1329 replies to this topic

[Fynn]

What specs do you have, and what sort of FPS do you get? as it may worth while letting the devs know, and maybe they will change the min specs. Dont forget, that site is based on the min specs released by PGI for the game, with a few changes done recently, like adding winXP and sorting out the FX core probs.

[TheTank]

Fynn, on 29 August 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Ok peeps, got another update from yougamers today about the FX-CPU issue
"FX-4xxx processor detection for Game-o-Meter is now updated and the issue should be resolved. We only had FX-8xxx processors to test with in-house so our testing has been limited but it works for them so it should work for FX-4xxx - let us know if this is not the case."
So if anyone here can redo the test with there FX core CPU's and let me know thw results, i can E-mail them back and report any further issues.

@the tank, the 8800 in your PC does meet min specs for the game, what ram and CPU is in your tower PC?
run the test anyway, just to see if the card does make it (it should do)
I was running the beta with a CPU that was under the min spes for the game, and still played fairly well.

The desktop is a X2 4850e with only 2gb ram. I have been looking into upgrading the system but I fear I might have to get something newerish. Gotta see what I can get off of ebay.

I had hoped the laptop would suffice as it is a i5 with 8gb ram and ssd and whatnot. Just the gfx seems to be poor.

Until then I'll have to wait for an open beta to try it out.

Quote

p.s when you post with any criticism, please make it construtive, and dont flame.
thank you

Oh, sorry, I was not trying to be critical of the game or devs, just of my HW.

[Fynn]

@tank, that wasnt aimed at you bud (sorry if it seemed that way), it was just asking everyone in general who posts here, as theres been one or 2 posts that could have been worded a lot better.
As for an upgrade, if you got a tight budget, look at AMD FX Quad core motherboard bundles, which be a good start for an upgrade, you can still use your old graphics card and HDD's, so that will cut down cost's, just be wary of any bits from ebay, as a few people i know got stiched up with dodgey parts from sellers before.
Out of intreste, where in the world are you?

[Fynn]

I have this case
http://www.zalman.co...ead.asp?idx=476
and for £50 i find it a great case, easy to work with, good airflow, and opptions for extra fans, if you need em.
I currently have a Intel Quad core 9450 cpu, 8 gb of ram and an ATI HD 5750 1 gb card in the case (i know not high end specs), but everything stays at a nice steady temp in the case, and the highest the CPU has got under load is in the mid 50's (was hiting the mids 60's, sometimes higher, in my old crapy case)
Only real issue i had with the case, is due to the position of the CPU power socket on the motherboard (gigabyte GA-965P-DS3/S£), it was a sod to conect the power cable up, as the socket was on the top right hand side of the board, next to the cpu, so had a small gap between the top case fan and the CPU cooler to work in (and my hands are a bit on the big side......lol), but apart from that, the case was very easy to work with and fit parts in.

Edited by Fynn, 29 August 2012 - 03:43 AM.

[Razor Kotovsky]

Next up: Chair Recommendation Guide.

My case is 10 years old, no problems whatsoever.

Spoiler

And the armchair is almost twice as old as myself.

Edited by Razor Kotovsky, 29 August 2012 - 03:48 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Mopar, on 29 August 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

I have an FX 8150 and a Core i5 2400 sitting next to each other as I type this. I use both machines regualrly and game on both as well. I can tell you for all the vaulted use of more cores the i5 is the faster PC. I multitask heavily in the work I do running audio editing software while doing photo editing, web work, file compressions and various other taks. For me the big telling point is the time it takes to get work done when I do my weekly run. I can do the same level of work almost 20 minutes faster using the i5 than I can the FX, the slow down comes during the various file conversion operations.

The FX is not a BAD chip, but the design is flawed and AMD needs to rework it. If you have a choice between an FX or a Phenom II on the AMD side I would get a Phenom II every time. However AMD has lost a lot of it's market position with newer Intel releases. The I3 can stay with the quad core chips fairly well. True in a heavy mutlitasking environment the FX can catch it but only just. At the $150 price point from newegg AMD has a solid position however that position is lost and you have a Microcenter near by that allows you to get i5 chips from $150 to $175. The i5 beats the FX lineup poretty much across the baord for performance to price when you hit these price points. However this does mean you need a Microcenter to get these prices.

At the end of the day for a gaming rig the Intel solutions are a better choice and EVERY benchamrk that looks at the CPU and gaming shows this. That does not mean the AMD chips cannot game, they can, this is the good news of the day that pretty much any choice of a modern processor has gaming potential. However for best performance Intel does win right now.

What's funny to me is that a lot of the "every" benchmarks pretend the FX-4170 doesn't exist (given it is the fastest FX processor for gaming) and that they don't tend to use modern games. What benchmarks I've seen of it place it ahead of i3's and about 75% as fast as an i5-2500k. And is $100 cheaper, (on etail, being $120 via Newegg now) giving it a very nice price / performance ratio.

[Vulpesveritas]

Mopar, on 29 August 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

In fairness the 4170 is not a mian chip and the second wave of FX chips got glossed over. You are getting a nice boost with the higher clock no doubt and I agree the higher clock speed makes it a solid gaming choice. I would however argue in most games the i3 still beats it becuase most games do NOT make use of more than 2 cores effectively. Remember in those games the i3 stays with the i5 just as well.

However I will agree that the 4170 is a solid choice for purchase for a budget gaming rig.

Well, my main thing that I disagree with this is quad-threaded titles are common in most new titles coming out, and in my opinion the extra CPU power is needed more in current and future titles, rather than games from the past. from CoD MW3, to Battlefield 3, to Crysis 2, going back to Resident Evil 5 and as current as Counter Strike: Global Offensive, all take advantage of four threads, giving the FX-4170 an advantage. In fact, the only 'high end' game I can think of that has come out in the past year which is not quad-threaded is Skyrim.

My preference; Performance for the future, not the past.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 29 August 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[Tabrin]

Most people getting new PC's are looking for performance for NOW. Not the past, or the future.

[Vulpesveritas]

Tabrin, on 29 August 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Most people getting new PC's are looking for performance for NOW. Not the past, or the future.

Well, the FX-4170 or an i5 is going to be best for the present, with the majority of new games coming out now are quad-threaded.

[TheTank]

Fynn, on 29 August 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

@tank, that wasnt aimed at you bud (sorry if it seemed that way), it was just asking everyone in general who posts here, as theres been one or 2 posts that could have been worded a lot better.
As for an upgrade, if you got a tight budget, look at AMD FX Quad core motherboard bundles, which be a good start for an upgrade, you can still use your old graphics card and HDD's, so that will cut down cost's, just be wary of any bits from ebay, as a few people i know got stiched up with dodgey parts from sellers before.
Out of intreste, where in the world are you?

Thanks for the reply. I am located in southern Germany.
Yeah I was looking into the AMD FX Quad cores as I already have an AMD dual core and that would be right up my ally.
As for ebay, yeah, if I need something old and outdated, I can opt for that as you do get some good bargains. Otherwise I keep to my usual dealers.

[Cygone]

recomended 8gb of RAM!!1 that just ********. Its only recomending 8GB due to dual channel CPUs where 4 might be a little low.

[Fynn]

@Cygone, , thats the devs recomened specs (so rant at them.......lol), you can use 4 gbs, i have on my old dual core, but it does struggle a bit, now im back on my quad, with 8gb of ram, the game runs nicely (no more info due to NDA)

[bikerbass77]

Seems I need a system rebuild. 6gb ram is not enough it says and I need to upgrade to a quad core CPU.

[SakuranoSenshi]

You'll be fine on 6 GiB, the quad core thing has proven to be an issue, without saying more that might be an NDA problem.

[Mordeth221]

I'm sure the devs will want more people playing their game, so I'm putting this out here.

I'm running 2GB DDR2, E5700 Dual Core CPU thats not hyperthreaded and an AMD 6850 Which is horrendously overpowered in comparison to the rest of my machine

[REDACTED]

Its Free to play, Try it whenever you can, Beta or Full-Release, Always try a game, never test yourself against pre-requisites, Their always a load of over-blown horse-manure.

Edited by Viterbi, 30 August 2012 - 07:32 AM.
Removed NDA

[Fynn]

Dont forget, min specs are a dual core and 4 gb of ram, so with 6 gb of ram, you be fine, what Dual core CPU do you have? And i take it you graphics card passes?

@harbringer, as i said earlier, the test site is based on the specs released by PGI, as anounced elsewhere on the forums.
some people on lower spec PC's can run the game fine, others cant, like my AND dual core struggled with the game, but an equivelent intel dual core can for some reason or another, the specs put out by the devs, are there to give you an idea of what to expect in performance.

Edited by Fynn, 30 August 2012 - 07:20 AM.

[Mordeth221]

Thanks for the speedy moderation Viterbi, never quite sure what's covered by the NDA.
Although I'm not sure why you removed the price of my PC. . . I'm pretty sure that's not covered.

[Dlaw]

I'm late to the party, but let me say this: My current build is AMD, and that's not because I'm a fanboy (in fact, this is the first AMD system I've ever had), but because I went cheap. The total cost of my build was in the area of $1700, and that's incuding the $100 mouse, extra keypad, sweet keyboard and both 21+ inch monitors. Oh, and the Turtle Beach x41's that I bought last year when they were still $200 (DOH!).

A comparible system of the Intel breed would have easily cost me double that, but would I have paid it if I had it? Absolutely, because Intel chips are simply more refined. Don't get me wrong, I love my AMD build, but my next build will be Intel (and cost upwards of $10,000 before any periferals, including the essentials).

But, if your short on cash, and want a decent machine, go AMD every time. A Phenom II 960T at the stock x4 3GHz will definitely not beat an I5 2500k, but it will conquer any real world task and keep asking for more, and it will only cost you $125.

[SuperTechmarine]

Why does it do this with me? I need 2 more Gb of RAM and a new processor, yet i could play Crysis 1 and 2 on High 30-40 FPS.

Edited by SuperTechmarine, 31 August 2012 - 06:47 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

USA update finished for the week, canada may be done later tonight.