TX_Angel
-
Posts
2,320 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by TX_Angel
-
-
Same machine, only difference is switched to 3 monitors, total resolution of 8120x1600 - Fullscreen (Windowed).
Settings put to Ultra, then AA turned to medium, everything else left at defaults.
Quesh Huttball, 8v8
Frames - 7588
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 15
Max - 50
Avg - 25.293
Alderann Turrents, 8v8
Same machine, only difference is switched to 3 monitors, total resolution of 8120x1600 - Fullscreen (Windowed).
Settings put to Ultra, then shadows, grass, and AA turned off
Frames - 11844
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 17
Max - 62
Avg - 39.48
Massive improvement over the prior numbers, clearly shadows and AA were eating into performance.
Well, that, and it is a completely different map and I'm sure the amount of time spent in combat wasn't the same, so frankly the two aren't very comparable, but it felt decently smooth overall. No issues or complaints.
-
1920x1080 (full screen, VSync off) - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Intel i7-4770k @4.2GHz / NVidia GTX 980 TI
Pylons, 8v8
Frames - 15518
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 22
Max - 99
Avg - 51.727
Same machine, only difference is switched to 3 monitors, total resolution of 8120x1600 - Fullscreen (Windowed).
Settings put to Ultra, then AA turned to medium, everything else left at defaults.
Quesh Huttball, 8v8
Frames - 7588
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 15
Max - 50
Avg - 25.293
Give or take, about half the performance across the board. In fairness, I don't normally run with shadows or AA turned on, I was simply curious as to the difference.
Performance was very playable, had no issues keeping up, the times when it dropped way down were very brief and tolerable.
The advantage of being able to see more than 150 degrees side to side far exceeds any performance loss of playing on three screens. People think they can sneak up on you from the side, yet I can see them because of the extra wide field of view. It is a distinct tactical advantage in WZ and GSF.
-
1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850
The 3 heroics on Ord Mantell - Republic Side
Frames - 10153
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 3
Max - 64
Avg - 33.843
Further note: When I run CPU-Z and run the "bench", here is what I get:
CPU Single Thread - 813
CPU Multi Thread - 3097
Update, this was my final run at 1080p.
Frames - 27639
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 48
Max - 104
Avg - 92.13
Side note: On CPU-Z:
CPU Single Thread - 1910
CPU Multi Thread - 8767
-
1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850
Pylons, 8v8
Frames - 3688
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 5
Max - 23
Avg - 12.293
Update for comparison:
1920x1080 (full screen, VSync off) - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Intel i7-4770k @4.2GHz / NVidia GTX 980 TI
Pylons, 8v8
Frames - 15518
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 22
Max - 99
Avg - 51.727
What a difference... while a dip down below 30fps happened a few minor times, overall it was completely smooth and totally playable, very nice indeed.
This is my main machine, I normally play on 3 screens at a 8120x1600 (3x 2560x1600 screens with 220 bezel correction between each one). While playing on one screen at 1080p was painful (lord I NEVER want to do that for real), it was butter silky smooth.
I've reset my machine back to 3 screens and 8120x1600, I'll run the same warzone again and FRAPS it again and see the difference.
-
1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850
Galactic Starfighter - Satellites - Flying as a bomber and protecting our sat - reasonable combat levels, perhaps 1/3 of the time in combat.
Frames - 13340
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 3
Max - 64
Avg - 44.467
Update for comparison:
1920x1080 (full screen, VSync off) - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Intel i7-4770k @4.2GHz / NVidia GTX 980 TI
Galactic Starfighter - deathmath - Flying as a bomber - lots of combat, perhaps 1/2 of the time in combat.
Frames - 29058
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 80
Max - 104
Avg - 96.86
---
Seriously, what a difference...
Couldn't have been more smooth, as the above numbers of course make clear. These are of course two extremes. -
I think the flip side (and irony) is that it matters less in PvP, because mobs don't circle-strafe and hop around like a bunny on meth.
Also, I've got most of the settings cranked to highest, a couple to next-highest.
I suspect it won't matter what you set your graphics to, you're not GPU limited, you're CPU limited with that, frankly, horrible CPU.
At least for SWTOR
-
Here's what I got in a fight on Oricon against 12 mobs, with the aforementioned "old" rig.
Frames 1970
Time (ms) 60000
Min 14
Max 46
Avg 32.833
BTW, that is a good example of the difference between subjective viewpoints and objective viewpoints.
I wouldn't consider those numbers fighting mobs on Oricon to be "fine", but to each their own. I'll go test the above fight on Ord Mandell on my main rig in a few min and post those numbers, just for comparison sake.
-
Here's what I got in a fight on Oricon against 12 mobs, with the aforementioned "old" rig.
Frames 1970
Time (ms) 60000
Min 14
Max 46
Avg 32.833
I'm curious as to what CPU-Z says your single thread bench number is.
-
1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850
The 3 heroics on Ord Mantell - Republic Side
Frames - 10153
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 3
Max - 64
Avg - 33.843
---
Was it playable? Yes. Was it "fun"? Not really. It was fine because I knew what I was doing, but it was really poor overall. The speed of reaction from time to click stuff and time for stuff to happen was poor. The overall responsiveness of the game was poor.
My conclusions, from these limited tests and from messing around with it in general is that this hardware is simply too old to run the game in 2016.
Maybe it would have run it at launch, in 2011, but post 4.1 in 2016, it just doesn't.
---
Side note: This machine specifically:
Dell Vostro 410
Core2Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
Intel G33 chipset
4GB DDR2-800 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB GPU
Windows 10 Pro
Further note: When I run CPU-Z and run the "bench", here is what I get:
CPU Single Thread - 813
CPU Multi Thread - 3097
-
1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850
Galactic Starfighter - Satellites - Flying as a bomber and protecting our sat - reasonable combat levels, perhaps 1/3 of the time in combat.
Frames - 13340
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 3
Max - 64
Avg - 44.467
---
Interestingly enough, it was far better than running around fleet. That being said, it was still not very smooth, and when heavy combat was going on, it really was slow.
Would I play GSF if this were my only choice? No. I feel that the computer would put me at a competitive disadvantage, and I wasn't trying to dogfight, I was simply defending with a bomber. I wouldn't even try a scout on this machine.
-
1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850
Running around fleet, on Harb, 168 people in the instance
Frames - 2898
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 2
Max - 50
Avg - 21.531
---
Better than 8v8 Pylon WZ, but not THAT much better... it was jumpy as heck... Turning the graphics down made no difference.
-
Just to make the point, this afternoon I might go put SWTOR back on the Core2Quad Q6600 machine and give it a FRAPS run in both warzones and open world PvE solo work, just to measure the difference.
Before I do, what would you consider a fair place in the open world to test the game on an older machine.
Side note: The above machine as an ATI 5850 GPU in it, which is newer than the CPU by several years, but not new in terms of 2016. Given that it is a 9 year old computer, it'll be interesting.
Ok, just ran a pair of warzones... they weren't the same location, but from what I saw, it wouldn't matter.
1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off
Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850
Pylons, 8v8
Frames - 3688
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 5
Max - 23
Avg - 12.293
---
1920X1080 - Very Low - Everything off
Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850
Frames - 3435
Time (ms) - 300000
Min - 4
Max - 27
Avg - 11.450
---
In short, the game was clearly not limited by the GPU, but rather the CPU. I plan to run more tests doing open world story content shortly to see how that runs.
Putting aside the empirical data above, subjectively it was not playable at all. The screen updates during combat were too slow to be useful, even if you know what you're doing. It was simply not playable by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Actually, consistency of frame rate matters more than high FPS when it comes to perceived smoothness of gameplay. For example, if you are consistently 20-30 FPS in warzones it will feel quite smooth compared to where the frame rate runs between 30-60 FPS.
Oh and I forgot to add, don't compare FPS, look at frame time instead because getting a bunch of 16 ms frames followed by a string of 33 ms frames only to flip back again will result in judder and feel quite jarring.
I've done that and graphed it... 8v8 WZ are a mess of up and down... Highs of 60, lows in the teens and a bit of everything in the middle.
That being said, position lag remains an issue, I find that where my computer displays an enemy and where they actually are aren't always the same.
Not all the "lag" is your computer in a WZ, sometimes it is the server updating. As an example, I'll see someone running to my side, I'll toss a stun on them, and they "pop back" to in front of me. Other times I'll fire the "stun" and it won't go because they moved away from my forward angle before the server processed my input.
That isn't a computer performance issue, that is a server update issue. IMHO, the server updates too slowly, but that is probably an attempt to make the game playable on a wider range of hardware and Internet connections.
PvE generally doesn't have that problem of course.
-
Why would I ever wanna give up an easy 150 grand a year?!
How much you make means nothing.
How much you KEEP means everything.
-
The thing I'm definitely not doing is PvP.
Just to make the point, this afternoon I might go put SWTOR back on the Core2Quad Q6600 machine and give it a FRAPS run in both warzones and open world PvE solo work, just to measure the difference.
Before I do, what would you consider a fair place in the open world to test the game on an older machine.
Side note: The above machine as an ATI 5850 GPU in it, which is newer than the CPU by several years, but not new in terms of 2016. Given that it is a 9 year old computer, it'll be interesting.
-
Yes that will work, but fully expect BW to consider that an exploit. so be warned.
Lord why? The bloody vendors are standing next to each other, the patch notes said the exchange vendor will be there for a month.
It is cheaper to run the missions than to use the vendor to get grade 9 for 800 in any case.
-
I can now run everything, including PVP, on max settings/shadows etc. and not lag a stitch.
Have you benched it?
Different people perceive lag/stutter/frame rate drops differently...
I thought my main machine was smoother than it really is in warzones, I have no issues playing on it, it doesn't bother me, but I was shocked when I ran a 5 min FRAPS during a busy warzone, how often the FPS dropped below 20. Never for very long, but the overall average was less than I had expected.
That started me on a quest that got me benching multiple machines, which I've posted about in several threads here.
8v8 warzones chew CPU cycles like no one's business. Solo PvE doesn't seem to care nearly as much. GSF doesn't care either, it runs really well on lessor hardware.
It is also possible that the different user interface settings of people are having an impact, since the UI appears to be a huge frame rate killer. Turning it off makes the game amazingly smooth (but of course not really playable since you can't see what you're doing).
---
TL;DR - I am not convinced that ANY computer can play 8v8 WZ without ANY LAG, unless perhaps you're running overclocked to 6+GHz on nitrogen, then maybe.
The engine just sucks. But that doesn't mean 8v8 WZ are not playable, they are, but you won't see 60fps out of them. -
Two threads?
Yep, you already posted about this and got good advice, asking again won't change it.
-
Hell, my "old" machine runs SWTOR fine
^ "runs fine" is a subjective statement.
I suspect much of the confusion of these things has to do with opinions on what is acceptable and what is not.
Or heck, maybe my standards are too low...Not "too low", just different.
If it works for you, then enjoy it and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
From an empirical perspective, I've benchmarked SWTOR on multiple levels of hardware in 8v8 warzones and the performance difference is night and day. But that is 8v8 warzones.
In open world PvE solo content, there is very little difference, so "runs fine" also depends greatly on what you're doing in the game.
-
I played the game on that rig with no issues when it launched with smooth video with shadows on, AA, etc.
You also claim that you cannot see the difference between 30fps and 60fps (and most people can, so while it might be true for you, it isn't a blanket statement)
So perhaps you're just an outlier, but your statement does not fit with what that hardware can do.
Keep in mind that 144hz monitors are being made for a reason, even they show a difference to "most people" over the existing 60hz monitors many of us use. Most human eyes can see motion more easily than color or detail.
-
My Cpu seems very outdated. I mean I'm running a 3770k at 4.6gHz with 2x gtx 970's & 16Gb of ram.
not had any bottlenecking or frame rate issues. hell even tomb raider runs at max settings with no issues.
It isn't... You're on Ivy Bridge, the last of the "current" chips...
Sandy Bridge comes before that and has a notable drop off in performance from what you have, but yours is fine.
My current PC advice to gamers is Sandy Bridge or older, it is time to upgrade. Ivy Bridge or newer, and you're just fine.
-
I wouldn't at all mind bending her over a table.
What for? Do you really think she is going to clean behind it? She doesn't strike me as the house cleaner type... She probably has minions who do that for her...
-
The way her model looks in her outfit.
Ahh, so what you're saying is that if it has breasts, you'll have sex with it?
Gosh, what discerning taste!
-
^^ Truth BW/EA owns its customers when it comes to packs. I also didn't think this many people wanted that lightsaber, I mean it's not even crossguard. However, props to the CM Team they are doing a pretty damn good job.
Just wait until they DO make a crossguard version.
Nvidia GTX 970 SLI for Star Wars
in General Discussion
Posted
I understand, and if something is working, why replace it? I continue to be impressed how well the above Core2Quad machine does basic Windows tasks. If you don't ask too much of it, if you just open 1 or 2 browser tabs at a time, if you don't try to overload it, it is amazingly smooth.
It does help that it is booting off a SSD, that changes the overall experience by a wide margin.
Side note: I get the whole 2 years thing, but you DO know your CPU is from 2009, right?
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X4%20925%20-%20HDX925WFK4DGI%20(HDX925WFGIBOX).html
Have you actually seen better? I only ask because I suspect you call it "good enough" without personally experiencing what is possible. You may thing "I can play this well enough", and it may be true. 5 min on a newer machine may have you saying, "holy crap, my prior performance sucked, this is SO much better, I had no idea how much easier it was to simply play when the machine isn't holding me back."
Now, you may STILL not care, and that's fine. Personal preference and all that, but it is hard to judge things you don't personally experience.