BioWare: "most" people aren't having SWTOR performance issues

[Deaga]

I can't even get over 25 frames in warzones. And I only play at 1440x900. Running on 955@3.5GHz, 1GB 460 and of course 4GB of ram.

 

But yeah, let me go buy hundreds of dollars worth of unneeded upgrades to maybe get lucky and have it run this horrible engine.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Deaga

[Aryzyra]

If someone is going to spend the money on a game and then just dump it in less than 30 days.. I doubt it is the game that has issues..

 

Erm. It's a game. If it's not fun to play, you stop playing it.

[PibbyPib]

Read the full article here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-01-10-bioware-most-people-arent-having-swtor-performance-issues

 

Perfectly shows how detached BioWare is from its community and confirms my decision not to continue playing this technological POS.

 

Let me guess. You also want high res textures.

 

lol.

[_Contagion_]

I'm sorry you don't understand how computers work. I forgive you.

 

There is some scenario where ram speed might have some minor improvement on performance. However, there are a slew of bottlenecks that would be all be drastically more likely to improve things.

 

Graphics card speed

Graphics card memory

Total system memory

Processor speed

Drive speed

 

and after ALL that, you might see improvement based on ram speed itself. So, there's some tiny scenerio where you're right there, but it's so tangential that it hardly warrents mentioning compared to the other more likely bottlenecks.

 

However, your comments regarding ram per core are pattently false and somebody needs to say so or other people reading the thread may start believing the same thing. All cores have access to all available system memory. Period.

[Ratbear]

Have you ever heard of the word statistics? That actually means quite much. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look that word up as you actually seem to be out of the loop...

 

LOLOL no where in that article did the guy post any solid statistics about the game, it was all PR talk.

 

"The thing is, for the most part, 95 per cent - oh I can't give you the exact percentage - most of our players aren't really having performance concerns," James Ohlen told Eurogamer.

 

That is a direct quote from the guy. Pay attention this might get confusing for people who dont know how to smell the BS because they have their heads stuck somewhere else.

 

Sure, he says 95%, then IMMEDIATELY says he cant give the exact percentage, which completely disqualifys the 95% he already gave.

 

This is public relations PERIOD. This is not a statistic.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Meluna

[Valsdad]

How many more people need be affected? Take a couple glances throughout the forums, and you'll see plenty of individuals with their own performance issues within TOR (and typically limited to TOR).

 

There have been hundreds of posts just in the past few days from 'hardcore' MMO gamers with high-end systems that are having major issues.

 

The last time I remember seeing this in a major game release was Bad Company 2 with DICE. They, too, had an optimization problem (and later acknowledged and fixed it within a few weeks). The reason it seems like an optimization issue is that fact that you have people with identical rigs, getting varying levels of performance.

 

We have a guy in our guild with a $2.5k system, been building computers since they first started for the military. I believe he knows his **** - so when he says he can't play TOR, I believe him. Even low settings are giving him issues.

 

We have a young lady in our guild who has a $600 Walmart laptop that can play TOR, albeit on minimal settings, with no problems whatsoever.

 

In the apartment next door, there are two brothers, whom have the same system (one of the higher-end, overpriced ones from Alienware). One gets around 60FPS consistently, one gets around 20FPS max. Both have checked drivers, run AV's, etc. The latter even formatted to double check - yet they still have DIFFERENT results.

 

 

That's a small sample - but obviously there's a major problem SOMEWHERE within BW's side. I don't know if it's their server config, or if it's something within the client, but there are some major performance issues needing addressed.

 

I don't know how to tell you this in a simpler way. If you have having severe issues playing this game, it is solely and completely a client side problem.

[lentWolf]

I honestly don't have those issues. There are *probably* people playing the game without those issues on PCs that have much lower specs than the one you use. I don't know what to advise either but it must be a pretty difficult task for a developer to get a game running smooth across the millions of PCs and PC configurations (older, newer, high end, low end) that are out here wouldn't you say? You find a fix for that and you will be king.

 

Finally. You see, that was my point all along. If they were to properly optimize the game, then many of these seemingly 'random' issues players across the board are having (as I mentioned, it's not just that different systems are having different problems - but the same systems are having DIFFERENT problems) would likely be resolved.

 

Sure it takes time, but perhaps they should have been smarter and slated this as a higher priority when they were in Alpha testing. They had years to plan and develop mind you. Other gaming companies have done fine with optimization.

 

If we both have the same system, the same software installed, etc - we should, it stands to reason, achieve the same level of performance in TOR. When we don't, and we know we've controlled all factors dependent on us, we know it has to have been something on BW's side. This is what I'm talking about - the game has alot of performance issues, and needs resolved.

[rylixav]

Most people will use some form of customer support, be it email, phone support, forums, or in game ticket..

 

Do you have a source for that? No, of course you don't, because you're just making things up.

Edited January 11, 2012 by rylixav

[Zhit]

No need to wait for an hour on this, I run Msi software and my gpu runs at a balmy 36 - 45 celsius, for those who don't know the conversion that's 96.8 - 113 fahrenheit. No overheating dangers in my neck of the woods, thanks for the concern though.

 

That is one cool computer. My resting temp (i.e. just using Windows/Outlook/browser) is 52Cish for my CPU and 55C for my GPU. Rock steady on the GPU temp, the CPU fluctuates 1 or 2 Celsius. You must have some excellent cooling to have that little fluctuation between resting state and game playing. Either that or something is not giving you the correct temperature.

 

When i had my day off, i played for about 8 hours. OK, i did have a cig brakes, but i did have the game running all the time and, as i ALWAYS do, i had the temp monitors running.

 

Same thing as i allways have, my temp never went over 60 celcius. Maybe you do not know how to cool your computer?

 

Maybe I don't? Does TOR require a liquid cooler? Strange that games like Crysis, BF3, MW3, etc--the ones that push the GPU run a full 10c to 15c cooler than TOR. Oh well, I think I am going to take the advice of so many people on these boards and go check out WoW since TOR hasn't met my expectations. Best of luck and hope your hardware stays cool.

[Aethyrprime]

There is some scenario where ram speed might have some minor improvement on performance. However, there are a slew of bottlenecks that would be all be drastically more likely to improve things.

 

Graphics card speed

Graphics card memory

Total system memory

Processor speed

Drive speed

 

and after ALL that, you might see improvement based on ram speed itself. So, there's some tiny scenerio where you're right there, but it's so tangential that it hardly warrents mentioning compared to the other more likely bottlenecks.

 

However, your comments regarding ram per core are pattently false and somebody needs to say so or other people reading the thread may start believing the same thing. All cores have access to all available system memory. Period.

 

Integration of a multi-core chip drives chip production yields down and they are more difficult to manage thermally than lower-density single-chip designs. Intel has partially countered this first problem by creating its quad-core designs by combining two dual-core on a single die with a unified cache, hence any two working dual-core dies can be used, as opposed to producing four cores on a single die and requiring all four to work to produce a quad-core. From an architectural point of view, ultimately, single CPU designs may make better use of the silicon surface area than multiprocessing cores, so a development commitment to this architecture may carry the risk of obsolescence. Finally, raw processing power is not the only constraint on system performance. Two processing cores sharing the same system bus and memory bandwidth limits the real-world performance advantage. If a single core is close to being memory-bandwidth limited, going to dual-core might only give 30% to 70% improvement. If memory bandwidth is not a problem, a 90% improvement can be expected. It would be possible for an application that used two CPUs to end up running faster on one dual-core if communication between the CPUs was the limiting factor, which would count as more than 100% improvement.

 

Additionally I use very advanced software which makes this very obvious. It may not be obvious to the lay person and that is understandable but it is not false. I do understand that a lot of people have a false understanding of what and how multi-core systems operate but that doesn't change the real world applications of said hardware limitations.

 

I will use a case for my point. I use 3D studio max, mudbox, 3dcoat and zbrush on a day to day basis. 3D studio max uses the graphics card for in program display but not for rendering. It exclusively uses cpu and ram for that process. Having 8gb of ram and upgrading it to 16gb would theoretically decrease rendering times. Yet that is not the case. Increasing the system / memory bus provided the greatest yield in performance improvement next to raw cpu power.

 

The reason I explained what I did as I did is simple. Most people think more gigs = better performance when in fact it's the speed that will yield the greatest results. While each processor theoretically has access to the full spectrum of available ram the actual end result is much less noticeable than simply using faster ram. A non multi-threaded application such as SWTOR will perform better with faster RAM than with more RAM.

 

Having an awesome videocard will be limited by the system bus speed, hard drive access times making it sluggish compared to a system which has a faster bus and caching and a slightly less impressive video card.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Aethyrprime

[Boesmith]

There's no problem as long as you have at least a 4 core and good enough parts to go with it. Perfect example being my recent upgrade from 2 to 4 cores, as well as some other much needed upgrades.

 

You need the proper computer to play this without very noticable slowdowns and FPS loss, even on lowest possible settings for this game.

 

Wrong.

[ValaxDarkseer]

I don't know how to tell you this in a simpler way. If you have having severe issues playing this game, it is solely and completely a client side problem.

 

So what does Bioware Flavored kool-aid taste like?

 

I bet it takes like cherries and lies.

[Solar]

Finally. You see, that was my point all along. If they were to properly optimize the game, then many of these seemingly 'random' issues players across the board are having (as I mentioned, it's not just that different systems are having different problems - but the same systems are having DIFFERENT problems) would likely be resolved.

 

Sure it takes time, but perhaps they should have been smarter and slated this as a higher priority when they were in Alpha testing. They had years to plan and develop mind you. Other gaming companies have done fine with optimization.

 

If we both have the same system, the same software installed, etc - we should, it stands to reason, achieve the same level of performance in TOR. When we don't, and we know we've controlled all factors dependent on us, we know it has to have been something on BW's side. This is what I'm talking about - the game has alot of performance issues, and needs resolved.

 

That is known and I agreed with you earlier on this same point however, some people are all out of "time" i.e. patience for such things. This, despite the fact that any number of problems STILL plague every single "MMO" out there. Sure, 'ideally' two PCs with the same configuration would seem to be able to run a game exactly the same; but there is no such thing.

 

I can fire up ToR and go do some things, wife calls for dinner, go eat and hang out for a couple of hours , come back and ToR is sitting on the screen it goes to for afk. I hit the play button and it logs me back in and I'm off again. Multiple times per day on weekends and/or or evenings after work!! - Just like people would probably 'expect' to be able to do.

 

Are there quirks and /bugs in the game? You betcha, but I've yet to see anything that impairs my gaming experience with this game including the ocassional green lines of doom (my guild and I have a joke about it when someone says 'No green lines today!' - we say "Soon" with trademark - Haha) . So, put me in Ohlen's metric *shrug*.

 

Others have serious problems such as yourself.

[Ruthlessboy]

 

Maybe I don't? Does TOR require a liquid cooler? Strange that games like Crysis, BF3, MW3, etc--the ones that push the GPU run a full 10c to 15c cooler than TOR. Oh well, I think I am going to take the advice of so many people on these boards and go check out WoW since TOR hasn't met my expectations. Best of luck and hope your hardware stays cool.

 

No, TOR does not requier liquid cooler and i did not say that i own one. I will now make an assumption based on nothing: you are a penguing and they require a lava heater to survive.

[ManuNegra]

This all sounds like another case of the vocal minority rearing its head, so that its impossible to see what % of the total player base is actually even having these issues. I'm not.

[Aethyrprime]

OUCH HEAD HURTS... why does SWTOR need to run two .exe files then Brains...

 

Sorry cant work out if I am for ya or against ya... just say it slow dude!

 

I think you might be mad but I like a bit of fun so hey what the **** answer my question...

 

The game director has briefly discussed this topic in the thread about protecting 3d models. I can't explain why it has 2 .exe running. I do know it is not for multi-threading tho. I wish I could give you more details on this topic relating to your question.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Aethyrprime

[Zhit]

No, TOR does not requier liquid cooler and i did not say that i own one. I will now make an assumption based on nothing: you are a penguing and they require a lava heater to survive.

 

When did I say you had a liquid cooler? Nice that you can keep you system below 50C while playing. AMDs must run much cooler than Intels. Sure wish my CPU and GPU would stay that cool with TOR. As stated earlier, the temps do stay in normal ranges for other games--strange only TOR gets so hot. But yeah--it must be me. I guess this is my computer's way of telling me to stop playing TOR.

[singularitynear]

12gb of ram here.... gtx 295x2 ........core i7, ssd in raid 0, vista 64bit os, latest gpu drivers etc... can run all latest games at max............. Cannot play swtor with bloom and shadows on or my fps goes to hell............... my 2 cents.......

[LizardKS]

For what its worth I'm running a Vista home 64, intel Core2 quad 2.5GHz with a 9600 GT card, 4 gigs of RAM, and the only issues I have is super concentrated particles like the dusty room in the tombs. Silky smooth otherwise. Edited January 12, 2012 by LizardKS

[Bakarn]

I have this running on a twin pair of i7s with a GTX 460 and an GTM 555 respectively. Prior to that I had it running at 55 FPS on a Core 2 Duo. The bulk of performance related issues occur in PvP for some reason.

 

I have absolutely no idea where the performance issues for people with 12 gigs of RAM are coming from. I suspect your machine isn't as well built or as optimized as you think it is.

[Childsusmc]

That is one cool computer. My resting temp (i.e. just using Windows/Outlook/browser) is 52Cish for my CPU and 55C for my GPU. Rock steady on the GPU temp, the CPU fluctuates 1 or 2 Celsius. You must have some excellent cooling to have that little fluctuation between resting state and game playing. Either that or something is not giving you the correct temperature.

 

I used my Dremmel to cut some extra vents and a few extra fan ports into the tower, a few extra fans, two placed right by the gpu help with the air flow. I had a system overheat before and I don't want to go down that road again. I'd rather have a few extra fans and deal with noise than replace my pc, even though it is a bit older.

[Ruthlessboy]

When did I say you had a liquid cooler? Nice that you can keep you system below 50C while playing. AMDs must run much cooler than Intels. Sure wish my CPU and GPU would stay that cool with TOR. As stated earlier, the temps do stay in normal ranges for other games--strange only TOR gets so hot. But yeah--it must be me. I guess this is my computer's way of telling me to stop playing TOR.

 

You didn't but if you answer to my post with "Maybe I don't? Does TOR require a liquid cooler?" it seems like you assume that i have a liquid cooling. Why else would you comment that? And for the processor, i have i5-2500k oc'd to 4,4ghz. I have a little knowledge of the AMD processors but i have no doubt that i would have any problems with them.

[_Contagion_]

The reason I explained what I did as I did is simple. Most people think more gigs = better performance when in fact it's the speed that will yield the greatest results. While each processor theoretically has access to the full spectrum of available ram the actual end result is much less noticeable than simply using faster ram. A non multi-threaded application such as SWTOR will perform better with faster RAM than with more RAM.

 

Having an awesome videocard will be limited by the system bus speed, hard drive access times making it sluggish compared to a system which has a faster bus and caching and a slightly less impressive video card.

 

I agree, most people think more gigs = better performance. And they're right UNTIL they've cleared the ceiling and then any excess ram is really non-beneficial.

 

And it seems we both agree that a system's peformance has to be evaluated to determine exactly what THAT system's bottlenecks are.

 

A faster bus and caching will improve performance if and only if the bus was the bottleneck to start with it. If not, pure GPU power might be the best improvement that could be made. Perhaps an SSD to get textures from disk to video memory faster would be a significant improvement.

 

What I want to avoid is people seeing your post and thinking they can see drastic improvement by replacing their 4G of ram with a new 4G that's faster. Benchmarks at http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/sandy-bridge-ddr3_5.html show that's really not a likely outcome. But if they're running short on memory cause they like to multi-mon and have browsers and all kinds of stuff up while they play (I do!) then maybe getting another 4G of ram might actually help perf. Hard to say without knowing what the current bottleneck is.

 

The memory frequency increase by one 266-MHz increment produces a barely noticeable 1-2% performance gain. And the performance difference between the system equipped with the fastest DDR3-2133 and the slowest DDR3-1067 memory is only 5% in nominal mode and 6% in overclocked mode.

 

And your original statement...

 

Additionally, For each processor or multiple core you have your rams effective amount is cut in half. If you have 4GB of ram on a quad core computer technically you have 1GB of ram per core.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to explain here, but it's either wrong, or just confusing. I can create a single threaded app that consumes more than 1G of ram on a quad core, 4GB system. I'd have to write it carefully so as to NOT crash my machine, but I could probably whip it up pretty fast and screen shot it if you'd like.

 

EDIT: somehow got double content in my post...

Edited January 12, 2012 by _Contagion_

[Sznur]

Can anyone enlighten me how come that SW:TOR is the game that exposes all that supposed flaws in peoples machines ? Not BF3, The Witcher 2, Skyrim or whatever is a benchmark nowadays but average looking MMO that should be optimised to run on as many rigs as possible ?

[JonnyBigBoss]

I was running the game on an Intel Core2Duo 2.66 with 8gb of ram and an XFX 5770 card with no issues at all.

 

I still say that the problems that people are having is due to having an unstable OS, I would bet to say if you took the machine, reformatted it and loaded Windows from scratch the machine would run just fine.

 

I have been working on computers all of my life and I'm a Server Engineer at a local business, so I am pretty good about making sure my PC is ok. I just purchased all of this hardware, minus the 5770, back in October. It's a brand new OS install of Windows 7, and I definitely defragged after installing the game.

 

I have a GeForce 570 coming in the mail tomorrow which I'll try out and compare with how my 5770 has been doing. With that said, to have the game run so poorly on a 5770 is unacceptable given how horrible the game looks.