Upgrade Video Card....Still Low FPS...Trolol?

[C-Bee]

Slight? Sandy Bridge is about a 30% performance increase over Nehalem on average. And Nehalem is already faster than the Phenom II Architecture. And while I can see it working fine for some, depending on settings, resolution or whatever. Most of the time you can still see an FPS increase by OC'ing even Sandy Bridge Chips.

 

Care to back up that claim with some actual benchmark? (not saying it's wrong, would just like to see it) And it's pretty clear that both Sandy and Nehalem are more efficient than Deneb could ever be...

 

My point is, what good would it do to O.C. my current Deneb when it doesnt use all available performance even with reference clocks? All that O.C. would do is drop my highest core utilization from around 75% to few % down and generate a lot more heat.

 

btw: running 1920x1200, all effects as 'high', bloom on and 4xS AA. It's my GPU (GTX 560 Ti) that caps out first, not my CPU.

Edited February 1, 2012 by C-Bee

[warrenTU]

even if you had a Core i7 @ 4.8 still get 20fps in LOLum with mor ethan 10 peps around..

 

 

No computer on the planet can run this. Harware builder, and reformated every patch.

 

not no more. Dont upgrade for this game simple..

 

Not true at all. I run a Core I7 920 at 3.6 GHZ with a GTX580 and the game runs at 60 FPS all the time. Thats only limited because of Vsinc.

[ispanolfw]

Care to back up that claim with some actual benchmark? (not saying it's wrong, would just like to see it) And it's pretty clear that both Sandy and Nehalem are more efficient than Deneb could ever be...

 

My point is, what good would it do to O.C. my current Deneb when it doesnt use all available performance even with reference clocks? All that O.C. would do is drop my highest core utilization from around 75% to few % down and generate a lot more heat.

 

btw: running 1920x1200, all effects as 'high', bloom on and 4xS AA. It's my GPU (GTX 560 Ti) that caps out first, not my CPU.

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/10

 

I work from home so working right now so that was the only one I could find on short notice. Plus those are single or multi player games, not MMOs which on average tend to be more demanding than single player games on the CPU. Also even if the game is only using what looks like 75% of the one core, that's more likely attributed to the fact the game cannot use ALL parts of the core efficiently, like for example some benchmarks can. Like Linpack.

[Poisonsenvy]

I use my gaming desktop though which now has a ATI 7970.

 

Alot of performance gain would be gotten if BW ever codes the game to take good advantage of multiple cores

 

Thats my whole point I have a 6970 and I get lag too makes no sense. I play rift on max settings and get 0 lag.

[Code_Airwolf]

What is with the 550ti bashing? Just because what was a top of the line expensive card previously, is not any longer, because something new has come out to take its place, doesn't make the card a "budget" card or junk. We have 2 PCs running this game, one of them has that card and the game is flying.

 

If you're going to give people answers that will probably result in them spending even more $, work through ALL of their specs first before giving answers or making false claims.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Code_Airwolf

[ispanolfw]

What is with the 550ti bashing? Just because what was a top of the line expensive card previously, is not any longer, because something new has come out to take its place, doesn't make the card a "budget" card or junk. We have 2 PCs running this game, one of them has that card and the game is flying.

 

If you're going to give people answers that will probably result in them spending even more $, work through ALL of their specs first before giving answers or making false claims.

 

Top of the line? It has always been a mid to mid-low range card.

[LaVolpex]

honesty ive worked so much today , so i will point you op to some tips i did , that made me run at a steady 50 fps even on warzones

 

 

first turn off windows aero theme if on win 7 (trust me on this one)

 

second, find a guide around these forums , called setting up your machine to run swotor or something like that, i wish i could remember the name, in any case, it explains various tweaks, mainly eliminating a lot of windows services that yo dont use/need wich makes the whole machine not just game run 100% less gay i promise

 

third , increase the page file size on your disk to 12gb if you have 8 and the space for it you can do 16

 

fourth, make both your launcher and swotor exe launch in admin mode, in win xp service pack 3 compatibility mode , disable visual themes ( you should be able to figure this one out , right click / properties for each one, laucnher and game exe in folder)

 

fifth , download " Memory cleaner" (jsut trust me on this one , it has to do with game not clearing cache like it should, complicated stuff but suffice it to say this program works around the issue) and leave it always running , now always after an hour ot two, or changin planets, alt tab out and clean the cache and memory using this program , then go back into the game, once it finishes loading its bye bye slugginess )

 

 

well anyways, hope that helps , shoot me a PM and ill help you out more later, i just gotta lie down for a while now cant type more , good luck buddy!

 

<

phenom 2 quad 9500

4 gig ram

2 x 9800gtx+ cards

 

nothing fancy and it runs pretty good on mine @ 1080P resolution

 

PS: also , important to do a few tweaks on ini , like reducing farclipscale, also forcing / enhancing AA and some other tweaks depending on your vid card, search around , i know there are threads explaining all of this in better detail out there thats how i figured it out

Edited February 1, 2012 by LaVolpex

[Code_Airwolf]

Top of the line? It has always been a mid to mid-low range card.

 

By top of the line, I mean when it first comes out, it's the latest card released for sale.

 

At any rate, debate a sentence. The overall point remains the same. Picking incorrectly on a single piece of hardware is not sound advice.

[ispanolfw]

By top of the line, I mean when it first comes out, it's the latest card released for sale.

 

At any rate, debate a sentence. The overall point remains the same. Picking incorrectly on a single piece of hardware is not sound advice.

 

I'm just saying even when it came out it was mid ranged.

[flanz]

So yesterday I decided to finally update the video card on my desktop. I didn't go crazy and get top of the line but I think we can all agree that a nvidia 550ti is nothing to scoff at (i had a nvidia 9600 in there). Loaded up BF3 on ultra and Skyrim at max and got around 30-35 fps. Not bad, about what I was expecting since the card is about a year old. Now time to load up to and see if I can get above 20 fps....oh wow yea! now I have !22! fps while running around in quest areas (didnt check fleet and WZ since it will probably be lower)

 

Wow so glad they had that long winded post about low end machines and explaining to us noobs what graphic settings are v.v

 

Edit: adding cpu and ram cause I am a tard and forgot. Quad core oc'd to 2.8 and 8 gigs of ram

 

I have worse specs then you and sometimes get over 100fps average 50-60fps with...

2.4ghz quad-core intel cpu

2 8800 GT's SLI

4 gb ram ddr3

 

And I have all settings maxed besides AA which I don't really care for

Edited February 1, 2012 by flanz

[ShamDeluxe]

FPS isn't tied to just the GPU. If the guy is oc'd to only 2.8 that can't be good at all. Also, the RAM means nothing if the operating system limits the RAM anyhow. I haven't read every single post in the thread, but I am beginning to think there is a hardware deficiency outside of the GPU.

[eightohfive]

So yesterday I decided to finally update the video card on my desktop. I didn't go crazy and get top of the line but I think we can all agree that a nvidia 550ti is nothing to scoff at (i had a nvidia 9600 in there). Loaded up BF3 on ultra and Skyrim at max and got around 30-35 fps. Not bad, about what I was expecting since the card is about a year old. Now time to load up to and see if I can get above 20 fps....oh wow yea! now I have !22! fps while running around in quest areas (didnt check fleet and WZ since it will probably be lower)

 

Wow so glad they had that long winded post about low end machines and explaining to us noobs what graphic settings are v.v

 

Edit: adding cpu and ram cause I am a tard and forgot. Quad core oc'd to 2.8 and 8 gigs of ram

 

Well unfortunately a 550 isn't really all the great. It's not a bad card...but the important number isn't so much the 500, but the 50. I built my little brother a computer and picked up a 550 for him since it was cheap. It works, but it isn't as powerful as my 275. It's probably closer to a 260, maybe a little better.

 

Now a 560, you would have most everything on high. Being a 500 series just means that it utilizes whatever new tech Nvidia has come up with...the actual power of the card and how well it handles high resolutions and high settings is more dependent on the 50/60/80 etc. For example a 9800 is waaay better than a 250, but not as good as a 260.

[ShamDeluxe]

Really though, what would be the 100% fix for the dude's problem is if he went to the PC Part Picker website and built his own gaming machine. Sans GPU, HD and other stuff he can strip from his old computer, he is looking at only spending $300 to build a new gaming computer.

 

I built my own a few weeks back after I was getting 11-20 FPS in the beta off my old computer.

[Code_Airwolf]

Well unfortunately a 550 isn't really all the great. It's not a bad card...but the important number isn't so much the 500, but the 50. I built my little brother a computer and picked up a 550 for him since it was cheap. It works, but it isn't as powerful as my 275. It's probably closer to a 260, maybe a little better.

 

Now a 560, you would have most everything on high. Being a 500 series just means that it utilizes whatever new tech Nvidia has come up with...the actual power of the card and how well it handles high resolutions and high settings is more dependent on the 50/60/80 etc. For example a 9800 is waaay better than a 250, but not as good as a 260.

 

 

Our 550ti is running this game flawlessly on high max resolution on a 46" TV and/or 3Xmonitor via TripleHead2Go-HD. Seriously, it's not his video card. Others are on to something, there is something else that's bogging him down within his specifications.

[Darkhosis]

You're doing something wrong obviously. My machine is 3 years old- friggen core 2 duo 2.7. My video card is the only new thing- GT570...

 

I get 50 fps to 80fps anywhere outside of the fleet with everything maxed.

 

Are you running crap in the background? Do you have 20 torrents going or watching movies at the same time? I dunno man you have a bottleneck somewhere.

[C-Bee]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/10

 

I work from home so working right now so that was the only one I could find on short notice. Plus those are single or multi player games, not MMOs which on average tend to be more demanding than single player games on the CPU. Also even if the game is only using what looks like 75% of the one core, that's more likely attributed to the fact the game cannot use ALL parts of the core efficiently, like for example some benchmarks can. Like Linpack.

 

Yeah sorry, but I couldnt find any test that were ran against Hero engine, or any, even remotely similar engine, so Im not sure if the results can be applied to SWTOR so directly. Sure you can see the difference in any game that uses CPU heavy engine like CryEngine for example.... Hell in AION my CPU made a huge difference, but Im not seeing that in SWTOR so far.

[Etapi]

What's your RAM and CPU? I have GTX 480 and get 60 fps capped by vsync in Fleet.

 

a gtx 480 is far superior to a 550 in terms of processing cores. In order to get close, he would have had to go with a 570, but that would likely bottleneck his board based on the processer he is using.

[arblahblah]

560ti getting 50+ fps in fleet

 

i52500k @ 4Ghz

 

Sounds like your processor is bottlenecking the card.

[KEKHAN]

That card is not much better than an overclocked 460 tbh. And it depends whether you got the 2gig version or the 1gig and is it the '448' processing cores version?

 

A 7970 gets around 90-111 fps in fleet, constant 111fps in WZ's. You should get you around 35-45fps. I think I got about 25fps from the 460gtx. (OC'd) (All medium settings)

Edited February 1, 2012 by KEKHAN

[Bazkraal]

30 - 35 in games like Skyrim or BF3 isn't good either. Now if you said 70fps in those games and 22 in ToR I would be more surprised.

 

Lol he never got 30-35 fps on Bf3 either. Please unless you've a gtx580 or something sli you're not going to push those frames on ultra.

 

Hey try it

 

1920x1080 at preset ultra on bf3. My game crashes, why? Not enough video ram, and I'm sitting on two gtx460. The cause = Anti antilising and /or super sampling. Only a 580 or something from AMD with / or with more than 1.5gb or ram would be able to push any frames at those settings.

 

Yes at 640x480 I can play bf3 on ultra, now stop the bs and accept that you computer is old and that you bought a htpc card.

[ispanolfw]

Yeah sorry, but I couldnt find any test that were ran against Hero engine, or any, even remotely similar engine, so Im not sure if the results can be applied to SWTOR so directly. Sure you can see the difference in any game that uses CPU heavy engine like CryEngine for example.... Hell in AION my CPU made a huge difference, but Im not seeing that in SWTOR so far.

 

If I could OC my CPUs right now i'd test it myself, but until our income is a bit more stable the extra power usage from turning off the power saving features and such isn't helpful.

 

And the idea is just that MMOs in general put more stress on the CPU with just about any engine.

[C-Bee]

If I could OC my CPUs right now i'd test it myself, but until our income is a bit more stable the extra power usage from turning off the power saving features and such isn't helpful.

 

And the idea is just that MMOs in general put more stress on the CPU with just about any engine.

 

Or you could also just go read what for example Tom's Hardware said after actually testing SWTOR with few combinations. It's a relatively good read.

 

EDIT: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-gaming-tests-review,3087.html There you are, for those that havent seen it yet, enjoy

Edited February 1, 2012 by C-Bee

[ispanolfw]

Or you could also just go read what for example Tom's Hardware said after actually testing SWTOR with few combinations. It's a relatively good read.

 

I might when I have some time, but i've learned to take Tom's with a grain of salt. Even things I find there.

 

EDIT: I looked at it and there is still a good change in minimum FPS going from 3Ghz to 4Ghz on the 2500K, slightly less on the Phenom II but that could be due to architecture differences. That and I could never really consider anything less than a mostly stable FPS as "smooth" like they do. If it was 30 and ALWAYS 30 then ok, it would annoy me some since I can tell the difference between that and higher.

Edited February 1, 2012 by ispanolfw

[C-Bee]

Im not sure I would call going from 60 to 65...68 anything signifficant when thats your minimum FPS. It might matter for FPS-addicts but really, most people wont even see that since their displays refresh rate becomes the limiting factor.

 

As for me... I got FPS cap limited to 50 (could just as well be 44 too I guess) to keep my card cooler since my eye can not see the difference anyway. And I guess that saves some CPU cycles as a side effect too.

Edited February 1, 2012 by C-Bee

[ispanolfw]

Im not sure I would call going from 60 to 65...68 anything signifficant when thats your minimum FPS. It might matter for FPS-addicts but really, most people wont even see that since their displays refresh rate becomes the limiting factor.

 

As for me... I got FPS cap limited to 50 (could just as well be 44 too I guess) to keep my card cooler since my eye can not see the difference anyway. And I guess that saves some CPU cycles as a side effect too.

 

Oh I understand, but I can tell the difference. And for me it's more of a stable FPS. If OCing my CPU brought my minimum up from 55 to 60 at least, it would be worth it since that means a stable 60 since I use VSync.