65 replies to this topic

[One Medic Army]

You can also put some of it into a RAM Disc and speed up your boot/lead times, or even instal a program or two there.

[Bad Karma 308]

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

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

I run 128GB and between ramdrives and some testing applications I can eat every bit of it up.


Landsharkk

Th problem isn't so much with your Q9550, Even though it is several years old at this point it is still holds it own with the likes of the Phenom II X6 1075T and the FX-8150. I'll take a guess and say your running DDR2. One of the sticking points on the last gen 775s was that the were quickly being bottle necked by the limited bandwidth of DDR2 modules. If memory serves me the X48 chipset and some of the later H & P series (43???) chipsets opened up a lot of performance when they pushed into DDR3.

Unfortunately, the 1366 & 1556/5 era pushed those boards into retirement rather quickly so finding a decent 775 board with DDR3 may be something of a challenge depending on what your definition of "decent" is. Might be easier to bite the bullet and make the jump into something in the Sandy or Ivy bridge lane. Be weary of AMD at the moment, the company is in dire financial straights and is looking at a possible break up/sell off. They are selling everything that can to stay afloat and are hemorrhaging engineers and executives right and left. Wait 6-8 months to see if they level out before you buy into them you could be left with no further upgrade paths on a dead end computer.

But don't let the low FPS get you down. My system is pretty much maxed out and it still likes to cough on MWO. Usually I get decent FPS up in the 60s range but some maps, some battles, it gets drops into the 20-30s, seen it even blip down to the single digits at times, and even gets the 4FPS bug once in a while. With hyper-threading I'm pushing 32 cores and 128GB of Ram and still see lots of issues.

Spoiler

CPU: 2x intel Xeon E-52687W LGA 2011 W/HT all 32 cores @3.8
MEMORY: 128GB DDR3 1600
GPU 2X EVGA Signature GTX690 4GB
SSD: OCZ Z-Drive R4 CM841 1.2TB PCI-E
Monitors: 3x HP ZR30w 30" (only one used until SLI is switched on)
Resolution (7680 x 4800 across all 3 monitors) (2560 x 1600 for 1 monitor)
OS: Windows 7 Enterprise
Internet 50/15 Mb/s

The game is just not optimized yet. What really makes it sad is that all the low FPSs are coming from a game that is running on DX9, which was rolled out back in December 2003.

Edited by Bad Karma 308, 29 December 2012 - 10:35 PM.

[Bigamo]

Well i have those same 14 FPS.

Running a FX-4100 with a GTX560, 8 giga ram in a windows 7 64bits...

All the most recent drivers and so.

Ok, my processor isn't THAT strong i know, but really makes ZERO difference in settings, i can use all in minimum or at maximum that i skill keep those less then 20 FPS (sometimes they rise but not most of the time)

I dont know but i am pretty sure that the performance should be better.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Bad Karma 308, on 29 December 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

CPU: 2x intel Xeon E-52687W LGA 2011 W/HT all 32 cores @3.8
MEMORY: 128GB DDR3 1600
GPU 2X EVGA Signature GTX690 4GB
SSD: OCZ Z-Drive R4 CM841 1.2TB PCI-E
Monitors: 3x HP ZR30w 30" (only one used until SLI is switched on)
Resolution (7680 x 4800 across all 3 monitors) (2560 x 1600 for 1 monitor)
OS: Windows 7 Enterprise
Internet 50/15 Mb/s

Nice server grade chips you have there, i would imagine the game is not coded to use more than 1 CPU, and if it is will likely cause issues, not to mention your unlikely to see any significant usage by MWO past 6/8 cores.
Must be pretty sweet for non gaming however.

It may be the hardware your using here, that causes the instability in frames.

As to the OP, Your using a quad core CPU +1 here, get a decent aftermarket cooler on it, overclock it because that is your current bottleneck alongside the DDR2 RAM.

Bigamo, on 29 December 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

Well i have those same 14 FPS.

Running a FX-4100 with a GTX560, 8 giga ram in a windows 7 64bits...

All the most recent drivers and so.

Ok, my processor isn't THAT strong i know, but really makes ZERO difference in settings, i can use all in minimum or at maximum that i skill keep those less then 20 FPS (sometimes they rise but not most of the time)

I dont know but i am pretty sure that the performance should be better.

Should it be better, yes but not by much, Bulldozer chips are not great for gaming the Phenom II line was better, is it a standard 560? as opposed to the 560TI?
May want to try running at a lower resolution, to beef up the FPS slightly.

[elbloom]

http://tautvidas.com...el-turbo-boost/

http://mwomercs.com/...kasset-caching/

[Adridos]

Weirdjedi, on 29 December 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

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.

This is a really strange selection.

I have a low-end GPU and a dual core CPU and can easily max out all three, because all of them use either old (Far Cry 3 uses the same engine as Far Cry 2, altough upgraded and Borderlands uses the sameas teh first Borderlands), or minimalistic (so every PC on the planet can run it and anything less than 6 years old can run it at max settings, in this case SC2) engine.

Imo, if his PC ran Witcher 2, Metro 2033 and maybe a few other actually pushing games, it would have been far better indicator of it's actual power.

[Elfman]

My previous rig that I was having between 40-60 FPS in closed beta went down to 6-15 fps with the last patch.
Spec AMD phenom ii x6 1045t,nvidea 560 GTX, 12 GB DDR3 1666 ram
I had a PC I used for work with a crappy graphics card but a i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz
Went out a purchased a new motherboard for the i7 to go in my gaming rig and put it together
then my graphics card went the way of the dodo (got it replaced with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 from shop as they had run out of 560GTX cards)
Present spec
i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 2Gb RAM, 32 GB DDR3 1666 RAM, Samsung SSD 830 6GB/S running in AHCI mode
I am presently getting 40-60 FPS but still have to have all settings other than shadows set to low
This is after fully tweaking the nVidea card settings to get max performance (with lots of PUG games change settings PUG game)
So OK its still not the best rig on the planet but as a small test I downloaded a few other F2P games such as WOT and in every
one I was getting 60+ FPS in max settings with no tweaking
They really need to optimise the game

[Grraarrgghh]

Yeah guys we should all be able to run max setting on the newest video games running the newest graphic engines with old *** CPUs and/or $150 video cards!

Also, this is going to make you sad, but that 650 you bought? It's only about 60% as powerful as a 560.

http://www.anandtech...duct/681?vs=543

Edited by Grraarrgghh, 30 December 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[Adridos]

Elfman, on 30 December 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

They really need to optimise the game

The "problem" here is this game is massive in scale. Players control something that has teh size of ~3 buildings in a normal game. The maps are gigantic by today's standards, but being massive and running at speeds you can only mimick in a racing game makes them seem small like a child's sandbox.

The models themselves adn textures on them are really optimised to the point of real ugliness and if you really want good framerates, either you buy a perfect PC, or live with lesser graphics.

[Thirdstar]

Adridos, on 30 December 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

The "problem" here is this game is massive in scale. Players control something that has teh size of ~3 buildings in a normal game. The maps are gigantic by today's standards, but being massive and running at speeds you can only mimick in a racing game makes them seem small like a child's sandbox.

The models themselves adn textures on them are really optimised to the point of real ugliness and if you really want good framerates, either you buy a perfect PC, or live with lesser graphics.

You really have no idea what scale means do you? Here's a hint though, even if the mechs are supposed to be between 10 metres and 18 metres tall, the game is rendering them as if they're roughly the size of a human in other games.

And the maps in PS2 put the ones in MWO to shame. Please, don't even go there.

[Grraarrgghh]

Thirdstar, on 30 December 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

You really have no idea what scale means do you? Here's a hint though, even if the mechs are supposed to be between 10 metres and 18 metres tall, the game is rendering them as if they're roughly the size of a human in other games.

And the maps in PS2 put the ones in MWO to shame. Please, don't even go there.

Yeah PS2 is really good at making uh...desert? And hills?

Oh and copy/pasting the same base layouts about two dozen times.

[Thirdstar]

Grraarrgghh, on 30 December 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Yeah PS2 is really good at making uh...desert? And hills?

Oh and copy/pasting the same base layouts about two dozen times.

You forgot to point out where I was wrong. Are MWO maps bigger than PS2 maps?

I thought Lowtax at least would require more intelligence than this poster has exhibited, sad that the SA forums have been brought so low.

Edited by Thirdstar, 30 December 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Grraarrgghh, on 30 December 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Yeah PS2 is really good at making uh...desert? And hills?

Oh and copy/pasting the same base layouts about two dozen times.

With low resolution graphics due to the sheer scale of the game....hardly a comparison to make i agree

Thirdstar, on 30 December 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

You forgot to point out where I was wrong. Are MWO maps bigger than PS2 maps?

Ofc not, however PS2's maps are hardly what you would call graphically pleasing.

Edited by DV McKenna, 30 December 2012 - 10:02 AM.

[Thirdstar]

DV McKenna, on 30 December 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

With low resolution graphics due to the sheer scale of the game....hardly a comparison to make i agree

Ofc not, however PS2's maps are hardly what you would call graphically pleasing.

You're aware that you're massively deflecting what I was referring to right. The poster I quoted thinks that because we pilot giant stompy robots that the game renders them to scale. It does not. The poster also mentioned that the MWO maps are 'gigantic by today's standards'. They are not. Dispute those two points I made, the rest is just futile deflection.

Edited by Thirdstar, 30 December 2012 - 10:05 AM.

[Grraarrgghh]

Thirdstar, on 30 December 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

You forgot to point out where I was wrong. Are MWO maps bigger than PS2 maps?

I thought Lowtax at least would require more intelligence than this poster has exhibited, sad that the SA forums have been brought so low.

This is me seriousposting.

[Thirdstar]

Grraarrgghh, on 30 December 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

This is me seriousposting.

Olympic level backpedal. 10 points.

[Mikhalio]

Seems like one of these threads happen a day.

1. Check the suggestion sub-forum for optimization

2. Their shaders artist can only render in 32bit. They are only using the crytek3 32 bit packs. This sort of makes a mess of GPI boards or anything that uses 64 bit code. Expect these problems to persist until they can either afford a 64-bit artist, or a better software pack guy.

3. if 1 & 2 do not work for you, I suggest running it at a lower frame set. Come back in 6-months when they hopefully have figured out how to correct their shadow detection and reflective surfacing.

Seems like one of these threads happen a day.

1. Check the suggestion sub-forum for optimization

2. Their shaders artist can only render in 32bit. They are only using the crytek3 32 bit packs. This sort of makes a mess of GPI boards or anything that uses 64 bit code. Expect these problems to persist until they can either afford a 64-bit artist, or a better software pack guy.

3. if 1 & 2 do not work for you, I suggest running it at a lower frame set. Come back in 6-months when they hopefully have figured out how to correct their shadow detection and reflective surfacing.

[Grraarrgghh]

Thirdstar, on 30 December 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

Olympic level backpedal. 10 points.

:frankfrank:

[Thirdstar]

Grraarrgghh, on 30 December 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

:frankfrank:

[Mikhalio]

Grraarrgghh, on 30 December 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

:frankfrank:

Nominating this post for best post of the general forums. A double irony, with a serious post razor. Even the Indian and Russian judges were moved to tears.