Release = Optimized? - Page 3

Morsong · 2012-11-18, 02:55 PM

Going to be running medium I believe. Going to have to get a 670 to play high me thinks. Currently I have a 460. Not really worth playing on high settings with that card I'd imagine.

BlueSmiley · 2012-11-18, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Morsong

Going to be running medium I believe. Going to have to get a 670 to play high me thinks. Currently I have a 460. Not really worth playing on high settings with that card I'd imagine.

I'm CPU-bound and I don't think my (uber) 670 (that I have bought for this game before beta started

) changes anything in the game.

Morsong · 2012-11-18, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSmiley

I'm CPU-bound and I don't think my (uber) 670 (that I have bought for this game before beta started

) changes anything in the game.

what is your cpu? I just finished upgrading to an i5 (2500k) today and am curious to see how it will play with a geforce 460. I still haven't played PS2 since my old comp before today was a core 2 duo.

BlueSmiley · 2012-11-18, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Morsong

what is your cpu? I just finished upgrading to an i5 (2500k) today and am curious to see how it will play with a geforce 460. I still haven't played PS2 since my old comp before today was a core 2 duo.

I have an AMD Phenom II x6 1100T. This CPU is quite good, but PS2 doesn't really like it.

SpcFarlen · 2012-11-18, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

I'm not an expert of computer technology, but they'd need to spend a whole lot of development to put a DX11 in the game. Wouldn't mind, but, at least for now, isn't cost-worthy for them.

The fact that they didnt future proof a new flagship engine (Forgeglight is being used in the new Everquest)... is not reassuring. We have had 3 generations of video cards with DX11 capabilities. A majority of the pc gaming community actually has DX11 compatible components.

Yes it is a bit more work to do but i feel it them not upgrading to DX11 will in the long run only hurt them when other games which may copy PS2 and can run better.

Tatwi · 2012-11-18, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by LaggMaster

I run a 1055t with the 5770. I get between 40-70fps. Last week of patching fixed all the frame lagging for me.

That's what I was getting near the end on my Core2 Quad Q8200 / GTS450 1GB GDDR5, when running around doing very little. In battles it's way better now, 15-30 FPS as apposed to 0-15. So that's nice.

I also noticed smoother frame rates when I took out 2GB of my slower RAM and only used my 4GB of DDR2 800, while I also over clocked the CPU from 2.33GHz to 2.8GHz. I had two random 1GB 667MHz modules and a matched pair of 2GB 800MHz modules. Apparently one of the 1GBs was causing a blue screen from not liking the over clock from 667MHz to 800MHz.

For those talking about the game being single threaded, you're only partly correct. The DX9 rendering path is indeed single threaded, but other aspects of the game are obviously able to make use of more cores. I've seen PS2 use all four of my cores like so: 100/90/50/50 +/-15% depending on the load/time. That's not too bad for a game, but it would a whole lot better with DX11 multi threaded optimizations...

From what I have read about the technology, the differed lighting used in PS2 is heavily effected by memory latency. My ancient computer, with it's Front Side Bus and DDR2 RAM suffers significantly when there are a lot of shots being fired, even on low lighting settings. Just the way it's going to be with this lighting system.

With that in mind, a new AMD A10-5800K APU with DDR3 2133 RAM would likely cream my system in PS2, given that it's equal or better than my Core2 Quad in everything by CPU based video encoding/trancoding. The best part? The A8-5600K and A10-5800K APUs are new "budget" processors on a modern platform that is very affordable.

It's not going to stupid awesome playing PS2 on my old hardware or on the very affordable AMD quads, but it's going to be playable in all but the most extreme cases.

All that said: I still end up flying into the ground a lot due to massive frame rate stops, where I am facing in completely a different direction from one frame to the next... I wish it were related to the game loading new assets off the hard drive, but that does not appear to be the case. All is well, until I get close to a battle and then the frame rate drops and stops randomly, even if I land and sit there a while or fly around the same spot in a circle. Indar is WAY worse for this than Amerish come to think of it...

Anyhow, if someone has anything better than...

Core2 Duo 2.6GHz
4GB DDR2 800MHz RAM
GTS 8800GT 512MB

They should be able to enjoy the game in all but huge battles. I think that's a fair trade off.

ThePackage · 2012-11-18, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

They won't change to DX11 for the same reason CCP hasn't changed EVE Online to DX9. They WANT people with lower end machines to play their game. The game was build with that perspective. Changing would force people into buying new GPUs, which most won't do because of a single game.

So yes, the performance increase should be astronomical in this game. Hopefully they can do so.

DX10 is almost 6 years old at this point, and has true threading support. If you're on a PC that's 6 years old, you're not going to run PS2 with any sort of acceptable FPS.

Also, allowing DX11 support doesn't mean you can't use DX9. When WoW introduced real DX11 support the FPS gains were fairly substantial.

Knocky · 2012-11-18, 05:35 PM

I floated a gtx660 trial balloon over the wife's head.

Sadly her AA fire is completely OP.

Schisist · 2012-11-18, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Knocky

I wish whoever is posting the system requirements knew what nVidia's naming convention was.

Who here thinks a $40 GT 610 video card is going to run PS2?

How's this for stumping?

I run this game on everything at max, with a CRT monitor on 1280x1024, all graphics settings on full with occlusion and motion blur.

I have a Core2 Quad Q9300, 4GB Ram, Windows7 64bit, and a GeForce GTS 450 512mb.

I run with everything on full at 40-50FPS depending on area, in large battles it dips to 35~.

Shouldn't i barely be able to play with those specs with all settings on full? I don't feel the FPS lag one bit.

Dkamanus · 2012-11-18, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Schisist

How's this for stumping?

I run this game on everything at max, with a CRT monitor on 1280x1024, all graphics settings on full with occlusion and motion blur.

I have a Core2 Quad Q9300, 4GB Ram, Windows7 64bit, and a GeForce GTS 450 512mb.

I run with everything on full at 40-50FPS depending on area, in large battles it dips to 35~.

Shouldn't i barely be able to play with those specs with all settings on full? I don't feel the FPS lag one bit.

Which is quite odd, cause My brother has a somewhat like config, except the GPu that it is a HD 4890, and he can't get good FPS. Maybe at launch it'll be better, but for now, its hedious.

Must be AMD drivers problems =/

Knocky · 2012-11-18, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

Must be AMD drivers problems =/

This is probably the reason.

My FPS more then doubled when I installed last months driver update from nVidia.

Dkamanus · 2012-11-18, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Knocky

This is probably the reason.

My FPS more then doubled when I installed last months driver update from nVidia.

Well, that would explain the clog on my GPU. I'm using and OC'ed HD 6870 Black Edition, and I can't reach 60 fps constantly in medium =[

With updated drivers

Knocky · 2012-11-18, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

Well, that would explain the clog on my GPU. I'm using and OC'ed HD 6870 Black Edition, and I can't reach 60 fps constantly in medium =[

With updated drivers

I dont keep track of AMD equipment. I use a GTX 460 for my GPU and 2500k for the CPU. Maybe you will be able to compare the two. I get 100 FPS in gate, 60ish in battle and 30ish in heavy battle on high on a 32HDTV with another 17 wide screen monitor running as well.

Dkamanus · 2012-11-18, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Knocky

I dont keep track of AMD equipment. I use a GTX 460 for my GPU and 2500k for the CPU. Maybe you will be able to compare the two. I get 100 FPS in gate, 60ish in battle and 30ish in heavy battle on high on a 32HDTV with another 17 wide screen monitor running as well.

http://www.hwcompare.com/8368/geforc...adeon-hd-6870/

Using the strongest 460. My 6870 should be able to do what your does much better, and still, I only reach constant 60~70 at the warpgate. At heavy battles I reach 30 fps. Must be the nVidia Slavery =/

BigpermCML · 2012-11-18, 07:44 PM

my i5 2500k @4.3 and 7970 jumps between 45-70sh in the largest of battles, and hangs around 80-100 when just out bullshitting around.

I'm sure they'll optimize more and more (especially when it comes to AMD cpu's), but as of now, if you didn't run very well towards the end of beta...

You might just need to upgrade your gameboy