Is there an AM3+ CPU that gets me steady framerates?

Shrek

Hello!

I'm currently running NS2 with an AMD Phenom II X4 960T overclocked @3,6-3,9 GHz.

I get about 90-100 FPS when running around normally. As soon as I approach an enemy it drops to 50 FPS even early on. In lategame it can even get down to 30 FPS.

From what I've seen the game runs a lot better on Intel CPU's, but I want to avoid buying a new motherboard.

Does anyone here play NS2 on constant 60+ FPS with an AM3+ CPU? I'm talking about 12 player rounds not 24+ pubs.

NSL Lowlights is on. All graphics settings are on the lowest.

GPU: Zotac GTX 560ti 448 cores limited edition
RAM: 8gb Corsair XMS3 (I think 1333 mhz)
MB: Asrock 970Extreme4
Hard drive: Samsung SSD 830 128gb
OS: Windows 8.1 64bit

If there's no CPU for my needs I'll probably make a new build with a 140 Hz monitor.

Thanks in advance.

Nordic

No am3+ cpu will get you much better. When I ran a phenom 960 I never got as low as you did though.

Shrek

I was afraid to hear that. But there are some AMD FX CPUs with 4x4,0 GHz. Is that going to help?

Nordic

Shrek wrote: »

I was afraid to hear that. But there are some AMD FX CPUs with 4x4,0 GHz. Is that going to help?

This game needs single threaded performance mostly, which AMD in general is behind intel on. Phenoms last I heard had higher single threaded performance.

Omega_K2

Just FYI:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Shrek

Thanks for the help guys!

According to this list my CPU has a score of 1141 (Unfortunately I can't calculate my overclocking into that).
My brother runs this game absolutely smooth in competetive matches with his slightly overclocked i5-750 (Score 1135).

The strongest (affordable Quad core) AM3+ CPU in that list is the FX-4350. Has anyone experience with that model?
It's a small hope but I guess that I won't get around buying a new motherboard.

Hamlet

I had an Phenom II X2 which made for a great bargain because with the flick of a BIOS switch I was able to double the number of cores. Stable too. Even allowed for some undervolting.
One time, I played around with the settings and forgot to unlock all 4 cores again --> massively lower FPS in NS2. First I thought my GPU had taken some damage (?), but then it dawned upon me...

Although NS2's engine is just as shitty as Skyrim's regarding ridiculous over-reliance on CPU performance, 2 vs. 4 cores DO matter in Spark.
I don't remember the exact FPS numbers, but it was something like 35 vs. 60.

While everybody is advising you to upgrade your CPU, I think that's not where the big FPS gains are to be had. It's GPU all the way.
Before I upgraded my old HD6870 for an R9 270X I noted performance before vs. after. CPU stayed exactly the same (that old unlocked Phenom II X4 @ 3.2GHz).
_______
Will edit and add FPS after I'm back home to look up my screenshots.
OK, got the data.

HD6870 | Phenom II X4 @ 3.2GHz | 8GB DDR3-1333 | 1920x1200 | all NS2 graphics options maxed out = 39FPS
R9 270X | Phenom II X4 @ 3.2GHz | 8GB DDR3-1333 | 1920x1200 | all NS2 graphics options maxed out = 68FPS

That's a hefty 74% increase. I doubt you'd achieve that by dropping in a slightly faster CPU.
I'm also suspecting the fact that the new GPU has 2 instead of just 1 GB of VRAM to play into the results.

Shrek

Unlocking my Phenom from 4 to 6 cores only makes my system unstable. The classical overclock works out the best way to me.

I think my GPU is fine. I always have 0 or 1 ms waiting for GPU. The performance of my 448 cores GTX 560ti is almost the same as a GTX570. But I will check if I maybe overseen the waiting for GPU. Thanks!

Nordic

Ns2 only uses 2.5 cores so anything more than a quad core in unnecessary for ns2.

fastjaw24

I have a AMD 9590 with sli 670gtxs which I realize is basically the best AMD cpu you can get but it does pretty good in ns2. I can say I probably get between 90 to 100 fps on average at 1080 with all settings max but I turn infestation to minimum(I dont like it at max). I do not recall it falling under 60 but very rarely if its super extreme situation. Usually it sits at like 200 fps in the ready room. I remember there being a 8350 benchmark test where they were testing it overclocked in ns2 and it went from like high 60s to low 90s on a benchmark stock to overclocked. Seems once you overclock a little over the stock 8350 you really hit a sweet spot for NS2 benchmark it looks like. So you could fork out 330 for an AMD 9590 or what like 180 for an 8350 and overclock it. Keep in mind NS2 is not the best optimized games and really has crappy CPU load and does not put enough onto the video card like it should. Remember though depending on your budget the 9590 is not just an 8350 overclocked though. It is the same chip pretty much but its the cherry picked ones and will hold a higher overclock much more stable than the 8350. You could probably reach close to the non turbo speeds pretty stable with an 8350 though. Even cheaper you could pick up an 8320 and most of those will clock a little higher than an a stock 8350 and if I recall they were like what 140 bucks. Same chip just on the opposite end of cherry picked.

I get on single threaded performance most intel cpus are going to beat you that were made in the last few years but a 9590 has pretty good multi threaded performance. You can pretty much stream or record with an AMD 8 core and it pretty much will not lose a tick of fps where as if you had a quad intel you would probably drop down some depending on how fast it was. So there are still some benefits to having an AMD chip still over an Intel in NS2 but I think if you upgrade to a higher end AMD you will definitely like the performance you get in other games that are properly optimized. Hell if you got the money and want the best of everything then get a new MB and go with a 6 core intel. Wish I could find that benchmark test for you for ns2 and 8350 but can not seem to google it for the life of me.

Edit: To clarify on the fps...I notice you said you get 90 to 100 running around with no enemies I say mine can be around about 140 to 150. Only late game it gets down to like 70 fps in most battle situation. I think you would see almost double the performance on a 9590 over what you currently have. I came from a 2.8 quad athlon to that and it made the game a lot more enjoyable to play. Also keep in mind your 560ti would kinda hold you back on a faster processor too being its getting a little aged followed by its only 1gb card. Right now your card is probably exceeding your processor maybe by just a bit if any at all and a better processor you may not get the full benefit from from the card you got.

2nd Edit: So testing how this game runs on an 8 cores with the game running a few light background apps(steam,fraps,vent,etc) my cores come out with about 4 at apx 50 percent and 4 at apx 20 percent. I guess instead of going with a proven game engine they made their own and it shows. Extremely poor cpu utilization and the better the system you have the worse it seems to be. Reminds me of when they released Starcraft 2, wow was that game terrible on newer hardware.

Shrek

Ok. After the NSL season is over I'm going for a new MoBo/CPU/GPU.

Big thanks for the help!

Shrek

New motherboard and CPU has arrived. (i5-4670K)

The difference is like day and night. I can finally rely on aim and not on lagprediction