31 replies to this topic

[TheFlayedman]

Hello,

I am thinking of an upgrade and would like to hear from people who are getting good performance in the game. What resolution and details do you use and what are your specs?

Thanks in advance

[rgreat]

My computer is about 4 years old with a bit of upgrades later.

Core i7 940 (2.93 GHz)
12 Gb RAM
NVidia GTX 580
Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro.
Samsung 350T (30'') 2560x1600
SSD OCZ Revodrive X2 100Gb
Win7-64

Full Detail except FSAA -> off and Shadows on medium.

25-45 FPS ingame. Usually around 35. Yes on 2560x1600 resolution.

Overclocking CPU to 3.5 GHz adds me another 8-10 fps, but i prefer not to do it.

Edited by rgreat, 25 November 2012 - 04:47 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

It'd be more helpful to you and us, to give us your entire system specs, and a budget for your upgrade.

Then we can give you the best bang for buck upgrades.

[Vulpesveritas]

Well, as DV said, though if you're looking at an upgrade as a full system replacement and are in the USA, I would recommend looking here;
http://mwomercs.com/...ds-of-the-week/

Though if you're looking at buying before Cyber Monday, there is a Black friday sale thread.
http://mwomercs.com/...riday-pcs-2012/

Aside from that, it comes down to what your current system has, what your budget is, and where you live as to what we recommend. Though at a minimum, you'll be wanting a Quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, and a GPU on par with a Radeon HD 7770 for smooth gameplay. (Note; at minimum)

[rgreat]

Make that at least 8 GB RAM.

RAM is VERY cheap, but essential for stable playing. No point in holding on it.

4GB is soo last century.

Edited by rgreat, 25 November 2012 - 05:05 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

rgreat, on 25 November 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

Make that at least 8 GB RAM.

RAM is VERY cheap, no point in holding on it.

4GB is soo last century.

I was stating minimums, not what you should period. 8GB is what you should be getting in RAM in anything but the lowest budget level scenario.

[TheFlayedman]

rgreat, on 25 November 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

Overclocking CPU to 3.5 GHz adds me another 8-10 fps, but i prefer not to do it.

.Thanks for your replies although i didn't see the benchmarking thread i guess all the info i need is in there. Thats interesting that the game is so cpu bound. I may just wait for Haswell as i hope it will be a better overclocker than ivybridge.

My specs are an old E8600 with DDR2 and a GTX480. Im thinking as the game is so cpu bound i can keep the GTX480 and just change the cpu, mobo and ram.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

A 480 should be capable of producing stable frames, but yes CPU,RAM will need a change.
On a budget AMD, has some ok offerings, else your looking at slightly more expensive intel chips, for slightly better gaming but according to latest benchmarks there is not much in it.

[Vulpesveritas]

TheFlayedman, on 25 November 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

.Thanks for your replies although i didn't see the benchmarking thread i guess all the info i need is in there. Thats interesting that the game is so cpu bound. I may just wait for Haswell as i hope it will be a better overclocker than ivybridge.

My specs are an old E8600 with DDR2 and a GTX480. Im thinking as the game is so cpu bound i can keep the GTX480 and just change the cpu, mobo and ram.

the game runs fine at 60+ fps @ 1080p on i5's and Vishera 8 cores. It's well threaded CPU wise. DV is running a triple monitor setup at 5760x1080 with a single Geforce GTX 670 @ 35-40fps, so the GPU isn't too much of an issue if you're running a 480 on a single monitor.
Even if you upgrade the CPU now, AM3+ or LGA1155 are fine.

[TheFlayedman]

I quite like what I've read about the improved power savings states in Haswell although its probably not going to be much faster maybe 10% faster, still it all helps i guess. Hopefully they will fix the heat issues with ivy though which i'm not keen on.

I kind of discount AMD chips I guess im an intel fanboi lol. Still each to their own and all that.

[Staplebeater]

I have an i5 2500k OCed to 4.2 GHz (modest OC with a hyper 212 cooler)
and a HD 6870

I am at 35-45 frames a sec with max settings at 1920x1080 resolution

[T Hawk]

Don't upgrade for MWO. It's stupid. You still don't know how long this game will last, every patch is 2 steps forward 6 steps back and performance still is flawed by horrible coding so it might very well be possible that your current hardware is more than enough.

Upgrade only if you plan on playing other games that give you trouble with your current machine.

On a side note: Don't trust the people on the boards here when it comes down to hardware and performance. Most of the people posting here barely know how to boot up a computer and launch a game. You're better off with asking on expert forums dedicated to the topic.

[Tank]

T Hawk, on 25 November 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

Don't upgrade for MWO. It's stupid. You still don't know how long this game will last, every patch is 2 steps forward 6 steps back and performance still is flawed by horrible coding so it might very well be possible that your current hardware is more than enough.

Backing up this. In closet betta I was playing at high-medium settings, now it's near impossible at low.

Edited by Tank, 25 November 2012 - 07:00 AM.

[TheFlayedman]

Well Tank and T Hawk you both make good points, but considering that my motherboard is 6 years old and I think the wolfdale cpu is about the same age I reckon I have got my monies worth out of them by now.

Now I just have to decide if I upgrade now or wait 6 months for shiny new stuff.

[Barbaric Soul]

T Hawk, on 25 November 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

On a side note: Don't trust the people on the boards here when it comes down to hardware and performance. Most of the people posting here barely know how to boot up a computer and launch a game. You're better off with asking on expert forums dedicated to the topic.

I fully agree on the part of T HAWK's post that I didn't quote about upgrading just for MW:O. As for the part that I did quote, I only agree somewhat. There are some very knowledgeable about current computer hardware people here. Some of us are those tech experts your reffering to. I myself have built and maintained alot of computers, varying from extreme gaming to basic everyday FB browsing. Vulpesveritas, CATAMOUNT, and DV McKenna are a few others that are very knowledgable(there are more aswell, it's just that the four of us were the first). As for me, I'll let my profile at techpowerup.com speak for it's self.

http://www.techpower...ber.php?u=49368

Oh, last time I played, I got a minimum of 45fps, average of between 55-60 fps @ 1920*1200 resolution, all setting to max, motion blur turned off(why anyone would want that is beyond me) with a 2600k OC'ed to 4.2ghz, 8 gig ddr3 1600, and a single 7970 non-GHZ edition at stock clock speeds, but that was several patches ago. My full system specs can be seen in my posts on techpowerup, 2600k system.

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 25 November 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[TheFlayedman]

heh so even with a high end overclocked cpu and one of the fastest gpu's available 60 fps is not possible all the time :/

[Gremlich Johns]

Staplebeater, on 25 November 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

I have an i5 2500k OCed to 4.2 GHz (modest OC with a hyper 212 cooler)
and a HD 6870

I am at 35-45 frames a sec with max settings at 1920x1080 resolution

I get similar results on a stock FX-4100 3.6GHz (antec 620 liquid cooler) and a GTX560 superclocked (arctic cooling twin turbo cooler) with 16GB RAM

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 25 November 2012 - 10:54 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

TheFlayedman, on 25 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

heh so even with a high end overclocked cpu and one of the fastest gpu's available 60 fps is not possible all the time :/

The real problem is the coding done for the game as the performance differs from system to system, for example my 2500k @4.5ghz which in gaming would be very near identical to Barabric's 2600k.
However with my GTX 670, on a single 1080p monitor i never falls below 55 and certainly except for the initial load goes into the 40's.

The only real answer to this must lie within the coding, to get such a varied performance across systems.

As to T-Hawk's post, contrary to that there are people who are extremely knowledgeable when it comes to computers, some of us have been building them for 10+ years and keep up to date with all the latest coming and goings in hardware. T-Hawk is just mad because he is an AMD GPU fan, and wouldn't accept people didn't agree with him when he could post no proof.

The people worth listening to, are the regular posters here and that is not hard to find, they are also the ones who will provide you with rational reasoning, that includes factual information and where they have sourced that from.

[Quinn Allard]

Before a few patches ago I was 60+, now in the 45-50 range, dips down to 25 on Forest Colony. Its this game, dont build a machine for it. Build a machine for BF3 or StarCraft 2.

AMD FX8150 4.5 on air
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX
16GB ram
Sapphire 6950 2GB
High Settings on 1920x1080

[Barbaric Soul]

TheFlayedman, on 25 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

heh so even with a high end overclocked cpu and one of the fastest gpu's available 60 fps is not possible all the time :/

Not necassarily. Notice, I'm running max settings @1200p, not 1080p. And also, I'm not running a GHZ edition 7970. If I was to run 1080p and OC my 7970 to GHZ edition speeds, pretty sure my minimum FPS would be around the 60 fps mark. That's minimum, not average. Average I'd guess in the 65-70 fps range.

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 25 November 2012 - 03:38 PM.