I take it that NVIDIA users are enjoying this game more than ATI / AMD users?

[Sanxion]

Two AMD 6950's in Crossfire using 6970 BIOS

Driver Version 8.93.10-111208a-130017E-ATI

What limited options there are graphically in the game are all set to highest values.

Running at 1920x1200 resolution.

Fleet average 60fps

Everywhere else average 111fps

Edited January 14, 2012 by Sanxion

[Icecrypt]

pretty sure nvidia users enjoy all games more than ati users, after all nvidia has always and will always be better. same with intel over amd. Just go intel and nvidia and ull never be dissapointed

 

If only this was true, but 90 % of the time ATI/AMD is cheaper and better (unless the game like swtor somehow messes things up so the card can't function with that particular game).

Edited January 14, 2012 by Icecrypt

[Shammus]

I've been reading a lot of threads concerning horrible frame rate issues vs. game engine blame on decent gaming rigs. I've got a BioStar ATI Radeon HD 4670 & a Sparkle NVIDIA Geforce 9600 GT. Obviously my Nvidia card gave me way smoother performance. But the ATI card is supposed to be superior. So I take it that any upcoming new driver release will not resolve anything? Only game engine tweak patch?

 

i switched from ati to nvidia long ago.. I've always gotten poor performance in games from ati cards.. and I don't know why .. I used to be total ati until the 8800gt came out

 

At any rate, devs stated somewhere at the end of beta, that ati users should be using a diff catalyst version an older one, and this was resolving alot of issues.. I believe its the one before the most recent.

[Shammus]

Untrue. I was one of the Nvidia 500-series users that suffered continuous driver malfunctions that often caused me to have to hard reboot my rig. This malfunction would occur a dozen times per day while in a game. I've had my card since August, Nvidia has released four (count em, four) driver updates since then, but I keep crashing. Thousands of Nvidia customers have the same issue. So I bought an ATI and it's been smooth sailing.

 

 

i use beta drivers 560ti 448 core.

[Marmerus]

Dude seriously?? Did you insult my computer by making a lame assumption?? I have never bought a name brand computer.. The last name brand computer I have used was a Packard Bell when I was a teenager that my parents bought.. I have built all of my computers so please keep your lame assumptions to yourself..

 

My points stand, backed up by Tom's Hardware.. Argue with them.. Your remarks here only serve to prove my point..

 

My current computer is:

 

Intel I7 2600

EVGA GTX 560 Ti SC 1gb

Asus P67 Sabertooth motherboard

16 gb of Kingston Hyper X ram

 

Not exactly a low end Dell now is it?? Please don't insult other people or their equipment to make a point.. It doesn't help you or the point you are trying to make in the least..

Again.. I am not wrong.. I did notice that.. Which is why I was specific at the test that the 6970 placed 3rd and also said it did much better in other tests..

 

So no.. I am not wrong.. I am well aware of where the 6970 placed.. But again.. We can spend all day posting links showing one card beating another.. It really makes no difference.. People will base their decision on either passed experience, a friend, or what they read here..

 

I have used a few ATI cards in my day as they are cheaper.. In the end.. I have always felt I got what I paid for.. A cheaper card nets you cheaper performance.. Be it compatibility, heat issues, or driver issues.. I never seem to have a good experience with ATI or AMD.. But that is me.. Some other people have much better luck with ATI and AMD than me.. That is fine.. I have no issues with that.. But to make some hyperbole claim that one is better than another based on a website is somewhat rediculous.. When anyone can find a site that will report what they want to hear.. Some sites just like users here, are biased toward brands.. There are only a few sites I look at that I feel are reputable to give a semi unbiased review.. Tom's Hardware being one of them.. I have been using Tom's since the mid to late 90's..

 

Toms hardware did not back you up on anything. It showed the quite opposite of what you said.

Anyone with a slight computer knowledge knows you don't benchmark high end cards at 1280x1024 just because they will be bottlenecked by the CPU at that low resolution. When you look at tests you should look at real environment gameplay and that is resolutions from 1080p and higher. And if you would have spent more time and not just watched the low ress benchmarks you would have seen that ATI cards is superior to the Nvidia cards in SWTOR. Meaning 6970 beating the GTX 570 at higher resolutions.

 

So if you would go by what Toms said it would pretty much invalidate everything you just said and it shows pretty clearly you are not a computer geek who knows anything about computers. Your comment about drivers clearly shows you are in the Dell category.

[Reli_BOON]

I am only posting to express my amazment for the amount of ppl that actually managed to dissassemble the nVidia and ATI drivers in order to figure out which one is better!

Multiple times as well for different points in time

 

Looks like SWTOR is only played by Low Level Programming experienced ppl.

Makes me feel stupid.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Reli_BOON

[Mineria]

It also depends on the under laying hardware.

I had a mobo that ran PCI-E 2.0 with a HD5870 but PCI-E with a GTX580.

A GTX260 can produce up to 90fps in outdoor areas, seen that with an Intel P67 Extreme board and an i5 2400 CPU.

[genmyke]

I gave up on AMD, I rather pay a little extra for the NVIDIA cards. I also suggest anyone with an AMD CPU to go over to i5 or i7 if you have the cash. My uber "Phenom II 960 6x core cpu" runs worse than an i5 cpu from Intel.

 

I actually have to overclock my cpu for this game to run smoother. Also, for anyone saying that the GPU is more important for SWTOR is horribly wrong -- This game requires more CPU power than GPU.

 

that is funny since there is no such thing of a 960 6 core troll somewhere else.

[Jimm_uk]

from years of gaming at all sorts of levels the one this I’ve picked up and will follow is always buy Nvidia, its just saves you so much time and heart ache even if they aren’t always rated at the best card on the market you know most dev’s use them in the rigs to build/test games so you going to have an easier ride at any launch and not end up smashing your face on your keyboard.

[Seattlite]

Ive run this on two different AMD/ATI setups, and have framerate problems, intermittent slowdown and hitching on both. Systems had plenty of ram.

 

Cant comment on Nvidia setups, but from what I've read, they seem to be faring a lot better.

[Xelosu]

What a bs... I got a GTX 260 and it totally sucks. Upgrading to GTX 560 tomorrow.

 

With GTX 260 I have 60+ in instances... but open world is average 30 - 40 FPS and Warzones 10 - 20. No idea what makes you think that you can hit 90 with a GTX 260.

 

First of all:

GTX 260 is a graphic chip only.. I'm sure there is is more then 20 graphic card based on this chip.

I have Gigabyte GTX 260 GV-N26OC-896H, and on highest settings game is running pretty smooth everywhere except Space Dock.

Type of your processor and system you use also affects the number of fps generated.

 

 

Second thing:

FPS are over rated, because people don't understand this parameter.

There is huge difference between FPS 'generated' and actually 'displayed'.

LCD monitor is only capable of displaying 60 FPS.

On top of that human eye can't 'see' a difference above 12 fps..

In NTSC television standard, the frame rate is ~24 (because sound requires more then vision).

I haven't seen anyone complaining about framing problem watching tv..

[MajikMyst]

Toms hardware did not back you up on anything. It showed the quite opposite of what you said.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-8.html

 

You test at all resolutions because cards perform differently and not everyone chooses to play at the maximum resolution..

 

I am sorry you find all this so hard to understand.. As you can see.. I am very much correct..

 

Have a nice day..

[Marmerus]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-8.html

 

You test at all resolutions because cards perform differently and not everyone chooses to play at the maximum resolution..

 

I am sorry you find all this so hard to understand.. As you can see.. I am very much correct..

 

Have a nice day..

 

Nice trolling. Now you linked to something else than the SWTOR benchmark just to divert from the discussion.

 

Have a nice day. Please come back and discuss more when you have learned more about computer hardware.

[LionRampant]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-8.html

 

You test at all resolutions because cards perform differently and not everyone chooses to play at the maximum resolution..

 

I am sorry you find all this so hard to understand.. As you can see.. I am very much correct..

 

Have a nice day..

 

Using 3d mark Vantage as a benchmark is pure fail.

 

The 6970 beats the 570 in *this* game -

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-gaming-tests-review,3087-6.html

 

In fact it totally crushes it in all resolutions except 1280x1024...a resolution that nobody with either card should be playing at.

 

The results are pretty similar with the 6850 beating the 460 most of the time too.

Edited January 14, 2012 by LionRampant

[Korrigan]

I've been reading a lot of threads concerning horrible frame rate issues vs. game engine blame on decent gaming rigs. I've got a BioStar ATI Radeon HD 4670 & a Sparkle NVIDIA Geforce 9600 GT. Obviously my Nvidia card gave me way smoother performance. But the ATI card is supposed to be superior. So I take it that any upcoming new driver release will not resolve anything? Only game engine tweak patch?

A 4670 is not meant for gaming, not to mention it's two generations old already.

 

I have zero problems playing the game smoothly on my 6870.

[Spartanik]

I think I first read this kind of post on the Camelot forums. It's an old issue. ATI makes great cards, but their drivers suck. I used to buy ATI. Never again.

 

Hear hear . Me too.

[Zerbruz]

Playing this on my laptop now, it runs this smooth enough.

 

Intel Core i7 2630QM (2.9 GHZ)

Nvidia GT 525M (685/900/1370)

8 GB DDR3 RAM, 1600mhz

128GB SSD

 

 

(80-90 FPS Outdoors)

(50-60 FPS Indoors)

(40 FPS in Warzones)

Edited January 14, 2012 by Zerbruz

[Rethan]

ATI 5870

 

And I'm running anywhere from over 100fps to below, depending of place and situation. I run textures shade effects high.Never low enough to stutter or get slowed, so it does not go much below 60.

 

I gues it depends. I've had both nvidia and ati cards, half a dozen of both during years, and I've never had problems with either one in regards to games. Only few matters of difference in rendering certain materials, but both have had their better and worse.

 

I wouldn't draw much of a line for ATI or Nvidia, but gues that's just matter of opinion. Same line and level cards both have bit different aspects, beating one another in different tests.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Rethan

[Issate]

I have an 6970 and i have an avarage of 70-80 fps all around the game. Maybe abit lower in warzones but overall it runs smooth for me

[Issate]

I have an 6970 and i have an average of 70-80 fps all around the game. Maybe abit lower in warzones but overall it runs smooth for me

[lokivoid]

I've been reading a lot of threads concerning horrible frame rate issues vs. game engine blame on decent gaming rigs. I've got a BioStar ATI Radeon HD 4670 & a Sparkle NVIDIA Geforce 9600 GT. Obviously my Nvidia card gave me way smoother performance. But the ATI card is supposed to be superior. So I take it that any upcoming new driver release will not resolve anything? Only game engine tweak patch?

 

Nope, the game has piss poor optimization in every direction.

 

Coupled with the slow memory leaks (no not the taris bug), but a general memory leak. Longer the game runs the more resources it consumes until it slows to a crawl. The Only fix is to kill the process and restart the game.

[Poddli]

intel 2500k @4.6GHz

Z68 mobo

16GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM

ATI 5850 1GB

 

I run the game at 1920x1080, everything maxed. In the Catalyst drivers I've o'ced the GFX a little and maxed the mipmapping setting. Game looks great, far better than the default "high" settings. VSync is on as I hate tearing.

 

My framerate averages 60. Sometimes it drops as low as 50 for a second, then back up to 60. I know some builds very similar to mine don't run anywhere near as well, I don't understand the technical reason why. But I know this game will be patched and patched and patched again. These issues are temporary, they will go away.

 

I remember the days where to be competitive online, ALL graphical options had to be set to minimum. But it seems to be true that the more people have, the more they want.

[Xelosu]

Nope, the game has piss poor optimization in every direction.

 

Coupled with the slow memory leaks (no not the taris bug), but a general memory leak. Longer the game runs the more resources it consumes until it slows to a crawl. The Only fix is to kill the process and restart the game.

 

This I can confirm.

Apparently game is not releasing correctly memory space no longer used.

Also swapping maps often is intensifying the problem.

[Insideman]

Nope, the game has piss poor optimization in every direction.

 

Coupled with the slow memory leaks (no not the taris bug), but a general memory leak. Longer the game runs the more resources it consumes until it slows to a crawl. The Only fix is to kill the process and restart the game.

 

What MMO doesnt launch with said "memory leak"