Nightrode Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) This is the problem with forums, people comment on subjects they know nothing about, Also I have the new Bulldozer AMD FX-8150 8-Core, So I would never even mention the I7. ...isn't that the one that sucks more than their best quad cores? Edited January 16, 2012 by Nightrode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GageIbbetson Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Loading times also depend on where you're loading. If you log in from character screen and your character is on the fleet, expect a short load time (granted a fast PC). If you log in and your character is on tatooine, whew...expect a good wait. Edited January 16, 2012 by GageIbbetson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) ...isn't that the one that sucks more than their best quad cores? Not when I can play BF3, Skyrim and another game on Ultra and it only uses 20% of my CPU power. The problem with the FX series was they did not update the bios before the shipped them, So a lot of them did not work out of the box. Its better then any other AMD chip set and I have 3 different kinds in my 3 other rigs ranging from the AMD Phantom 3.3Ghz X6 Hex Core to a basic I3. The only processor better then mine on the market is the I7 and sandy bridge. Thought anyone with a basic understand of CPU knew this. Edited January 16, 2012 by Kanharn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taurusaud Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Now do one for WoW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudanie Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Not when I can play BF3, Skyrim and another game on Ultra and it only uses 20% of my CPU power. The problem with the FX series was they did not update the bios before the shipped them, So a lot of them did not work out of the box. Its better then any other AMD chip set and I have 3 different kinds in my 3 other rigs ranging from the AMD Phantom 3.3Ghz X6 Hex Core to a basic I3. The only processor better then mine on the market is the I7 sandy bridge. Thought anyone with a basic understand of CPU knew this. Oh really? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=191 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Oh really? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=191 This back up what I said lol, So I fail to see your point ROFL. The I7 and sand bridge is better, thats what I said. Thanks for the links Edited January 16, 2012 by Kanharn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feelinestars Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Again, just another terrible, broken aspect of this broken game. My load times take minutes. So in order to go to a planet, I have to get on my space ship, go to an orbital station, go to a spaceport, go to my ship, go to the galaxy map, click twice, then go to my door, then repeat the process to get to a new planet. Who sat around going "This is awesome!" with smiles on their faces? The people who made this game should be drummed out of the business. It's awful, just awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudanie Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 This back up what I said lol, So I fail to see your point ROFL. The I7 is better, thats what I said. Thanks for the links Re-read, the i5 is also better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Re-read, the i5 is also better. Like I said the I7 and sandy bridge. So again thanks for the links lol Im also very impressed how well the FX did in this benchmark test. Its a chip made for gaming and thats what I do, also these are from October when the chip came out, a lot has changed since then, Bios etc. but I doubt you understand what you are looking at lol. You also have to factor in my Grx card and Motherboard. The processor being better has no relevance on the finished machine if the rest of your tec is under par.. Edited January 16, 2012 by Kanharn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewieFlakes Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Spec talk on mmo forums is just a bunch of people trying to claim they have the biggest hardware if you know what I mean. But in truth, you either have an outdated system, a decent system-that should be able to run any properly optimized software, or an overly expensive compensatory system. Load times and lag issues are very prevalent in swtor, that's what happens when a game is rushed out the door in time for the holidays, hopefully over time performance issues will shrink in number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marroc Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 longest load time I have is tattoine and it's just under 20 seconds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jswizzle Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If you are having long load times. It's time for a hard drive defrag most likely. Run some other diagnostic tools too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putok Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Your Quad Core won't do you any good since TOR is only capable of using one core anyway. Sad but true. If SWTOR is only using one core on your computer, something is wrong with your computer. OP: Are both games on the same HDD It's very rare for me to see load times of over 20 seconds, and this game isn't even on my SSD. I have 16GB of RAM (though I don't think I've seen the game use more than 3), and my Phenom II x4 is clocked a bit faster (3.7ghz), but I wouldn't expect to outperform your CPU by very much at all. I think something is wrong with your machine, or your install. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drudenfusz Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The loading screens could really be faster, but I can live with it (even though I have a computer that is near to the minimum requirement of the game), but what really annoys me is that sometimes I get kicked out of a warzone because the 30 seconds timer starts before the loading screen let me do anything there (the timer really should start the moment the loading screen in gone, not before that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oceanzen Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 10 seconds to alt-tab back from Chrome...to the character selection screen. 1:01 to load into Taris 0:55 to exit the game from Taris Specs: Core i5 2500K, GTX 460, 4 GB RAM, 10 mbps cable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If SWTOR is only using one core on your computer, something is wrong with your computer. OP: Are both games on the same HDD It's very rare for me to see load times of over 20 seconds, and this game isn't even on my SSD. I have 16GB of RAM (though I don't think I've seen the game use more than 3), and my Phenom II x4 is clocked a bit faster (3.7ghz), but I wouldn't expect to outperform your CPU by very much at all. I think something is wrong with your machine, or your install. Agreed. You can also download programs from AMD and Intel so you can use all your cores on games and programs that only use 2 or 3. Its called the Multi core optimizer, this could help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) 10 seconds to alt-tab back from Chrome...to the character selection screen. 1:01 to load into Taris 0:55 to exit the game from Taris Specs: Core i5 2500K, GTX 460, 4 GB RAM, 10 mbps cable My main rig is about 50% faster then this. Im actually making a you tube vid to show the speeds on my I3, Fx and phantom machines. all made for gaming. TBH they should be a lot faster for both of us but Im sure Bioware will address this. Edited January 16, 2012 by Kanharn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocun Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Not when I can play BF3, Skyrim and another game on Ultra and it only uses 20% of my CPU power. The problem with the FX series was they did not update the bios before the shipped them, So a lot of them did not work out of the box. Its better then any other AMD chip set and I have 3 different kinds in my 3 other rigs ranging from the AMD Phantom 3.3Ghz X6 Hex Core to a basic I3. The only processor better then mine on the market is the I7 and sandy bridge. Thought anyone with a basic understand of CPU knew this. Uhhhh yeah. Pretty much any quaddie will be under that much load. I've got one of the first i7's which is around 4 years old now and I never go above 20-30% load unless I'm encoding something or running some VM's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyestor Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Takes ages even on my Crucial M4. I like how there's a loading screen every time you alt tab. Fun stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putok Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Takes ages even on my Crucial M4. I like how there's a loading screen every time you alt tab. Fun stuff. There isn't for me. Is the game set to Fullscreen (Windowed)? If it's set this way, you won't get a loading screen, but the game is still fullscreen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Uhhhh yeah. Pretty much any quaddie will be under that much load. I've got one of the first i7's which is around 4 years old now and I never go above 20-30% load unless I'm encoding something or running some VM's So your I7 is not even Sandy bridge and 4 years old, dam you need to upgrade, My I3 is better then that lol. But this has nothing to do with the thread or the original comment you responded too, so lets keep the thread on topic. Edited January 16, 2012 by Kanharn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Takes ages even on my Crucial M4. I like how there's a loading screen every time you alt tab. Fun stuff. I hate that too lol, Wouldn't be so bad if we could use in game screens as the loading picture, but the same one over and over lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incendergel Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The game does load slow. No question about it. The game also uses a butt load of memory and two process. If you look when you zone in while alt tabbing you will see a lot of files getting read. So lots of disk I/o is going on. A fast disk would really help or a SSD. I am not seeing what I normally do in other games during loading or even booting in windows. I'm on a i7 on the x68 chipset using a 60gb SSD as cache. Windows boots in 20 seconds...BF3 map loading once cached is also faster the second time. The game right now, the client anyway needs some attention. I ENJOY THE GAME THOUGH. But the client does need some work - lol. My system is modest. I7 @ 4.3ghz 8gb ram,1tb drive, 60gb SSD cache and a 570gtx video. Smooth in game and stable client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocun Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 So your I7 is not even Sandy bridge and 4 years old, dam you need to upgrade, My I3 is better then that lol. But this has nothing to do with the thread or the original comment you responded too, so lets keep the thread on topic. Yeah well when I'm not having any problems with cpu bottlenecks then I see no reason to upgrade. Bloomfield FTW. Anyway, back on topic. I find that my load times are pretty eratic. Sometiems they are sub 20 secs and sometimes they are over a minute. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Yeah well when I'm not having any problems with cpu bottlenecks then I see no reason to upgrade. Bloomfield FTW. Anyway, back on topic. I find that my load times are pretty eratic. Sometiems they are sub 20 secs and sometimes they are over a minute. Go figure. I have had problems with Tattonie but every where else is fine. I think bioware really need to optimize the servers or enable some form of cache system like SWG etc.. In SWG first time you went to a new place it took a while to load, once it was cached it was loaded in a blink of an eye. Edited January 16, 2012 by Kanharn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts