1329 replies to this topic

[SakuranoSenshi]

SuperTechmarine, on 31 August 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

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.

Those are, respectively, two and one generations older engines, in the same engine development. MW:O uses CryEngine 3.

[SuperTechmarine]

SakuranoSenshi, on 31 August 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Those are, respectively, two and one generations older engines, in the same engine development. MW:O uses CryEngine 3.

Crysis 2 has the same engine.

[GweNTLeR]

http://clients.futur...InfoId=14224093


Sorry, Mechwarrior Online will not run on your computer.<p class="resultText">

• The Game-o-Meter detects that your processor does not have the required hardware features. It is likely that you would have to upgrade your entire computer to play Mechwarrior Online.

what does that supposed to mean o_0 amd athlon II x4 651k(OC~3.4),no problems in other games.Something special in MWO?

[Fynn]

looks like for some reason, the system isnt detecting you CPU type (hence the unknown model), simular to the issues that FX core users where getting. that CPu should run the game fine.
Oh, and have you checked your system against other games listed on the site, to see if you get the same issue?
send an email to yougamers at this addy:
feedback@yougamers.com
And report your issue, they fairly quick at responding, and should have an answer about why its not detecting your CPU.
I sent an Email last monday about the FX CPU issue thats been mentioned on here, and i got a responce within 30 or minutes of sending it.

Edited by Fynn, 02 September 2012 - 02:17 PM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

SuperTechmarine, on 01 September 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

Crysis 2 has the same engine.

Oh? I stand corrected, then. I was under the impression that this engine was a development after Crysis 2 but I confess I have not avidly followed it. I have Crysis 'Maximum Edition' somewhere but I was never grabbed enough to worry about Crysis 2.

[Forged]

Ugh! I had a big post with lots of info and my browser lost it - bah.

Anyway, here I go again...

1) If the game supports irtracker - get it. It's amazing. I use it for flying games all the time and it's absolutely amazing!
2) the g940 stick movement felt like pressing against gears, which caused the stick to move in spurts (like the "stiction" issue noted with the warthog, but WAY worse). I didn't get the FFB much of a chance, because this issue was so huge. Despite it having HALL sensors, all my other joysticks were more accurate.
3) the x65f is an amazing stick in feel, looks, buttons, etc. However - the stick doesn't move (obviously), and this was eventually a deal killer for me. I gave it a few weeks to see if I could grow accustom to it. Some notes - because the stick doesn't move, it was EXTREMELY accurate. I could make large or extremely minute adjustments extremely easily. No center detent . But I would lose track of exactly how far I was pulling in dogfights or getting out of spins/etc, and would end up pulling/pushing 3 times as hard as I needed to. I eventually returned it.
4) My daily drivers are the CH Fighterstick, CH pro throttle, and CH peddals. Cons: pro throttle doesn't rotate. Also, when moving the fighterstick from one quadrant to another you can feel a small detent. It's easy to get used to it, but it may not be for everyone. Pros: everything else? . Light force needed for the stick, and it's extremely accurate. The programming software is extremely easy to use for basic use, and there's a lot of help if you want to do some scripting. Plus - this software can make all your CH products appear as one controller, which is great for older games. This programming software is my favorite. These controls don't look like much, but are amazing. They have a TON of buttons and amazing programmability.
5) The thrustmaster warthog. I recently got this - and so far I love it. I did an extension mod on the stick (about 4 inches) so I could have it more realistically center mounted. It also helps reduce the force needed to push the stick around and reduces the "stiction" issue some people have noted (mine definitely had the issue). Overall it's a very accurate joystick. One pro over the fighterstick - it only has a detent in the center. It also has a few more buttons (dual stage trigger, and a push button on the thumb hat). So far the throttle has been fine - I use the toggles for engine and landing gear management in flying games (can't talk about the beta here, so I'm only talking flight sims ). The software is good, but I still prefer CH.

If I had to choose only one flight setup - I'd recommend the CH setup. It's cheaper overall and you have a top-end system without many of the cons in other top-end products.

When mechwarrior goes live I'll use the CH pedals for turning the legs, and one of the throttles for buttons. Not sure if I'll use a joystick for mouse for aiming - we'll see when things are farther along.

Oh - for lower priced items, I'd probably get the thrustmaster t-16000m, based on reviews and feel of the stick at Fry's electronics. But I don't have the stick myself. It has HALL sensors so it's extremely accurate, and it can use the TARGET programming (which is what you'd use for the warthog hotas). This means you can program all kinds of things to it, including macros. For these reasons, I wouldn't get any other cheaper stick unless I specifically want a force feedback stick.

-Forged

Edited by Forged, 08 September 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

I apologize for the lack of an update.

Currently between schoolwork, stress from school, and my attempts to relieve said stress, I haven't had much time to work on this.

An update will be posted as soon as I can.

Once again I do apologize.

[HERO KILLER]

Joysticks ftw! I have a logitech 2.4 wireless. An old Logitech wingman force (came out in 2002? metal gears and heavy ffb) that I use for old games. 2 extreme pro 3d that I use for bf2. I have 2 gaming pc's so friends can play. 2 saitek x-45's (one has never been used). Bought this after trying the x-52 and not liking it. Bought second one before they were all gone. Use the x-45 for most flight sims and mw4. Also have a g940 for IL2 and Cliffs of Dover.

Personally I think the x-45 is a great stick and I LOVE the rudder setup on it. Just wish I could get running for MWO properly with it.
I have a g700 logitech mouse that I am sure would be more accurate for MWO but I will give up a little for the joystick experience.

I am 48 yrs old and my competitive days of pc gaming are drawing to a close so I am not trying for the absoulute scores but I am a hell of a teammate. I never leave my flight lead.

Running 5040x1050 eyefinity with a track IR. If I can get my x-45 running right with track ir and eyefinity fixed then I will be complete!

Edited by HERO KILLER, 11 September 2012 - 07:01 PM.

[CyberWolf3769]

I also have an old Wingman Force, too bad there aren't any Windows 7 64 bit drivers for it. (Or are there?)

I'm currently using a Thrustmaster T16000, and it certainly does the job, but it doesn't have the same feel as the old wingman.

[Chavette]

And just a bit for my advice, for a gaming rig, approximate percentages of component cost which I recommend;
GPU: 35-50%
CPU: 10-20%



I stopped reading after that... what a joke... cpu 12-14% for an average $800 machine will come out $100 .. you know whats a $100 cpu ? Some sub i3, intel dual core series with no ht or turbo boost, probably wont even play MWO in medium...

Not even gonna mention the $350 Gpu according to that number, getting a high end model that will get bottlenecked by the weak CPU, which by the time you upgrade, will be left behind with a lower DirectX version every 1.5-2years.

Thx for the LoLs....

Edited by Chavette, 13 September 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Chavette, on 13 September 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

And just a bit for my advice, for a gaming rig, approximate percentages of component cost which I recommend;
GPU: 35-50%
CPU: 10-20%



I stopped reading after that... what a joke... cpu 12-14% for an average $800 machine will come out $100 .. you know whats a $100 cpu ? Some sub i3, intel dual core series with no ht or turbo boost, probably wont even play MWO in medium...

Not even gonna mention the $350 Gpu according to that number, getting a high end model that will get bottlenecked by the weak CPU, which by the time you upgrade, will be left behind with a lower DirectX version every 1.5-2years.

Thx for the LoLs....

A $100 CPU ends up being an i3 or an AMD quad core CPU, which is more than enough for any game on the market currently, and for a good number of years ahead.

Putting the extra money towards the GPU keeps you from having to waste more and more money down the road for new GPUs because your GPU simply can't cut it anymore. $300 buys you a Geforce GTX 660ti or Radeon HD 7950, which will play any game on the market at 50-55fps or more, $100 more (total $400) gets you a Phenom II X4 or a FX-4170 and will hold the frames per second stable.
For the same price, you could get a SB or IB i5, and a Nividia Geforce GTX 560 or Radeon HD 6870. Which will get about 30-35fps in the same demanding games, as well as being slower for future titles given that DX11 and above implementations are pushing GPU loads over CPU loads, as the GPU is able to take a good amount of the computing load off the CPU.

Though I have to say, it is something of a joke that you liked your own post. If you can come up with a civil and logical argument I would love to discuss it further with you, otherwise I am afraid you are showing nothing but your own immaturity and lack of understanding of the current gaming ecosystem.

[Catamount]

Chavette, on 13 September 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

And just a bit for my advice, for a gaming rig, approximate percentages of component cost which I recommend;
GPU: 35-50%
CPU: 10-20%



I stopped reading after that... what a joke... cpu 12-14% for an average $800 machine will come out $100 .. you know whats a $100 cpu ? Some sub i3, intel dual core series with no ht or turbo boost, probably wont even play MWO in medium...

Not even gonna mention the $350 Gpu according to that number, getting a high end model that will get bottlenecked by the weak CPU, which by the time you upgrade, will be left behind with a lower DirectX version every 1.5-2years.

Thx for the LoLs....

But on the off chance... I know this may be hard to believe, but "12-14%" is not the same as "10-20%", but we can leave your deficiency with rudimentary numbers for another day. At lower price-points, the idea is that you take up a little more of the budget for the CPU, which then drops as you get larger budgets, as expensive CPUs are extraneous in gaming. At $800, which is at the lower end of PC budgets, 20% would be about right, as no GPU purchased on such a budget will overwhelm what's available at the $160 pricepoint. That's more than enough for an i3-3240, or numerous AMD quad core chips that also won't meaningfully bottleneck any GPU at this price-point.

Take that $160, add $80 for a decent (if not fancy) full-sized motherboard, $60 for a passable PSU (Rosewill's 530W green series is less then $50 right now, but that's atypical), $60 for a case and decent fan setup, $35 for an 8GB RAM kit, $70 for a hard drive (about the price of any reasonably sized bare drive right now), $20 for an optical drive, leaving about $300 for a GPU, give or take, which leaves one with options that won't meaningfully bottleneck on a CPU at said price-point. And since, as a general guide, the above statements are subject to flexibility, there is always the option to spend the $30 extra and get an i5.

At lower pricepoints, say, $600, a core i3-2120 (just a hair over 20%) makes perfect sense, since, again, no GPU on such a budget will meaningfully bottleneck on such a CPU.


Next time, maybe you can make your argument out of some kind of actual point, and maybe demonstrate some actual knowledge, instead of centering your post out of how big an *** you can make of yourself and liking your own post.

Edited by Catamount, 13 September 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[Chavette]

@Vulpesveritas:
If you honestly believe in what you mentioned, we have nothing to talk about. A guy on this very forum was having a CPU bottleneck with an x6 phenom and a gtx580, he didn't manage 50fps on max settings. You just can't go cheap on CPUs these days.

But as I said, if you really stand by your analogy, saying a dual core (i3) is enough for years to come, theres no use arguing with you.

Catamount, on 13 September 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

But on the off chance... I know this may be hard to believe, but "12-14%" is not the same as "10-20%",

It isn't the same, he mentioned a range in his post, and I picked a number(also a range) to do my example with.
But we can leave your deficiency with rudimentary numbers for another day.

lol!

Edited by Chavette, 13 September 2012 - 02:28 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Chavette, on 13 September 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

@Vulpesveritas:
If you honestly believe in what you mentioned, we have nothing to talk about. A guy on this very forum was having a CPU bottleneck with an x6 phenom and a gtx580, he didn't manage 50fps on max settings. You just can't go cheap on CPUs these days.

But as I said, if you really stand by your analogy, saying a dual core (i3) is enough for years to come, theres no use arguing with you.





It isn't the same, he mentioned a range in his post, and I picked a number(also a range) to do my example with.
But we can leave your deficiency with rudimentary numbers for another day.

lol!

"a guy on this very forum was having a bottleneck with a Phenom II X6 and a Geforce GTX 580"
First off, did you link the person, and was he doing side-by-side tests between a intel i5 with a motherboard of the same brand, series level, (such as ex Gigabyte UD3) and showed them in a thorough test of the difference in frame rates between the two? And at what frequency was that Phenom II X6 clocked?

And do you have multiple sources to back up this claim, and that it might not be an individual with a defective part? Do you have a professional benchmarking set-up to prove that this and the majority of new DX11 (and above) games coming out are more CPU limited than GPU limited, despite one of DX11's primary goals to take GPU computing mainstream in games to relieve CPU loads?

For professional tests of this game engine, it is CPU intensive but frame rates are not that different, it is a strongly quad-threaded engine, and frame rates with a 7970 with pre-catalyst 12.7 drivers show the following difference in performance between a AMD CPU (which the $120 FX-4170 would yield higher frame rates in this title) and an Intel i5;


Or, about 3 frames per second at stock clocks.

Battlefield 3, another highly quad-threaded but DX11 title;


Metro 2033 with DX11:


And where we see the difference in performance, are in single and dual threaded environments, (which are becoming more and more rare) in which an i3 will perform almost identically to an i5 of the same CPU series;

[Catamount]

Chavette, on 13 September 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

It isn't the same, he mentioned a range in his post, and I picked a number(also a range) to do my example with.
But we can leave your deficiency with rudimentary numbers for another day.

lol!

You picked a range that in no way addressed his post. Claiming that 10-20% of a budget should go towards the CPU is not a claim that any number in that range will work for any budget. Different parts of that range are going to be appropriate to different builds, hence why he posts specific builds. This goes without saying, or so I might have thought; prior to encountering you, I figured anyone would be smart enough to figure this out.

Since you're using a part of that range for your example that he never claimed would fit your specific budget, what you did was a classic strawman. I have no deficiency with numbers here; the only one failing to see logic here is you (nice retort though; seriously, copying what other people say is totally the most creative response ever). But keep on putting "lol" into your posts, because it totally makes you look super intelligent. While your at it, you might as well like your own post again. I hear that makes you super cool.

Vulpesveritas, on 13 September 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

And where we see the difference in performance, are in single and dual threaded environments, (which are becoming more and more rare) in which an i3 will perform almost identically to an i5 of the same CPU series;

Furthermore, one isn't going to pair a 7970 with a low-end CPU following your suggestions anyways. A budget that would reasonably accommodate a nearly $450 card is something I'd expect to put an i5 CPU into anyways, since there are about half a dozen of them, Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, between $180 and $200 (still well within your 10-20%).

Edited by Catamount, 13 September 2012 - 03:20 PM.

[Sunaiac]

If you are interested, the French reference hardware test site did a test with graphic cards from the last 4 generations. We have to thank nVidia for that, since they only accepted to give GTX660 for tests if the 9800 was present. Anyway, the good point is, the test is the most up to date possible, driver wise and all. Conclusion is : keep your 5870s

Full test : http://www.hardware....p-sli-test.html

For the engine we are interested in :


Only modern cards, more settings :

Edited by Sunaiac, 14 September 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vulpesveritas, on 13 September 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

"a guy on this very forum was having a bottleneck with a Phenom II X6 and a Geforce GTX 580"
First off, did you link the person, and was he doing side-by-side tests between a intel i5 with a motherboard of the same brand, series level, (such as ex Gigabyte UD3) and showed them in a thorough test of the difference in frame rates between the two? And at what frequency was that Phenom II X6 clocked?

And do you have multiple sources to back up this claim, and that it might not be an individual with a defective part? Do you have a professional benchmarking set-up to prove that this and the majority of new DX11 (and above) games coming out are more CPU limited than GPU limited, despite one of DX11's primary goals to take GPU computing mainstream in games to relieve CPU loads?

For professional tests of this game engine, it is CPU intensive but frame rates are not that different, it is a strongly quad-threaded engine, and frame rates with a 7970 with pre-catalyst 12.7 drivers show the following difference in performance between a AMD CPU (which the $120 FX-4170 would yield higher frame rates in this title) and an Intel i5;


Or, about 3 frames per second at stock clocks.

Battlefield 3, another highly quad-threaded but DX11 title;


Metro 2033 with DX11:


And where we see the difference in performance, are in single and dual threaded environments, (which are becoming more and more rare) in which an i3 will perform almost identically to an i5 of the same CPU series;

For noting, i am going to be testing the difference between Bulldozer/Sandy bridge in a few weeks as my Sabertooth 990FX and 8120 will be going into my Home entertainment/TS3 hosting machine. It'll be replaced with the Z77 Sabertooth and either a 2500k (most likely for cooler better OC) or the 3570k.

Not sure if releasing the figures would be a problem with NDA i may have to check that one out. Lets say in short my 8120 and GTX 580 combo is not giving me the results on FPS it should at this time, suffice to say i have tried dropping it to use 6 and 4 cores rather than 8 and the problem escalates.

At this point im not so sure its an issue with the AMD chip as every other game has no issues, which would point to either Cryengine or MWO.

But ya either way come the beginning of October i will be in a position to test.

[Valtyr]

I use a ATI 6970 (Asus DC-II), had it for over a year not sure what it costs now probably not that much. I'm far from an expert but I don't have any framerate issues, ever. Running MWO at 1920x1080, all options maxed.

[bikerbass77]

The only notes I would say on this is that according to what I have read the Nvidia GTX 660 is around the same performance in most cases as a Radeon 7850 with a few exceptions. Between the two, I would buy whichever came cheaper. On a mean average the GTX 660 Ti has better performance than a Radeon 7870, but that is only because the few games it does better on (like Dirt 3 and Skyrim) it does so with a huge margin. My advice with comparing these cards for is to go for whichever is cheaper or if they were the same price on performance I would go with the Nvidia cards. If I was concerned about power draw (and most likely noise) I would go with the AMD solutions.

Remember because you get more heat generation as the voltage goes up, higher power draw will often bring extra noise as the cooling system will have to work that bit harder.

[GoaHead]

Shivus, on 31 May 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

I like tech powerup quite a bit as their benchmarks encompass nearly every game title and comparison you need even going into performance per $. The only qualm I have with them is that I need to take the 1920X1200 results and guess performance at 1920X1080, or search for those separately and compare them cross site. Tom's is great to cross reference with.

On Monday I ordered the sapphire 6950 OC for $214 total to upgrade from my old GTX 260 core 216, thank you newegg memorial day sale. It still performs admirably, able to run Skyrim on near ultra with the lite HD texture packs and other hd texture mods just with AA turned off and AF at 4x, but it pushes the card to the limit. It was time to upgrade, especially so to prepare for MWO. And grabbing that 6950 for pretty much the same price as a 560TI left a big smile on my face.

I have the XFX 6950 and unlocked the card to an 6970 with an BIOS flash, but this work only with the original AMD design