65 replies to this topic

[Adridos]

Landsharkk, on 29 December 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

At least now we all know you are a complete a**hole, thanks for that.

he's merely pointing out your PC's processor makes a stable and acceptable FPS at full HD resolution a distant hope. Just lower a few settings and you'll be good. It's not the end of the world.

[PiemasterXL]

Adridos, on 29 December 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

he's merely pointing out your PC's processor makes a stable and acceptable FPS at full HD resolution a distant hope. Just lower a few settings and you'll be good. It's not the end of the world.

It sure is satisfying to act like it is though.

[Dirkdaring]

OP: Lemme put it like this.

The AMD FX-8350 at $190 over doubles the power of your CPU. You have a great GPU but you aren't seeing any performance out of it due to your CPU.

[One Medic Army]

I was getting better than 14FPS (if only barely) on my Q6600 quad (stock 2.4) w/ 4gigs of RAM (DDR2-800) and a 460GTX at 1920x1080.
Once I upgraded my CPU/Mobo/RAM on black Friday to a i5 3750K and 16gigs of DDR3-1333 my performance has drastically improved. Even sold my old internals on Craigslist for $50.

I'll second the call to overclock your processor, the Core2Quads generally overclock really well.

[PiemasterXL]

Dirkdaring, on 29 December 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

OP: Lemme put it like this.

The AMD FX-8350 at $190 over doubles the power of your CPU. You have a great GPU but you aren't seeing any performance out of it due to your CPU.

Or, for $60 less he can buy this.

[Stone Wall]

we can call this: Learning how to use your computer for gaming 101

[Elkarlo]

A friend of mine runs MWO at very high with a GTX670
at 40-60 FPS on a HD Screen (1920x1080).
But he got an Icore5-3570 and 16Gb Ram. (Oced at 4,2ghz)

I can run my FX6100 and the HD6870 at 17-28 fps at very High.

We both use Win 7 X64.

I think the problem at your System is the Load on your GPU. When it has only 75% then it means:
Not enough data are comming through to your GPU.

So either your Motherboard is not an X48/P45/X38 Chipset Board ( the only ones powerfull enough for this GPU)
You have not enough Memorybandwidth on your Memory. So you would need 1333/1600 Memory with a low CL rating.
Or you have not enough Singlethread Power to get the Data's through to your Grafik Card.

From my personal Experience:
My C2D E8500 @ 3,16ghz
on a Q45 Asus P5Q- Pro Turbo Motherboard
with 1066 Cl5 Memory

Was not powerfull enough to exploid the Full Power of my HD6870 in generic Tests.
And they use only one CPU thread and are a good measurement if a CPU can fire the GPU.

I got about 90% performance out of my HD6870.

So you have a potential WEAKER CPU at 2,8ghz

So the 14 frames seems simply the Data limit your CPU putts on your GPU.

As said before, a modern System with enough power for your GPU can have easily 40-60 FPS on a GTX670.
But your GPU is idling because there is not Data-Upstream.

And this Problem, that you need One Highperformance Dataupstream Thread for firing GPU's is the Reason why modern CPU's can "overclock" one half of their Cores in Turbo mode.

You can test it by overclocking your CPU, when your Performance increase then you know what the problem is. I don't recommend that without propper Cooling though.


To summ it up:
You have a Bigblock 500 Horsepower Engine, but only the Transmission for a 350 Horsepower Engine and a Clutch for a 200 Horsepower Engine and you are wondering why you are driving 65mph while going Uphill. And can't drive more than 120 mph on the Speedway. Very simple because your System is inbalanced.
And Cryengine3 is a very steep Hill for every Computesystem.

Edited by Elkarlo, 29 December 2012 - 05:05 PM.

[Thndrblt]

Im sorry youre finacial situation doesnt allow you to have higher-end equipt, it does suck for sure. I know, i was in the same boat for alot of years. I had to run NEW games on low setting (or in some cases, not at all till i upgraded). But calling people A-holes for stating that fact isnt cool at all. And blaming the devs for not cattering to low end systems isnt good either.

You can only optimimize backwards for older equipt to a point (and usually its only slight improvments in performance at best ). Youre system is on the low end of the scale...you will get low end performance. If money is an issue with getting better gear...maybe a console would best suit youre needs, all the games run the same.

My equipt: I5 - 3570K, High end MB, gtx 680, 8megs corsair ram, 500mb HD, 24LED mon,1200W PS, Corsair WC.......I dont say this to brag, but i for one do not want games optimized for a core-duo CPU and 4 yr old vid card

[Trey Smooth]

Dirkdaring, on 29 December 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

OP: Lemme put it like this.

The AMD FX-8350 at $190 over doubles the power of your CPU. You have a great GPU but you aren't seeing any performance out of it due to your CPU.

Funny I have the 8350 cpu with 32 gb's of memory and a 6950 and I still get fps problems.  I can run everything under the sun maxed but this game has fps's dips because its locked in 32 bit so please stop defending poor coding and blaming rigs thx.

Edited by Trey Smooth, 29 December 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[Bluescuba]

Landsharkk, on 29 December 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 @ 2.8ghz

There is your problem

I have a GTX580 which averages 60 fps, but I have an i7 2600K overclocked to 4.5ghz... this game is cpu intensive

[Homeless Bill]

Writing games is incredibly complex - particularly when it comes to performance decisions. There isn't a "right way" to do things, they're a pretty green developer, they've never worked with this engine, the publisher pushed them out the door long before they were ready, and you, sir, are a complete *******.

Shut the **** up, go play BF3, and check back in a few months when the game is "acceptable." It's not like PGI didn't know they had problems until you decided to be an ******* on the forums. I hope you get struck by a bus.

[v4skunk]

Redshift2k5, on 29 December 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

I bought a new 1920 1080 monitor a few days ago. At full resolution (1920x1080) my fps is a rage inducing 14.

At 1600 by 900 it runs smoothly at 35 FPS.

Lol are you serious?
The higher you have the screen resolution the lower your FPS will be....

[Duke Hector]

take a deep breath and repeat after me... "this game is still in beta, it is a work in progress......"

[SunderODeath]

Its hard to argue this game isn't poorly optimized.
Specs:
i7 3960x @ 4.2
16Gb DDR3 2133MHz
GTX 580 3gb SLi

And still I can't hold a constant 60fps regaurdless of res or setting. The recent patch made things a little better but fps still dips to mid 40s sometimes. GPU usage is stll lower than it should be. To the user a few posts up with the 580 that says he avgs 60fps. Is that constant or does it dip? I would like to know but I have a feeling I already know the answer.

Good news is that with this most recent patch things got significantly better for alot of people(go read the performance feedback thread). Hopefully the progress will continue because I love this game but its frustrating that I can't get this game to run at a solid 60fps when every other game I have (some of which look better than MWO) does.

[Bluescuba]

SunderODeath, on 29 December 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Its hard to argue this game isn't poorly optimized.
Specs:
i7 3960x @ 4.2
16Gb DDR3 2133MHz
GTX 580 3gb SLi

And still I can't hold a constant 60fps regaurdless of res or setting. The recent patch made things a little better but fps still dips to mid 40s sometimes. GPU usage is stll lower than it should be. To the user a few posts up with the 580 that says he avgs 60fps. Is that constant or does it dip? I would like to know but I have a feeling I already know the answer.

Good news is that with this most recent patch things got significantly better for alot of people(go read the performance feedback thread). Hopefully the progress will continue because I love this game but its frustrating that I can't get this game to run at a solid 60fps when every other game I have (some of which look better than MWO) does.

Well I range between 50 and 75 fps with my GTX580 however I also have a GTX280 with I use to handle physx. I run the game maxed settings @ 1920 x 1080. It is impossible to have a constant 60fps but i am in the high 50s to high 60s 80% of the time im in a drop... excluding the times I get the 4fps bug of course.

[ElmoWithAGun]

Trey Smooth, on 29 December 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Funny I have the 8350 cpu with 32 gb's of memory and a 6950 and I still get fps problems. I can run everything under the sun maxed but this game has fps's dips because its locked in 32 bit so please stop defending poor coding and blaming rigs thx.

What on earth do you need 32 GB's of RAM for? lol

[Mister Blastman]

OP:
I feel your pain.

It is your CPU.

I was playing with a Q9450 and 2x 260 GTXs SLI'd... Same framerate as you. I upgraded to a 670 GTX. Barely any improvement.

I then upgraded to a 3770k... Framerate went through the roof! 60 - 100 FPS now.

This game is a CPU *****.

[CommanderOSIS]

I have an 8 core 8120 stock 8 gigs of ram and a gtx 560 and my fps will drop below 20. no other games have this problem. obviously something is wrong with the engine.

[Weirdjedi]

E5200 @ 2.50Ghz
2 GB RAM
Windows 7 64-bit
ATI Radeon 4890

I started playing right before open beta, roughly around the month of October. I was getting roughly 25 fps. I didn't care about the graphics. Low settings was fine by me. I was still learning the ropes. Gradually my fps were getting worse. CryEngine 3 ~ 20fps; Open Beta ~ 15 fps; Nov 20th patch ~ 12 fps.

When that November 20th patch hit, there was an outcry. There were so many threads, they had to merge them into the primary patch performance thread going up about 30 pages. http://mwomercs.com/...eedback-merged/

Some blamed my specs for my poor performance. Some tried giving me advice on possible workarounds. In the end, I knew PGI was at fault. I threw my information into the thread and a couple patches later, I suddenly had my 25-30 fps again.

Yes, the game is CPU heavy and I still hear about people having issues. I really hope they solve that memory leak. http://mwomercs.com/...-issues-update/ Yellow screen, block screen, black screen, crash, flicker screen, no hud screen, 4 fps screen... whatever you want to call it.

My advice? If your system works on other games - Starcraft 2, Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2 to name a few - then you will just have to wait for PGI's technical support. I hear they need it. http://infinitegamep...ing.com/careers

[Trey Smooth]

ElmoWithAGun, on 29 December 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

What on earth do you need 32 GB's of RAM for? lol

Simple when I upgrade I max out the boards memory to future proof it. I have four sticks of quad channel memory which is as much as I will need for the life of the machine. Also it was on sale black friday at around half price.Previous build was a phenom II black 965 and I have 16 gigs on that rig and have since I built it 5 years ago. Matched pairs beat trying to find that memory years later to do a upgrade. When memory is this cheap and your doing a build its a no brainer. I was also refering to the dips in fps when I I talked about perfomance. I honestly wonder how many cores the game is truly even using tbh. I don't think a steady 60 is to much to ask for a brand new gamer rig.