Low FPS in High End System.....Patch comin?

[Dronp]

Actually the optimization in this game is pretty ****** which is suprising coming from bioware. I do hope they release a patch to fix it soon. I can run every game released in the past year with zero slowdown an can run this one very well too but I get skips at times in certain areas when theres multiple players/mobs. Considering this game looks like complete crap compared to games like skyrim or witcher 2 (understandable) I should never get any skips or slowdowns on my machine. That = crappy optimization.

[Magnakore]

I get about 30-40 fps on my on board 6550 8gb ram QC forget the speed.I do notice some graphical artifacts but nothing that makes it unplayable Edited December 17, 2011 by Magnakore

[Mannic]

1. Drop Shadows from high to low.

2. Leave all other settings on high.

3. Profit.

[Tiriensoul]

I get 70-80 fps with my GTX580, 2.4GHz Core2 Quad, and 8GB of RAM. Most of the time, it goes over 100 fps sometimes.

 

2,4 Ghz Dual core?

And people say the game needs the latest AMD or INTEL cpu's for it to work, i knew they were full of it before, this is just proof they are.

[Dextroverse]

Should be running an ATI, been using my 5870 for 2 years now and still silky smooth FPS.

[lingron]

Yes but a guy above told he runs ultra settings with 9800 smoothly... So GTS450 should be just fine for this game... (9800GT is weaker than GTS450 right?)

 

 

i doubt very much that he is , i upgraded from 2 gtx8800 in sil to a gtx560ti and my frame rates jumped from 20-30 on the gtx8800 low detail low screen resolution to , 60-80 fps maxing everything at 1920X1080 on the new gtx560ti , this game relys very heavily on graphics cards ,

 

p.s processor is a e8600 overclocked to 4.5ghz 4gig ram , so not really the most up to date machine,

 

u just need to drop shadows to low or off that seems to have the biggest impact to the game , then drop other setting to medium / low until u have reached a happy medium

Edited December 17, 2011 by lingron

[Mandrax]

The 450 is the equivalent of a 560, so it is top mid-range gfx

 

What?? No it isn't. The 450 is a low end card, it's nowhere near as good as even the lowest spec 560. Stop talking nonsense.

[Euden]

Try this solution. worked for me and im using Intel HD graphics of which i get 15-40 fps on average. before i got 3-6fps.

 

Go to graphics. Select the HIGH preset. click apply. Then select the LOW preset and click apply. after that you can manually raise settings all apart from shadows which right know is a known memory leak and causes performance issues so i keep that to off but everything is else can be set to high AFTER you do the above. your preset should appear as custom after.

 

This solved my fps issues.

 

Hope it helps.

[Chronokeeper]

I had this problem till I turned shadows OFF, make sure they are OFF and not low.

[TeamBZ]

Try full screen windowed FPS seems to go up.

[Superpal]

Intel Core i7 CPU 950@ 3.07GHz (8 CPUs) ~3.1GHz

12gb ram

Geforce GTX 580

 

Getting 36-60 fps with v-sync on. Why is it not staying at 60? I keep getting "load" lagspikes when I travel, as when the game keeps processing new content as I move. It's bad when I'm in populated areas. But... a 580 and 12gb ram should cut it, right? I'm not super tech savvy, feel free to come with ideas.

[tlvs]

i7 2600k, 8 gb ram and 560ti

 

Everything is silky smooth maxed out.

[prisonerofgood]

how do you see how many FPS you get?

[Superpal]

Ctrl+shift+f ingame.

[Unojc]

i5 2500k

8gb 1600

GTX 560ti

 

70-111fps silky smooth and have yet to disconnect with about 65-70hrs played between beta/EA.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Unojc

[BanzaiChigau]

Have a read at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-gaming-tests-review,3087.html, the game needs a lot of GPU power and certainly a 450 is not enough for everything maxed.

 

I have an i5 2400@3.2 GHz with a 560 and a friend of mine has a 2500k@4.3 GHz with the same card, the difference in FPS when we both check the same zone etc is minimal, so as the guide i posted says...it depends on how good the GPU is when you have a good enough CPU.

 

And the game runs at 40-50 FPS minimum with everything maxed on both our PCs, which is not bad.

Edited December 17, 2011 by BanzaiChigau

[Unojc]

how do you see how many FPS you get?

 

You're fps will show up in the bottom left corner, very small.

[hostileseventeen]

i7 2600k, 8 gb ram and 560ti

 

Everything is silky smooth maxed out.

 

I have pretty much the same thing (i5 2500k) and 4GB of RAM and a 560ti and average around 100 when not much going on, 70s with people around, and it drops to maybe high 30s low 40s when traveling in a taxi, which isn't a big deal at all. I think the video card is the biggest thing, because I don't think the game takes advantage of more than 2 cores or more than 2GB of RAM (maybe 4GB).

 

I made sure I had the latest drivers before playing, and have had zero issues. It is actually better than in beta when I was topping out around 75.

 

I have also been noticing those with 560s (and true monster VCs) are the ones having the best FPS, maybe NVIDIA needs a new set of drivers for those who don't have 560s, it might be something there.

Edited December 17, 2011 by hostileseventeen

[DeeckTator]

Intel Core i7 CPU 950@ 3.07GHz (8 CPUs) ~3.1GHz

12gb ram

Geforce GTX 580

 

Getting 36-60 fps with v-sync on. Why is it not staying at 60? I keep getting "load" lagspikes when I travel, as when the game keeps processing new content as I move. It's bad when I'm in populated areas. But... a 580 and 12gb ram should cut it, right? I'm not super tech savvy, feel free to come with ideas.

 

Its not 8 cores, its 4 cores with hyperthreading.

[Superpal]

Its not 8 cores, its 4 cores with hyperthreading.

 

I'm just quoting dxdiag, but it should run the game better, right?

[hostileseventeen]

I'm just quoting dxdiag, but it should run the game better, right?

 

If the game takes advantage of that many cores. If the game takes advantage of say 2 cores, a faster dual core processor will perform better than a slower quad core. That is theoretical of couse. Depending on what else your cores are doing a quad core will usually perform better, but my point is, the difference between 4 or 8 (hyperthreaded or otherwise) may not be noticable.

 

Sames goes with RAM, 12GB of RAM does you no good if a game only uses 4GB.

[Manananggal]

Try this solution. worked for me and im using Intel HD graphics of which i get 15-40 fps on average. before i got 3-6fps.

 

Go to graphics. Select the HIGH preset. click apply. Then select the LOW preset and click apply. after that you can manually raise settings all apart from shadows which right know is a known memory leak and causes performance issues so i keep that to off but everything is else can be set to high AFTER you do the above. your preset should appear as custom after.

 

This solved my fps issues.

 

Hope it helps.

 

This does work as a temp solution. I tried this and went from 8-20 FPS to 45-60 FPS.

 

 

I still use an ATI 4870x2(just has a problem with getting to hot)

[Superpal]

If the game takes advantage of that many cores. If the game takes advantage of say 2 cores, a faster dual core processor will perform better than a slower quad core. That is theoretical of couse. Depending on what else your cores are doing a quad core will usually perform better, but my point is, the difference between 4 or 8 (hyperthreaded or otherwise) may not be noticable.

 

Sames goes with RAM, 12GB of RAM does you no good if a game only uses 4GB.

 

But people having GTX 470s boast about a 110 fps in the game with lower specifications, so how come the GTX 580, those cores and that ram are running worse on a win7 64 bit client? Do you know? Because I'm really trying to find out what's going on.

[hostileseventeen]

But people having GTX 470s boast about a 110 fps in the game with lower specifications, so how come the GTX 580, those cores and that ram are running worse on a win7 64 bit client? Do you know? Because I'm really trying to find out what's going on.

 

I am speculating, but most people who have 560s have had no issues (at least those posting) it might be that NVIDIA needs to release an updated set of drivers for some of their cards.

[Superpal]

I am speculating, but most people who have 560s have had no issues (at least those posting) it might be that NVIDIA needs to release an updated set of drivers for some of their cards.

 

You might be right. I just checked, with v-sync off and staying in a quiet place in Nar Shaddaa I could get about 90-100 fps. But as soon as a player came back, it was hopping around 90 only. It's a pretty big jump, and that's why I still don't understand why 470s are doing better. Damn technology. I've checked my CPU, and it runs as it should, more than enough ram to cope with. I defrag often. I don't know what to suspect, I will just hang around the forums and google some more.