Vesash Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 My Cpu seems very outdated. I mean I'm running a 3770k at 4.6gHz with 2x gtx 970's & 16Gb of ram. not had any bottlenecking or frame rate issues. hell even tomb raider runs at max settings with no issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayshadow Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) 1998 called; they want their urban legend back. I have recorded at 30, 50 and 60 FPS and cannot tell the difference. It all looks the same. If you can tell the difference I'd suspect you are viewing something below 30 FPS. If I upload a video to Youtube it is changed to 30 FPS and I notice no difference. Perhaps you are viewing an average of 30FPS that dips below that number at times. Edit: Maybe your eyes are just different than mine. Edited February 18, 2016 by Dayshadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayshadow Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Run, yes... play 8v8 warzones in anything other than a slide show, no... I played the game on that rig with no issues when it launched with smooth video with shadows on, AA, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DataBeaver Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I have recorded at 30, 50 and 60 FPS and cannot tell the difference. It all looks the same. If you can tell the difference you are viewing something below 30 FPS. Wieving a non-interactive video is very different from playing a game. As I explained before, input latency plays a part too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayshadow Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) Wieving a non-interactive video is very different from playing a game. As I explained before, input latency plays a part too. The video is of a game. I'm recording SWTOR. Now perhaps, as you or someone else stated, that maybe because the frames are locked at 30FPS it appears smooth (the actual game runs at 60+). I don't know. I suspect people seeing a difference may be averaging 30 FPS, but dipping below that alot in actuality. Can you see any difference? I can't... Edited February 18, 2016 by Dayshadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DataBeaver Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 The video is of a game. I'm recording SWTOR. Yes, but when watching a video, you are not constantly pressing keys and expecting results to appear on the screen. A game running at 60 fps feels much more responsive to your controls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seratam Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Don't. I had to rip a card out (970) due to driver crashes directly related to Sli issues with Swtor... Even when it's disabled. And for the record, your CPU is more than adequate. Whatever Ryu is talking about is just... Misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prenski Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Would it make sense for me to upgrade to an i7? My current CPU is an i5 6600K at 3.5GHZ. I was under the impression that the only difference bettwen the i5 I own and the i7 is hyper threading (which SWTOR can't utilize). Thanks in advance! That is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nissanmaxima Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) No The game cannot utilize any benefits from SLI ^ This I run the game on an MSI GTX 970 at max settings with 0 problems and 60+ fps. My processor is not the greatest..for that I am using the AMD FX 8120 8-core at 4.0ghz and 16gb of Gskill 1866 ram. A lot of MMO's out there do not make use of SLI/Crossifre setups. Not to familiar with the i5 processors, I have heard some good things about them out there, maybe the newer architecture.. When I ran intel back in the day, I was using the i7 2600k and it ran SWTOR fine coupled with the GTX 560Ti. Edited February 18, 2016 by nissanmaxima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Killjoy Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Allow me to jump in here. The 6600K is a wonderful gaming CPU, for many reasons. But in SWTOR's case, the benefit comes from single threaded performance and clock speed (the combination of the two). If you have that CPU installed on a Z170 motherboard and you have decent cooling, you can hit 4.2GHz fairly easily (higher if you know what you're doing). The jump from 3.5 to 4.2 won't matter in solo content, but it will make a noticeable difference in warzones and ops. Side note: The i7-6700K is just your current CPU with hyperthreading enabled, an extra 2MB L2 cache (which is nice, but not that big of a deal), and a default clock speed of 4.0GHz turboing to 4.2GHz. But the i5-6600K you have is really the same CPU made on the same production line, it should hit 4.2GHz as well, with a touch of overclocking. Hell, my "old" machine runs SWTOR fine, I'm surprised the OP is having issues, or at least wonder what he's expecting out of the game. Or heck, maybe my standards are too low... ( AMD Phenom II X4 925 2.8, 8GB, SATA2 HDD -- upgrading from the first video card to a GTX960 2GB made a MASSIVE difference in the graphics quality and performance.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 My Cpu seems very outdated. I mean I'm running a 3770k at 4.6gHz with 2x gtx 970's & 16Gb of ram. not had any bottlenecking or frame rate issues. hell even tomb raider runs at max settings with no issues. It isn't... You're on Ivy Bridge, the last of the "current" chips... Sandy Bridge comes before that and has a notable drop off in performance from what you have, but yours is fine. My current PC advice to gamers is Sandy Bridge or older, it is time to upgrade. Ivy Bridge or newer, and you're just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I played the game on that rig with no issues when it launched with smooth video with shadows on, AA, etc. You also claim that you cannot see the difference between 30fps and 60fps (and most people can, so while it might be true for you, it isn't a blanket statement) So perhaps you're just an outlier, but your statement does not fit with what that hardware can do. Keep in mind that 144hz monitors are being made for a reason, even they show a difference to "most people" over the existing 60hz monitors many of us use. Most human eyes can see motion more easily than color or detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Hell, my "old" machine runs SWTOR fine ^ "runs fine" is a subjective statement. I suspect much of the confusion of these things has to do with opinions on what is acceptable and what is not. Or heck, maybe my standards are too low... Not "too low", just different. If it works for you, then enjoy it and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. From an empirical perspective, I've benchmarked SWTOR on multiple levels of hardware in 8v8 warzones and the performance difference is night and day. But that is 8v8 warzones. In open world PvE solo content, there is very little difference, so "runs fine" also depends greatly on what you're doing in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DataBeaver Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Yeah, SW:TOR "runs fine" on my laptop with i7-4500U, 8 GB RAM and integrated graphics. Framerate is around 20 fps when there's not much going on and drops lower in presence of graphical effects. I use it for solo PvE stuff when I'm away from home or otherwise unable to use my main computer, sometimes even for easier ops. Wouldn't want to try progression ops with it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Killjoy Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 ^ "runs fine" is a subjective statement. I suspect much of the confusion of these things has to do with opinions on what is acceptable and what is not. Not "too low", just different. If it works for you, then enjoy it and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. From an empirical perspective, I've benchmarked SWTOR on multiple levels of hardware in 8v8 warzones and the performance difference is night and day. But that is 8v8 warzones. In open world PvE solo content, there is very little difference, so "runs fine" also depends greatly on what you're doing in the game. The thing I'm definitely not doing is PvP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 The thing I'm definitely not doing is PvP. Just to make the point, this afternoon I might go put SWTOR back on the Core2Quad Q6600 machine and give it a FRAPS run in both warzones and open world PvE solo work, just to measure the difference. Before I do, what would you consider a fair place in the open world to test the game on an older machine. Side note: The above machine as an ATI 5850 GPU in it, which is newer than the CPU by several years, but not new in terms of 2016. Given that it is a 9 year old computer, it'll be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Killjoy Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Just to make the point, this afternoon I might go put SWTOR back on the Core2Quad Q6600 machine and give it a FRAPS run in both warzones and open world PvE solo work, just to measure the difference. Before I do, what would you consider a fair place in the open world to test the game on an older machine. Side note: The above machine as an ATI 5850 GPU in it, which is newer than the CPU by several years, but not new in terms of 2016. Given that it is a 9 year old computer, it'll be interesting. I absolutely believe you that PvP is the most demanding, given the extra load caused by 16 bunny-hoppy toons. For the open world pat of your test, I suggest finding the busiest spot on fleet, and also the main landing point on Oddessen, which is a graphics-grinding nightmare for many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hupp Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I recently purchased and built a new computer to run SWTOR. I went with an Nvidia GTX 970 graphics card. I have a Samsung monitor that runs at 2560 X 1440. Was wondering if it makes sense to buy another graphics card and run SLI? My goal would be to run at max settings and achieve the best possible FPS in warzones. Here is my computer specs: i5 @ 3.5GHZ 16GB of RAM SSD Nvidia GTX 970 Do you think I'll see any benefit to doing this in game? Thanks in advance! I have an i5-2500k@4.3 w/16gb ram,2ssd (1 os, 1swtor) w/sli 980gtx sc and I play at 1440p. I average around 80-100fps in open world and in 8man operations and pvp my fps is around 18-25 when in combat with other players. I will say SLI had almost zero impact on my fps as the game is hugely CPU dependent. I would honestly recommend you invest in a watercooled setup for your CPU and overclock it. I use the kraken x61. You will see a larger fps increase than just adding another 970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Just to make the point, this afternoon I might go put SWTOR back on the Core2Quad Q6600 machine and give it a FRAPS run in both warzones and open world PvE solo work, just to measure the difference. Before I do, what would you consider a fair place in the open world to test the game on an older machine. Side note: The above machine as an ATI 5850 GPU in it, which is newer than the CPU by several years, but not new in terms of 2016. Given that it is a 9 year old computer, it'll be interesting. Ok, just ran a pair of warzones... they weren't the same location, but from what I saw, it wouldn't matter. 1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850 Pylons, 8v8 Frames - 3688 Time (ms) - 300000 Min - 5 Max - 23 Avg - 12.293 --- 1920X1080 - Very Low - Everything off Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850 Frames - 3435 Time (ms) - 300000 Min - 4 Max - 27 Avg - 11.450 --- In short, the game was clearly not limited by the GPU, but rather the CPU. I plan to run more tests doing open world story content shortly to see how that runs. Putting aside the empirical data above, subjectively it was not playable at all. The screen updates during combat were too slow to be useful, even if you know what you're doing. It was simply not playable by any stretch of the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850 Running around fleet, on Harb, 168 people in the instance Frames - 2898 Time (ms) - 300000 Min - 2 Max - 50 Avg - 21.531 --- Better than 8v8 Pylon WZ, but not THAT much better... it was jumpy as heck... Turning the graphics down made no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850 Galactic Starfighter - Satellites - Flying as a bomber and protecting our sat - reasonable combat levels, perhaps 1/3 of the time in combat. Frames - 13340 Time (ms) - 300000 Min - 3 Max - 64 Avg - 44.467 --- Interestingly enough, it was far better than running around fleet. That being said, it was still not very smooth, and when heavy combat was going on, it really was slow. Would I play GSF if this were my only choice? No. I feel that the computer would put me at a competitive disadvantage, and I wasn't trying to dogfight, I was simply defending with a bomber. I wouldn't even try a scout on this machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Killjoy Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Here's what I got in a fight on Oricon against 12 mobs, with the aforementioned "old" rig. Frames 1970 Time (ms) 60000 Min 14 Max 46 Avg 32.833 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850 The 3 heroics on Ord Mantell - Republic Side Frames - 10153 Time (ms) - 300000 Min - 3 Max - 64 Avg - 33.843 --- Was it playable? Yes. Was it "fun"? Not really. It was fine because I knew what I was doing, but it was really poor overall. The speed of reaction from time to click stuff and time for stuff to happen was poor. The overall responsiveness of the game was poor. My conclusions, from these limited tests and from messing around with it in general is that this hardware is simply too old to run the game in 2016. Maybe it would have run it at launch, in 2011, but post 4.1 in 2016, it just doesn't. --- Side note: This machine specifically: Dell Vostro 410 Core2Quad Q6600 2.4GHz Intel G33 chipset 4GB DDR2-800 RAM ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB GPU Windows 10 Pro Further note: When I run CPU-Z and run the "bench", here is what I get: CPU Single Thread - 813 CPU Multi Thread - 3097 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Here's what I got in a fight on Oricon against 12 mobs, with the aforementioned "old" rig. Frames 1970 Time (ms) 60000 Min 14 Max 46 Avg 32.833 I'm curious as to what CPU-Z says your single thread bench number is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Here's what I got in a fight on Oricon against 12 mobs, with the aforementioned "old" rig. Frames 1970 Time (ms) 60000 Min 14 Max 46 Avg 32.833 BTW, that is a good example of the difference between subjective viewpoints and objective viewpoints. I wouldn't consider those numbers fighting mobs on Oricon to be "fine", but to each their own. I'll go test the above fight on Ord Mandell on my main rig in a few min and post those numbers, just for comparison sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts