Performance HELP pls.

[Cadivus]

Any advices on what is holding me back the most guys?

CPU: i5 650 4MB Cache, LGA1156, 3.2ghz-3.6ghz "safe" OC.

MB: ASUS P7P55D-E, LGA1156. DDR3 etc.

GPU: Gainward GTX 770 Phantom 4GB, 256bit, 1150mhz, 3505mhz.

HDD: Kingston 256gb SSD on which the game is as well.

Mem: Corsairs DDR 8gigs dual channels up to 1444mhz but my Task Manager only shows 1333mhz.

PSU: 750W.

Windows 8.1.

Need to mention i run on 60fps LG M2780D and i get horrible FPS in the weirdest places as well as during combat, on the fleet etc. For no reason at all drops to 15-30 fps then jumps back up 60 with Vsync turned on or more without it. On the fleet it's 20-40fps, Warzone i don't dare. FP, OPS, everything is horrid. Almost unplayable...

Any real advice except your system is bigger than mine etc:) What could be holding me back and the first thing to upgrade. Ty very much.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Cadivus

[DataBeaver]

My money is on the CPU. This game has always been very CPU-heavy and i5-650 is a rather old model (released six years ago). You'll likely need a new mainboard and new RAM to go with a new CPU too.

 

Also, I've heard that turning off shadows helps.

[Docthebutcher]

Swtor will not run good on a dual core ...I do not care what some of these people who say their dual cores run their game totally fine with high frame rate.

SWTOR must be run on a quad or better. Also swtor will run amazingly better on a intel over a amd and i know this for a fact because I have 2 8 core amd systems and a 6 core amd system

The engine used with swtor the laughable HERO engine was never optimized for amds

Yeah you can get decent game play from a AMD but not like a equally built intel.

right now on this intel system I just built a month ago my frame rates are 100+ and have yet to see it go below 90.

The same place on another 8 core amd the fps is around 50-60 and it will fall fast.

However I did build a next gen intel and while I only have the i7-5820 6 core I do plan on putting the 8 core in it if it ever gets below a grand lol

Sadly YOU need a new system a skylake intel quad core with DDR4 ram . though DRR3 will work fine.

 

Len

[Cadivus]

The "mighty" HERO engine /spit. But still, to have such horrible drops in FPS?:/ Adaptive Vsync does it's best to give an decent sync =)) but it drops to 10-20 fps here and there lol... And not even while FP-ing or OP's etc.

[FlyingUsPoo]

My personal stake in the game... My hardware is WAY over the top for this game (launch date early 2014), but it doesn't work and play well with Windows 10/8 and SWTOR. I dropped back to Win 7 and I am rocking 99 FPS virtually 100% of the time.

My specs:

 

 

CPU: i7-4940-MX

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX880M

RAM: 32GB

C:( SWTOR is on this as well): 3 Chip SDD in Raid 0 array (also primary HDD)

D: 256GB SDD (page file on this drive)

 

 

 

Swtor .ini

 

 

[Renderer]

AntiAliasingLevel = 4

AtlasQuality = 0

Buckets = 4

D3DFullScreen = false

GraphicsDeviceId = 4504

GraphicsQuality = 6

Height = 1080

MeshLODQuality = 1

NativeHeight = 1080

NativeWidth = 1920

PerfTestFlags = 38780672

RefreshRate = 60

ShadowMapNumCascades = 8

ShadowMapResolution = 2048

SpeedTreeDistanceScale = 0.75

TextureAnisotropy = 16

Width = 1920

PlantDensity = 0

WindowX = 0

WindowY = 0

VerticalSyncState = false

AllowDepthOfField = true

doBlobShadows = true

doShadows = true

CodeVersionChanged = false

LastCodeVersionRun = 1

NewBucket = 4

EnableBloom = true

AllowColorRemapping = true

ShaderSet = 9

TextureQuality = 0

DYDDrawDistancePreset = 2

FullScreen = true

 

 

 

If you have the time and opportunity to test it out, give it a shot. Sounds like you might not have much to loose anyway.

 

I can say for certain, with my system, when running on win 10, it would run dead dog slow at times... MASSIVE graphics lag on fleet, in pvp, anytime there were a bunch of sorcs having a lightning party. It would just drop to 3-10 FPS. I dropped to win 7, now its not an issue. Ok, that's not 100% true. I did have to replace the thermal paste about 6 months ago.

 

And this is only with SWTOR... I play Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 with no problems. Didn't have problems in Windows 10, don't have problems in Windows 7.

Edited February 22, 2016 by FlyingUsPoo

[dr_mike]

The "mighty" HERO engine /spit. But still, to have such horrible drops in FPS?:/ Adaptive Vsync does it's best to give an decent sync =)) but it drops to 10-20 fps here and there lol... And not even while FP-ing or OP's etc.

 

This game hasn't been hero engine for about six years. Please educate yourself.

[TX_Angel]

Any advices on what is holding me back the most guys?

CPU: i5 650 4MB Cache, LGA1156, 3.2ghz-3.6ghz "safe" OC..

 

^ This is the problem... That CPU is now "old", at least when it comes to single core performance.

 

Your GPU is fine, you can keep that, no need to replace it, but you'll need a new motherboard and a new CPU.

 

My personal suggestion:

 

ASUS H170 D3 motherboard ($90)

http://amzn.to/1QxIvnG

 

Intel i5-6500 Skylake CPU ($205)

http://amzn.to/1QxIBMd

 

The above motherboard will take DDR3 RAM (most Skylake systems need DDR4), so you may be able to reuse your existing memory.

 

You'll get a nearly 100% performance jump moving from your existing CPU to the new one. You can likely keep your existing case, power supply, GPU, etc. and just change the motherboard and CPU. The above CPU comes with a heatsink and fan that will work just fine, no need to spend more money than that.

[Dysantium]

My personal stake in the game... My hardware is WAY over the top for this game (launch date early 2014), but it doesn't work and play well with Windows 10/8 and SWTOR. I dropped back to Win 7 and I am rocking 99 FPS virtually 100% of the time.

And this is only with SWTOR... I play Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 with no problems. Didn't have problems in Windows 10, don't have problems in Windows 7.

 

This is happening to me aswell

i7 2600, 4g 960, 16 gb 1000mhz ram

Win 10 performance is B-A-D still

Patch kplzthx

[MikeTheDuke]

The CPU might be a little on the old side, but a 2 core, 2 HT per core should be more than enough. SWTOR runs in 2 processes, from my understanding of this, so each of these processes would essentially take up one of the core. It is largely an unoptimised game for multi-core (this is due to the Hero Engine they are using is a little dated and made in 2008 or so (I am unsure of the specific version))

 

Windows 10 runs this game more than OK, my specs are;

 

 

Intel i7-3770K Processor (OC to 3.9GHz - 4.5GHz)

32GB DDR3 RAM 4 channel 1333MHz (this is where my problem lies)

128GB SSD for OS, 128GB PCIe SSD running SWTOR

Gainward Phantom 970GTX 4GB

 

 

 

I do run into issues with this game, unsure speciifically which, I don't run things at max and tweak my settings using the NVIDIA Inspector. Areas to be aware of.

Force the PhysX to use the GPU, every driver update this resets it back to Auto which will often use the CPU in this game since the CPU doesn't seem to do a lot in terms of total processor usage. This cane be done in the Nvidia Control Panel under PhysX.

Ensure all Power Savings measure in Windows is set to High Performance. Often default can be balanced, but these does offer moderate power savings on the PCIe bus and other areas.

Make sure you Video Card is set to Maxiumum Performance and Single Display.

DirectX 9c Full This is essential. As this has the WDDM driver for Windows Vista and higher. More often, this can be replaced by the DirectX 9c installed from steam applications. I also install it again every time I do a driver update.

 

There are many other options I can suggest, but a lot of it is tweaking, setting the graphics and seeing how it goes. I also reduce the number of visible character I select Medium. I will often get 80-90fps in most areas, battles are reduced to 50-60fps and Warzones will drop to the 30-40fps. Bioware need to put in more effort to optimise this game and provide boosts. They mentioned in the last producers live stream that there are some performance improvements coming, it would be good it it improved the overall game.

 

I hope this offers some help.

[TX_Angel]

This is happening to me aswell

i7 2600, 4g 960, 16 gb 1000mhz ram

Win 10 performance is B-A-D still

Patch kplzthx

 

If you're having problems in Windows 10, but were not in Windows 7 or 8, then the problem is somewhere on your end. Windows 10 is working fine for millions of people, so it isn't broken on that end.

 

The end game would be a clean install of Windows 10, but before you do that, it may well be worth making sure you have updated drivers for everything installed, make sure Windows Update is fully run, and run CCleaner to make sure your temp files and other old junk is gone.

 

Side note, 1000MHz RAM isn't a speed that would be used on a i7-2600. It is more likely to be 1333 MHZ, or even 1600 MHz, but it could be 1066 MHz.

[TX_Angel]

The CPU might be a little on the old side, but a 2 core, 2 HT per core should be more than enough. SWTOR runs in 2 processes, from my understanding of this, so each of these processes would essentially take up one of the core. It is largely an unoptimised game for multi-core (this is due to the Hero Engine they are using is a little dated and made in 2008 or so (I am unsure of the specific version))

 

^ This is the truth... An Intel i3-6100 for $127 would play this game very well, and it is indeed a dual core, hyperthreaded CPU.

 

I would not however drop back to the G4400. There are cases where the extra "cores" of hyperthreading does make a difference, it allows Windows to run smoother overall, since there are 4 process schedulers (even if only 2 execution cores), it enables better overall use of system resources.

 

The i5-6500 I suggested above is in some ways better, some ways worse. It has a lower total clock speed and doesn't boost quite as high. The i3-6100 is fixed at 3.7GHz, vs the base 3.2GHz and turbo 3.6GHz of the i5-6500. That being said, ultimately having 4 true cores wins in the end in my opinion. The $75 or so price difference between the two CPUs isn't large, if you can swing it, I'd take the i5 all day long.

 

But the i3 is a fine choice as well.

 

For the record, an i7 is a complete waste for gaming. I have yet to see a case where it makes any difference at all. The only time you could say it does is when the i7 comes with a higher clockspeed than the same version of i5, and you don't overclock (a i7-6700k is base 4.0, turbo 4.4, vs i5-6600k is base 3.5, turbo 3.9 for example).

 

But both of those CPUs will run at 4.2 all day long if you set them there, so the choice is yours.

[Cadivus]

This game hasn't been hero engine for about six years. Please educate yourself.

You need to english more friend.

[FlyingUsPoo]

^ This is the truth... An Intel i3-6100 for $127 would play this game very well, and it is indeed a dual core, hyperthreaded CPU.

 

I would not however drop back to the G4400. There are cases where the extra "cores" of hyperthreading does make a difference, it allows Windows to run smoother overall, since there are 4 process schedulers (even if only 2 execution cores), it enables better overall use of system resources.

 

The i5-6500 I suggested above is in some ways better, some ways worse. It has a lower total clock speed and doesn't boost quite as high. The i3-6100 is fixed at 3.7GHz, vs the base 3.2GHz and turbo 3.6GHz of the i5-6500. That being said, ultimately having 4 true cores wins in the end in my opinion. The $75 or so price difference between the two CPUs isn't large, if you can swing it, I'd take the i5 all day long.

 

But the i3 is a fine choice as well.

Any chip from the last 3 years "should" be able to tackle this game with no issues so long as the rest of the system is in support as well. IE enough memory to support the entire system, not running on the CPU graphic (intel), etc..

Heck, I've run this game on a Core 2 Duo processor that was supported with 4GB RAM on Win XP. It ran fine and that's a processor that came out in at the beginning of 08 (the E7400 2.8GHz).

 

For the record, an i7 is a complete waste for gaming. I have yet to see a case where it makes any difference at all. The only time you could say it does is when the i7 comes with a higher clockspeed than the same version of i5, and you don't overclock (a i7-6700k is base 4.0, turbo 4.4, vs i5-6600k is base 3.5, turbo 3.9 for example).

 

But both of those CPUs will run at 4.2 all day long if you set them there, so the choice is yours.

Gonna disagree with you here. Gaming (heck, computing period) is all about moving things through memory. Part of the reason for the price step in the i series (when comparing the same architecture) is the cache size. That memory is expensive. The i3 = 3-4MB, i5 = 3-6MB and i7 = 4-8MB (the black box i7 goes up to 20MB on the 5960x, but... yeah.) Access time is the big deal. The cpu hits the L3 cache in ~5-12ns. If it has to go to main memory its about 10-60ns. Magnetic hard drives 3-10ms.

You can run an i3, i5 and an i7 at 4.2GHz all day long and the i7 will load and spit out number faster every single time because it has more of that faster memory to handle all those repetitive tasks.

[TX_Angel]

Heck, I've run this game on a Core 2 Duo processor that was supported with 4GB RAM on Win XP. It ran fine and that's a processor that came out in at the beginning of 08 (the E7400 2.8GHz).

 

How recently? I just last week did a series of tests on a Core2Quad Q6600 using a ATI 5850 GPU, and found the experience less than useful in any situation. Even running around empty open worlds was painful and not a useful experience.

 

Of course, the game at launch and the game in 2016 are two different games. I suspect it ran much better during the 1.x era on such hardware than the 4.x era.

 

Gonna disagree with you here. Gaming (heck, computing period) is all about moving things through memory. Part of the reason for the price step in the i series (when comparing the same architecture) is the cache size. That memory is expensive. The i3 = 3-4MB, i5 = 3-6MB and i7 = 4-8MB (the black box i7 goes up to 20MB on the 5960x, but... yeah.) Access time is the big deal. The cpu hits the L3 cache in ~5-12ns. If it has to go to main memory its about 10-60ns. Magnetic hard drives 3-10ms.

You can run an i3, i5 and an i7 at 4.2GHz all day long and the i7 will load and spit out number faster every single time because it has more of that faster memory to handle all those repetitive tasks.

 

While that is all true, the question is: "Does any of that make a difference to actual game play?"

 

The i5 has 6MB L2 cache, the i7 has 8MB L2 cache. Does the extra 2MB actually show up as a difference in game play.

 

All the benchmarks and tests that I've personally done and seen, say it does not. Where it does show up is when doing memory intensive things such as video or 3D rendering, etc.

[FlyingUsPoo]

This game hasn't been hero engine for about six years. Please educate yourself.

Thank you for allowing me to educate myself.

Letting more of that knowledge flow

Too much? If not there's always Wikipedia. Everyone loves to quote Wikipedia right?

 

I feel better now.

[FlyingUsPoo]

How recently? I just last week did a series of tests on a Core2Quad Q6600 using a ATI 5850 GPU, and found the experience less than useful in any situation. Even running around empty open worlds was painful and not a useful experience.

 

Of course, the game at launch and the game in 2016 are two different games. I suspect it ran much better during the 1.x era on such hardware than the 4.x era.

 

 

 

While that is all true, the question is: "Does any of that make a difference to actual game play?"

 

The i5 has 6MB L2 cache, the i7 has 8MB L2 cache. Does the extra 2MB actually show up as a difference in game play.

 

All the benchmarks and tests that I've personally done and seen, say it does not. Where it does show up is when doing memory intensive things such as video or 3D rendering, etc.

 

Witcher 3

 

The i7-3770k is 2 years older than the i5-4690k and had a 1fps minimum advantage at the same speed. While still performing 11 watts cooler and using four more "cores". That's just one where it managed to do better. there are plenty where that i5 barely edged out that i7.

 

Unless you are talking about something that was specifically designed to account for extra cores, and circumvents the limitations of directx to achieve it, no the i7 isn't going to do you a lot of good over the i5. However, in that same argument, beyond clockspeed the i5 isn't any better than the i3 either. Despite all the benchmarks to the contrary.

 

The modern stuff... Star Wars Battlefront, Fallout 4, the i7 stomps a mud hole in the i5.

SW Battlefront

Fallout 4

Finally, consoles set the target for game development. The Xbox one and the PS4 both cart around 8 cores. If you want to future proof your stuff, and you are in the market to upgrade, you should be modeling your computer after whats in the newest consoles.

[Cadivus]

The CPU might be a little on the old side, but a 2 core, 2 HT per core should be more than enough. SWTOR runs in 2 processes, from my understanding of this, so each of these processes would essentially take up one of the core. It is largely an unoptimised game for multi-core (this is due to the Hero Engine they are using is a little dated and made in 2008 or so (I am unsure of the specific version))

 

Windows 10 runs this game more than OK, my specs are;

 

 

Intel i7-3770K Processor (OC to 3.9GHz - 4.5GHz)

32GB DDR3 RAM 4 channel 1333MHz (this is where my problem lies)

128GB SSD for OS, 128GB PCIe SSD running SWTOR

Gainward Phantom 970GTX 4GB

 

 

 

I do run into issues with this game, unsure speciifically which, I don't run things at max and tweak my settings using the NVIDIA Inspector. Areas to be aware of.

Force the PhysX to use the GPU, every driver update this resets it back to Auto which will often use the CPU in this game since the CPU doesn't seem to do a lot in terms of total processor usage. This cane be done in the Nvidia Control Panel under PhysX.

Ensure all Power Savings measure in Windows is set to High Performance. Often default can be balanced, but these does offer moderate power savings on the PCIe bus and other areas.

Make sure you Video Card is set to Maxiumum Performance and Single Display.

DirectX 9c Full This is essential. As this has the WDDM driver for Windows Vista and higher. More often, this can be replaced by the DirectX 9c installed from steam applications. I also install it again every time I do a driver update.

 

There are many other options I can suggest, but a lot of it is tweaking, setting the graphics and seeing how it goes. I also reduce the number of visible character I select Medium. I will often get 80-90fps in most areas, battles are reduced to 50-60fps and Warzones will drop to the 30-40fps. Bioware need to put in more effort to optimise this game and provide boosts. They mentioned in the last producers live stream that there are some performance improvements coming, it would be good it it improved the overall game.

 

I hope this offers some help.

Ty very much. Anything helps until i change my MB and CPU to a more powerful one.

[TX_Angel]

Witcher 3

 

The i7-3770k is 2 years older than the i5-4690k and had a 1fps minimum advantage at the same speed. While still performing 11 watts cooler and using four more "cores". That's just one where it managed to do better. there are plenty where that i5 barely edged out that i7.

 

That is WELL within the margin of error... Looking at the entire chart, none of the CPUs make any real difference. The margin between all those CPUs is nearly zero...

 

What that chart tells me is that the game is either engine bound or GPU bound... Run it 10 more times and those numbers could easily switch. Run it on 10 different versions of those CPUs and it'll move 1 fps either way.

[Cadivus]

Thank you for allowing me to educate myself.

Letting more of that knowledge flow

Too much? If not there's always Wikipedia. Everyone loves to quote Wikipedia right?

 

I feel better now.

Amen.

[TX_Angel]

The modern stuff... Star Wars Battlefront, Fallout 4, the i7 stomps a mud hole in the i5.

SW Battlefront

Fallout 4

 

Again, I don't see what you do...

 

The i7-5930k doesn't really belong there, it has 6 true cores.

 

The i7-4790k wins, but it has a 500 MHz clock speed benefit over the i5 CPUs.

 

Run a i5-6600K at 4.0GHz with a turbo to 4.4, like the i7-4790K, and it'll be really close. Oh sure, the i7 might be 1 or 2 fps faster, but it is also a lot more money.

 

For most people, that money is better put into the GPU.

[FlyingUsPoo]

Again, I don't see what you do...

 

The i7-5930k doesn't really belong there, it has 6 true cores.

 

The i7-4790k wins, but it has a 500 MHz clock speed benefit over the i5 CPUs.

 

Run a i5-6600K at 4.0GHz with a turbo to 4.4, like the i7-4790K, and it'll be really close. Oh sure, the i7 might be 1 or 2 fps faster, but it is also a lot more money.

 

For most people, that money is better put into the GPU.

 

We've hijacked the thread with this...

 

If you want to compare chips, then atleast compare the ones with the same architecture...

 

The current top of the i5 food chain is the i5-6600k. The equivalent i7 is the i7-6700k, not the i7-4790K from 2014.

 

They don't compare equivalently. The i7-6700K base freq is 4Ghz and boosts to 4.2Ghz. The i5 doesn't get even boost the the i7's base.

 

Your solution is to even the field by overclocking the i5. Since not everyone over clocks,saying just "Run a i5-6600K at 4.0GHz with a turbo to 4.4, like the i7-4790K, and it'll be really close" is really... uh... bad. There's more to overclocking than just adjusting the settings in the BIOS and watching it go. Some of these people still by cartel packs by the multiple hypercrates. They start over clocking willy-nilly, they'll quickly find out that 2 i5's, 2 motherboards and a fire extinguisher are far more expensive than a i7.

Edited February 23, 2016 by FlyingUsPoo

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Witcher 3

 

The i7-3770k is 2 years older than the i5-4690k and had a 1fps minimum advantage at the same speed. While still performing 11 watts cooler and using four more "cores". That's just one where it managed to do better. there are plenty where that i5 barely edged out that i7.

 

Unless you are talking about something that was specifically designed to account for extra cores, and circumvents the limitations of directx to achieve it, no the i7 isn't going to do you a lot of good over the i5. However, in that same argument, beyond clockspeed the i5 isn't any better than the i3 either. Despite all the benchmarks to the contrary.

 

The modern stuff... Star Wars Battlefront, Fallout 4, the i7 stomps a mud hole in the i5.

SW Battlefront

Fallout 4

Finally, consoles set the target for game development. The Xbox one and the PS4 both cart around 8 cores. If you want to future proof your stuff, and you are in the market to upgrade, you should be modeling your computer after whats in the newest consoles.

 

Or phones - read an interesting article the other day on phones outperforming current gen consoles within 2 years.

Whilst I don't entirely buy it within that time frame it will be interesting to see what happens in say 5 years time ...

 

Consoles have that set life cycle per generation ( last gen 6+ years ) where as phones tend to get an upgrade every year ( with many retails offering a yearly upgrade service for an extra fee in your plan as it stands now ) and if they start having phones able to compete and beat the performance of consoles ( and say a simple dock station to get the console output and remove battery/storage as a factor ) well ... it could get interesting in the near future.

[TX_Angel]

We've hijacked the thread with this...

 

If you want to compare chips, then atleast compare the ones with the same architecture...

 

The current top of the i5 food chain is the i5-6600k. The equivalent i7 is the i7-6700k, not the i7-4790K from 2014.

 

There is no real difference in performance between a Haswell Refresh chip and a Skylake chip.

 

Skylake is about motherboard chipset features and a die shrink to 14nm, not speed. In many respects, a i7-4790k is faster than a i7-6700k because it turbos to 4.4GHz while the Skylake turbos only to 4.2GHz.

 

You're trying to make a point about i7 vs i5 based on 1 or 2 fps in a few tests picked out to make that point. I rather think your own examples point out the oppisite, there is no detectable difference between a i5 and a i7 for gaming. 87 fps on a i5 vs 88 fps on a i7 is not something a human can detect, even if it was consistent. Further, the i7 is a hundred dollars more expensive, money that would be far better put into a GPU.

 

There is simply no rational reason for anyone on a reasonable budget to put a i7 into a gaming machine. Oh sure, if you have the money and want the best, by all means.

 

If you're in the GTX 960 or GTX 970 budget range, an i7 is way out of place for gaming. For a $100 price increase from the i5 to the i7, I'd expect at least a 10% performance jump, and it just isn't there.

 

---

 

Frankly, for most people, I wouldn't suggest either chip. Unless you plan to overclock (which is the only reason to buy the K chips in the first place), the best bang for the buck is the i5-6500 Skylake chip running at 3.2GHz with a turbo to 3.6GHz. It installs nicely on a H170 board which also costs less and can be had with DDR3, which ALSO costs less.

 

Within a fixed budget:

 

i5-6500

H170 Motherboard

16GB DDR3

GTX 970

Total - $655

 

vs.

 

i7-6700k

Z170 Motherboard

16GB DDR4

GTX 950

Total - $760

 

So for $105 more, you get a reasonably more powerful CPU, but a FAR inferior GPU. If the only game you'll ever play is SWTOR, I might understand that trade, but for general gaming, the first system is far superior in being a "balanced" system.

 

In fact, for the same money of the second system, you can almost get to a GTX 980 card in the i5 system, which for most games will make a larger difference than the CPU will.

 

Of course, if you have $1,500 to spend, this becomes somewhat moot as you have more room to put stuff in there, but I think it is a waste of money for the average gamer.

[TX_Angel]

Your solution is to even the field by overclocking the i5. Since not everyone over clocks,saying just "Run a i5-6600K at 4.0GHz with a turbo to 4.4, like the i7-4790K, and it'll be really close" is really... uh... bad.

 

If you're not going to overclock, why in the world would you buy a K series chip? Buy a i5-6500 (or i5-6600 if you really want), save on the motherboard while you're at it too. The i5-6600K exists only to be overclocked, otherwise it serves no point.

 

As for it being "risky", nonsense. Buy a nice ASUS H170 D3 motherboard, ASUS provides automatic overclocking right in the bios, or via software from within Windows. The user doesn't actually have to do anything. It won't get 100% out of the chip, but it'll do well enough for most users.

Edited February 23, 2016 by TX_Angel

[Hunterr]

Might help a little. But i recently turned the npc visibility limit down to its lowest setting, since they all appeared to fade in and out of existence anyways on very high. And also set grass render to medium. Got a big enough boost from doing that I was able to change shadows from low to high and max the res on them and getting better performance and fps than before.