you (as was I) are saddled with a processor that just is not suited for the demands of this particular game.
Long an short your CPU has reached the end of it's practical application. While a lot of games run fine on it now... it's days are numbered and if not MW:O, many of the forthcoming games in the near future will likewise prove this reality as well.
#197
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 1,511 posts
Member
- LocationMalaysia
Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:45 AM
Noticed that the fps drops when I look at other mechs. When I turn elsewhere, fps normally shoots back up as long as there's no smoke. The mech models must be pretty complicated if its causing 5-10 fps drops. I read somewhere that they were upgrading the models in stages and this might explain the gradual fps drops after each patch.
As far as duo core vs quad or better core performance is concerned, some players with quad cores have also been experiencing problems. At the rate it is currently going, this game will be unplayable on my AMD A8-3520M quad core notebook which I just bought a few months back.
Doubt I'm going to be buying a new rig / notebook just to play a game.
As far as duo core vs quad or better core performance is concerned, some players with quad cores have also been experiencing problems. At the rate it is currently going, this game will be unplayable on my AMD A8-3520M quad core notebook which I just bought a few months back.
Doubt I'm going to be buying a new rig / notebook just to play a game.
#198
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 160 posts
Member
- LocationNew Jersey, USA
Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:54 AM
p4r4g0n, on 30 November 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:
Noticed that the fps drops when I look at other mechs. When I turn elsewhere, fps normally shoots back up as long as there's no smoke. The mech models must be pretty complicated if its causing 5-10 fps drops. I read somewhere that they were upgrading the models in stages and this might explain the gradual fps drops after each patch.
As far as duo core vs quad or better core performance is concerned, some players with quad cores have also been experiencing problems. At the rate it is currently going, this game will be unplayable on my AMD A8-3520M quad core notebook which I just bought a few months back.
Doubt I'm going to be buying a new rig / notebook just to play a game.
As far as duo core vs quad or better core performance is concerned, some players with quad cores have also been experiencing problems. At the rate it is currently going, this game will be unplayable on my AMD A8-3520M quad core notebook which I just bought a few months back.
Doubt I'm going to be buying a new rig / notebook just to play a game.
I would not expect a $450 laptop to be able to play this game.
I would like to join in urging those with Core 2 Duos to realize the useful lifetime of your CPU for gaming is over. Other tasks, go ahead but for gaming it's done.
I would also hope PGI considers the first generation Core i3/i5 dual-cores the target to optimize for, although I'm pretty sure this decision has already been cemented some time ago and they're just trying to make things tolerable for the C2D crowd without pouring resources into it. The reality is those who aren't willing to upgrade a 4 year old computer would probably not spend the kind of money this game needs to survive.
#199
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 7,511 posts
Member
- LocationWisconsin
Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:59 AM
One of the longest debates raging in the PC gaming industry is whether content drives the advance of hardware over vice versa...
I've long argued that hardware drives the content.
Let's face it... PC gaming is a hobby and like any hobby there are costs involved to either stay current with the core level of the hobby. Archery aficionados justify hundreds to obtain the latest-and-greatest graphite compound bows... Fishermen spend hundreds yearly on licenses, equipment and tackle... Hell, even stamp collectors purchase new display/storage accouterments as well as newly acquired assets. Point being, people committed to a particular hobby stay vested in maintaining a certain level of proficiency.
The problem as I see it with PC gaming as a hobby is the "equipment" is not specifically dedicated to just "gaming" ... I.e. we use it to browse the internet, do our taxes and send photos to the grandparents... It's viewed by most as a utilitarian piece of house goods.
Unless your a "foody" it's hard to self-justify buying a $300.00 mixer or buying the latest and greatest pots and pans annually. The average home PC is seen in that same vein...
How many times have we heard "I refuse to upgrade my PC just to play a game"? If PC gaming is your hobby and you wish to experience the full splendor of this hobby without compromise... That statement flies in the face of accurately depicting this as your hobby!
I've never understood the pretense offered by so many that the PC they bought 5 years ago should run the software created today without compromise. To expect game developers to not push the technological limits of their product to placate the faulty logic that somehow their PC should not ever be render obsolete by the technology is just myopic bordering on naivety...
I've long argued that hardware drives the content.
Let's face it... PC gaming is a hobby and like any hobby there are costs involved to either stay current with the core level of the hobby. Archery aficionados justify hundreds to obtain the latest-and-greatest graphite compound bows... Fishermen spend hundreds yearly on licenses, equipment and tackle... Hell, even stamp collectors purchase new display/storage accouterments as well as newly acquired assets. Point being, people committed to a particular hobby stay vested in maintaining a certain level of proficiency.
The problem as I see it with PC gaming as a hobby is the "equipment" is not specifically dedicated to just "gaming" ... I.e. we use it to browse the internet, do our taxes and send photos to the grandparents... It's viewed by most as a utilitarian piece of house goods.
Unless your a "foody" it's hard to self-justify buying a $300.00 mixer or buying the latest and greatest pots and pans annually. The average home PC is seen in that same vein...
How many times have we heard "I refuse to upgrade my PC just to play a game"? If PC gaming is your hobby and you wish to experience the full splendor of this hobby without compromise... That statement flies in the face of accurately depicting this as your hobby!
I've never understood the pretense offered by so many that the PC they bought 5 years ago should run the software created today without compromise. To expect game developers to not push the technological limits of their product to placate the faulty logic that somehow their PC should not ever be render obsolete by the technology is just myopic bordering on naivety...
Edited by DaZur, 30 November 2012 - 09:20 AM.
#200
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 1,511 posts
Member
- LocationMalaysia
Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:54 AM
The big problem for MWO is that other games run a lot better on the same computers that have issues running it. Sneer if you must but PGI would have been better off with a P2P business model if they insist on higher end rigs to run MWO.
Bottomline: If a rig meets minimum specs, it is not unreasonable for people to expect to be able to play the game albeit not in its full glory. Either update the minimum specs or optimize the game.
Bottomline: If a rig meets minimum specs, it is not unreasonable for people to expect to be able to play the game albeit not in its full glory. Either update the minimum specs or optimize the game.
Edited by p4r4g0n, 30 November 2012 - 08:57 AM.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users
