General Forums => Open Beta Test => Topic started by: Busher on January 16, 2016, 05:49:03 PM
Title: Frame Rates
Post by: Busher on January 16, 2016, 05:49:03 PM
I am not sure if my system can handle the new game. Max 30fps with many features off. about 20 with default settings.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: bustr on January 16, 2016, 07:02:22 PM
I have a GTX 760 and Win7 64bit with 8G ram. With the defaults I mostly run 50-60 FPS with exceptions like the TT terrain in the middle of NDilses.
Talk to Skuzzy but, your issue may be that you only have 2G of system ram.
From your DXdiag
Memory: 2048MB RAM Available OS Memory: 2010MB RAM Page File: 1286MB used, 2734MB available
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Busher on January 16, 2016, 07:25:42 PM
ya thanks Bustr...kinda figured that might be the issue. Old MB and that's all I can fit.
Hopefully AH2 stays up until the good weather returns.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Kazaa on January 16, 2016, 07:58:22 PM
I noticed significant decrease in FPS when the ack-ack is firing (from 170+ to 30-40). I also noticed that there seems to be much more ack-ack than I can remember.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: JimmyD3 on January 17, 2016, 03:39:37 PM
One thing for sure, game play will change.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Chilli on January 17, 2016, 03:52:25 PM
You might ask a professional, but that 2 GHz CPU chip may be able to overclock and help. I suggest google, since I am curious, I will take a look also.
I do not suggest that you follow this video, but it is just an example of how it could be done.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Busher on January 17, 2016, 06:57:23 PM
I really hope that the computer requirements associated with the new game don't make the game unplayable for a noticeable number of subscribers.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Bizman on January 18, 2016, 10:58:59 AM
I'm not sure whether your motherboard allows for overclocking much, don't know the Q33 chipset specs and am too lazy to study it...
Instead you could get a second hand E8500 processor running 3.16 GHz at stock clock. Mine runs 3.8 GHz at the moment... I paid about €80 for it a couple of years ago and sold my E6450 for €50 so the price wasn't something to be explained to the wife. Also, 2 GB of RAM is way too little for a 64 bit OS. I went from 4 to 8 when I upgraded to Win7 and the difference was huge. Cost me €80 for a set of 4x2GB Corsairs, second hand.
I suppose those improvements would support your video card better, the GTX 680 is quite a good card.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Dragon on January 18, 2016, 09:11:20 PM
im guessing we will lose at least 50% of long time players.
Hopefully you're wrong. Time can't stop in 1990. At some point, you have to upgrade.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Gman on January 18, 2016, 10:40:01 PM
Quote
I really hope that the computer requirements associated with the new game don't make the game unplayable for a noticeable number of subscribers.
Quote
Quote from: Peanut1 on Today at 08:44:24 PM
im guessing we will lose at least 50% of long time players.
Hopefully you're wrong. Time can't stop in 1990. At some point, you have to upgrade.
IMO it's a complex issue - HTC being caught between the rock and a hard place. Having large numbers of customers clamoring for a new updated game, while also having large numbers that could be at risk of being alienated by being priced out of the product BY that updated product.
Obviously there could be some attrition, in this economy right now, those with older PCs probably aren't using them just because they are "fond" of them, it's because spending even 450$ on a fairly cheap PSU and a 970 to just get to the low end of the faster cards isn't possible for them.
IMO it comes down to how many new players will be attracted to the game. HT has said on a couple occasions that the long term customer isn't all that critical to HTC's income/business model, and that it relies on constant turnover in the 2 ish +/- (I forget exactly the years he used but IIRC it's something like 1 to 3 so I'm guessing in the middle) year players. If that's the case, I don't think from an equation/math standpoint losing people due to their old PCs not being able to handle the new game, nor being able to upgrade for whatever reason, is going to factor out to making much difference to them, even in the short term, much less long.
If you really want to play the game, IMO you can find a way. I have an old i7 920 (I think it is) with a 5770 (I know it is) card which was one of the "great" performers of its day 6 or so years ago. I could play the new beta on it by switching some stuff off, no problem. I can find such PCs like this HTPC for 300$ locally, and that is about 200$ USD, and is for the entire PC, not just the video card/PSU.
Based on this, I think it'll be only a very, very few that are left behind, or are going to be really upset and unhappy.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Chalenge on January 18, 2016, 10:45:28 PM
That's just a slight exaggeration. Busher's cpu is a 2007 product, as is the baseline GTX 9800 GPU. The problem that I see with his system is a limited memory profile, which then requires a lot of page file access. It just cannot work well with AHIII without more memory, faster HDDs, and even a better GPU (although the 680 is still viable). With all of that change it would be more sensible to move into a new barebone system at minimum.
Unfortunately, no one saw the economic issues of today lasting this long, and possibly growing worse (and Gman beat me to the punch). All I can say is, buy oil while it's low!
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Gman on January 18, 2016, 10:59:42 PM
Agree re Busher's PC - I had 2 680 4gb in SLI when they were the fastest cards you could buy, before the 690 came out. They ran AH (SLI off as the AH profile is....) at max at 144fps with all but reflections cranked no trouble. GPU Boss and other comparison sites show that the new 960 GTX is pretty much on par with the 680 GTX in terms of performance (close enough). IMO that card with a bit of PC work would be fine. It smoked my 5770 and by turning stuff off I can get it to playable.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Chalenge on January 18, 2016, 11:59:19 PM
Yeah, just to be clear my answer was in response to Scca. The "exaggeration" comment was in response to the "1990" one. Gman must have hit post just as I decided to reply to Scca.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Gman on January 19, 2016, 01:18:22 AM
I realized that from the timestamp on your post, no worries.
I'm going to try out Win10's ability to record games and put up a vid comparing FPS with the beta between 4 different systems once I'm back home, when I can run it on our other 2 systems there.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Skuzzy on January 19, 2016, 05:27:58 AM
Running 30 or under also with settings reduced to almost minimum and eye candy turned off.
That is about right. The 260 is about 30% slower than HiTech's GTX660 in his box.
One thing I found curious is Windows 10 using up nearly 200MB of the video card's dedicated RAM. That is quite a chunk of memory lost to applications.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Borgoo on January 19, 2016, 07:06:58 AM
Hi All ive a Nvidia GT620, 4GB RAM, i3-2120 CPU @ 3.30GHz, and Win 10
at office
at home a better CPU (i5) and a better videocard that i dont rember
whit both pc ive a frame rate of 15 (!!) whit all down
Both run War Thunder really well (expecially the one at home) and at home it run "Star Wars Battlefront (2015)" whit the default settings whit no problem
im not really a computer technician any suggestion? :pray thx!
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Skuzzy on January 19, 2016, 08:35:51 AM
Hi All ive a Nvidia GT620, 4GB RAM, i3-2120 CPU @ 3.30GHz, and Win 10
at office
at home a better CPU (i5) and a better videocard that i dont rember
whit both pc ive a frame rate of 15 (!!) whit all down
Both run War Thunder really well (expecially the one at home) and at home it run "Star Wars Battlefront (2015)" whit the default settings whit no problem
im not really a computer technician any suggestion? :pray thx!
You will need to make some adjustments to the default settings of the Beta to get better performance. Remember, this is a BETA.
1) In "Video Settings" set the "Maximum Texture Size" to 1024. 2) In the Options->Graphic Detail panel. Check the various options to "disable" things and with the Ctrl-I information displayed, watch the frame rates. Adjust to what performance you like.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Borgoo on January 19, 2016, 09:06:45 AM
You will need to make some adjustments to the default settings of the Beta to get better performance. Remember, this is a BETA.
1) In "Video Settings" set the "Maximum Texture Size" to 1024. 2) In the Options->Graphic Detail panel. Check the various options to "disable" things and with the Ctrl-I information displayed, watch the frame rates. Adjust to what performance you like.
Thx for the fast response
1) already set it at 1024 :salute
2) ive already done it, but the frame rate go from 8 to 15
Thx i know that is a BETA, and sorry for my blame, but im really scared :D
Waiting for the new release :salute
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: bustr on January 19, 2016, 02:30:36 PM
Hi All ive a Nvidia GT620, 4GB RAM, i3-2120 CPU @ 3.30GHz, and Win 10
at office
at home a better CPU (i5) and a better videocard that i dont rember
whit both pc ive a frame rate of 15 (!!) whit all down
Both run War Thunder really well (expecially the one at home) and at home it run "Star Wars Battlefront (2015)" whit the default settings whit no problem
im not really a computer technician any suggestion? :pray thx!
Is your GT 620 in a laptop?
GT 620 DDR3 - 1024 Data Paths - 64bit Band Width - 14.4 Gbyte\sec. Shaders - 96
GTX 9800 GDDR3 - 512M Data Paths - 256bit Band Width - 70.4 Gbyte\sec. Shaders - 128
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Dragon on January 19, 2016, 08:03:18 PM
That is about right. The 260 is about 30% slower than HiTech's GTX660 in his box.
One thing I found curious is Windows 10 using up nearly 200MB of the video card's dedicated RAM. That is quite a chunk of memory lost to applications.
I just upgraded last week and have hardly done anything other than just let it run. I looked through my DX several times and still don't see where you saw that. :huh
I was streaming music through Winamp during the DX and prolly had 8 windows in Firefox open but would that effect the outcome?
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: kance96 on January 19, 2016, 08:08:02 PM
I am running on a laptop HP envy dv6 - when I run in standard mode (win 8), frame rates are problematic, when I choose to run with the graphics card, I get about 30 -50 fps, depending on what I have enabled/disabled.
Using the Nvidia clocking and tuning, you can get higher frame rates however, clocking higher than your display sync may not actually buy you any performance improvements.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: bustr on January 19, 2016, 11:16:14 PM
All you will really achieve with clocking is heating up your card and hitting the thermal limit with this graphics engine. I tried to improve my 6770 FPS that way and got about 3-4 FPS and thermal shutdowns. You need to improve the physical size of your data path ways have have stable high band width. Data paths, Band width and shaders are crucial.
This is what matters:
GDDR5 ram Data Paths - 128bit or higher Band Width - 80 Gbyte\sec and higher. Shaders - 800 and higher
Below this and you will probably have to run in 512 mode with everything turned off. I tested with a video card with those specs for 18 months. Some places I could run in 1024 mode with the defaults. The rest in 1024 mode with post lighting turned off. I OC'd and got up to 85 Gbyte\sec for only 3-4 FPS and hitting the thermal shutdown limit constantly.
There are PC and laptop graphics cards out there from high end gaming series that are the lesser children of the big names. A number of players have purchased these for the lower price and run into the problem that they only have 64bit or 128bit data paths and very low band width. Some of them play other popular games fine but, AH3 is unique in many ways that requires processing much more data than those games by simply looking out 40 mile across the horizon.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Chalenge on January 20, 2016, 12:17:39 AM
OR, . . .
You could have a system that may actually benefit from overclocking and still not use it. The Beta is running better than previous Alpha versions where I was getting only 45fps. Bear in mind I use a true 4k monitor and SLI. That would be the same SLI which everyone claims will not work here, yet somehow works for me. When I overclock the GPUs with MSI afterburner I push the Core Clock up by 250Mhz and the Memory Clock by 449Mhz while pushing the Power Limit up to 125% and linked with the Temp. Limit. I use a custom fan profile so that anything above 45C the fan runs at 80% and anything over 60C the fans are at 100%. With that setting my fps will go to 60fps and stay there.
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Bizman on January 20, 2016, 02:13:05 AM
Bustr, what is your source for the specs? I tried to compare my Radeon HD 6970 with the requirements you gave but couldn't find other than the GDDR5 and Band Width if that means memory bandwidth. I couldn't find the rest neither from AMD specs site nor Wikipedia nor the box/booklet. Is it a matter of different terms or are they hidden somewhere for qualified experts only?
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: Borgoo on January 20, 2016, 04:58:44 AM
GT 620 DDR3 - 1024 Data Paths - 64bit Band Width - 14.4 Gbyte\sec. Shaders - 96
GTX 9800 GDDR3 - 512M Data Paths - 256bit Band Width - 70.4 Gbyte\sec. Shaders - 128
no, its in a normal tower now im installing the beta in my other pc at home, whit i5-3330 cpu @ 3GHZ, win 10 64bit, 8 GB ram let see what happen! :salute
Title: Re: Frame Rates
Post by: rvflyer on January 20, 2016, 04:50:58 PM