15 replies to this topic

[Sifright]

Visiting family, hurrah holidays etc.

Which gives me the chance to play on a variety of machines i would normally not touch.


Today i have played on a the following machines

First machine.

core2duo running at 4ghz (good cooling and it works at stock voltage stable wooo) has a radeon 4k series card
This machine is on the cusp of playability as long as i'm not getting rained on by lrms my fps is stable enough for me to aim my shots.
gets between 5-40fps depending on whats going on. 40 fps is on frozen city which seems to be the kindest map on machines regardless.


Second machine.
i5 Mobility sandybridge. no dedicated graphics card.
Gets 4 fps at start of map. Ran up behind a dude with a splatapult and fired one salvo into him. then i couldn't hit him again due to the slide show


so whats the worst machine you guys have tried playing on and how well did you do with it?\\

for me it's quite startling to see just how poorly the game performs on older and not so old machines as i normally play on a i5 ivybridge proc clocked at 3.9ghz with a 6950

[Sifright]

bamp

[Celesteel]

commodore 64 FTW

[Th3 James]

I have a i7 875k clocked at 4.2Ghz under water and 1.4V, dual 7970's at 1125/1575 and am kind of disappointed with my performance.

I am running at 2560x1600, so I understand I am going to take a performance hit, but got damn. Changing graphical settings doesn't seem to boost my framerate that much so I just leave everything on ultra except for post processing and AA at 0.

I get 40-60 something fps. Not unplayable, but I just expect better performance.

I want this game to do well and be profitable, but the steep entry level is going to hold it back some.

Out of all my PC games this seems to perform the worst, but it is such an awesome game I don't care.

[Lorcan Lladd]

Disputably, I got it to work on a five-year old dual core machine with a Pentium CPU @ 2.2GHz and a GeForce 8600 GT - at the lowest supported resolution and using a custom user.cfg it barely managed 13FPS.
Every match or so, memory leak would lead to the dreaded 4FPS bug.

Not that it would be very noticeable, anyway.
I was performing at about 40% efficiency, if my damage and number of kills each match is any indication.

Before then, I played on a quad core notebook @ 2.4-3.2GHz and equipped with a HD 7670m - at the second lowest resolution and using a different user.cfg, it could reliably achieve 25FPS; it was essentially playable, though probably also bottlenecked by the CPU at all times.
I imagine that it could perform at 35FPS or more with all cores @ 3.2GHz, but, due to hardware limitations, I couldn't perform any tests.

It could also play the game at 14FPS using its integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics.

I'm not desperate enough, but I suppose I could try to run MWO on my netbook, which is currently the only machine available to me - a dual core at @ 1.66GHz with unknown graphics.
Some things, man was never meant to do.

[King Arthur IV]

everything you can possibly buy on the market right now is useless because its the game not the hardware that is the problem.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Th3 James, on 02 January 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

I have a i7 875k clocked at 4.2Ghz under water and 1.4V, dual 7970's at 1125/1575 and am kind of disappointed with my performance.

I am running at 2560x1600, so I understand I am going to take a performance hit, but got damn. Changing graphical settings doesn't seem to boost my framerate that much so I just leave everything on ultra except for post processing and AA at 0.

I get 40-60 something fps. Not unplayable, but I just expect better performance.

I want this game to do well and be profitable, but the steep entry level is going to hold it back some.

Out of all my PC games this seems to perform the worst, but it is such an awesome game I don't care.

Game currently doesn't support sli/crossfire at all. Supposedly that will come later.

[Sifright]

Lorcan Lladd, on 02 January 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

I'm not desperate enough, but I suppose I could try to run MWO on my netbook, which is currently the only machine available to me - a dual core at @ 1.66GHz with unknown graphics.
Some things, man was never meant to do.

Doooo it D:

would be hilarious to see if it will actually run on that. my first instinct is that it wont though assuming it's old intel onboard graphics.

King Arthur, i'd agree with you provisionally but it's definitly possible to brute force through the rather terrible game code optimization with a powerful pc rig. that said you shouldn't NEED to do that.

I kind of expected the core2duo to do better than it did because that machine is clocked hella fast.

[Sifright]

Celesteel, on 02 January 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

commodore 64 FTW

first you would have to recompile the game to run on the 68k motorola cisc micro- processor architecture.... and dear god trying to run all of the graphics in software on a processor that run in the kilahurtz range ahhhhhhhhhhh.

Edited by Sifright, 02 January 2013 - 01:42 PM.

[Th3 James]

Warrax the Chaos Warrior, on 02 January 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

Game currently doesn't support sli/crossfire at all. Supposedly that will come later.

Thank you for telling me this. They should really get on that...FAST

[Sifright]

Th3 James, on 02 January 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Thank you for telling me this. They should really get on that...FAST

They would be better off optimizing the game engine elsewhere first as that will help all of their customers including you where as SLI is still rather niche market segment.

[Solomon Ward]

I play on an ancient Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00 GHz, HD6850 and 8 GB Ram.

Runs decent enough for me.Falls slightly below 30 FPS in the thick of things.Otherwise its 40+ FPS.Was a pain before i upgraded from 4GB to 8 GB tho.

[Th3 James]

Sifright, on 02 January 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

They would be better off optimizing the game engine elsewhere first as that will help all of their customers including you where as SLI is still rather niche market segment.

Both. I know some people who have opted to build a computer with 2 cheaper gpus in sli or crossfire as opposed to purchasing 1 mid-high end gpu. Engine optimization is first though.

[Sifright]

Th3 James, on 02 January 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Both. I know some people who have opted to build a computer with 2 cheaper gpus in sli or crossfire as opposed to purchasing 1 mid-high end gpu. Engine optimization is first though.

well as it stands right now the 4570 is about the best card you need to run at 1080p res. (That is to say the minimum you need to ensure that you wont be bottlenecked on the gpu.)

for what ever reason the game engine doesn't correctly offset render work to the gpu so the single largest limiting factor for a pc is the CPU and then the speed of the ram.

Edited by Sifright, 02 January 2013 - 02:14 PM.

[Beo Vulf]

Two year old Dell xps 17 laptop Intel I5 8 gig ram, no dedicated graphics card. The game plays like a **** on it.

[Click]

I lol because my cpu is slightly above min specs, my gfx card isn't even officially supported but I play okay at low/med settings..though the game still manages to under perform in this rig...

The trick is balance. Doesn't matter if you have plenty of cpu if you have a lousy gpu or vice-versa, if one is found to be utterly lacking the other wont make up for it. Then again if you bought a unbalanced rig with the purpose of gaming in it you deserve any hardships you get trying to run X or Y game.