<!--quoteo(post=1963192:date=Aug 15 2012, 04:09 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Aug 15 2012, 04:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963192"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm actually wondering if this is still true after looking at <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=119900&st=0&p=1961695&#entry1961695" target="_blank">this guys benchmark</a>. The only serious difference between the setups is the GPU.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I noticed something similar when i upgrades from my old GTX460 which was overclocked to a new AMD HD 7850 which i heavily overclocked to even higher clocks than the 7870. My framerate increased by a huge amount, but only early-midgame, lategame with lots of heavy fighting my fps still were the same. AMD x6 1090T @3,8ghz here, most of the time in the endgame one core was almost maxxed out while the others were near to idle status. So the GPU upgrade DID help but only where my old fps already were playable anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1963598:date=Aug 15 2012, 02:10 PM:name=Security)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Security @ Aug 15 2012, 02:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963598"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because there have to be consistant conditions for benchmarking, to produce useful and easy to compare results.
Thats the sole purpose of the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=119506" target="_blank">Benchmark Thread's</a> Guidelines, which I linked to him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what does that have to do with this conversation? We are discussing minimum and recommended dystem requirements. He claimed it ran fine, and I doubt he was claiming that performance was on every/max settings. So what exactly does this benchmark do for the conversation? If he came back with a 0 fps, it wouldn't prove him wrong as that wasn't his claim.
<!--quoteo(post=1962985:date=Aug 14 2012, 04:56 PM:name=Security)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Security @ Aug 14 2012, 04:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962985"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, I will be looking forward to that massive performance increase then. ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's too bad your possibly genuine statement is overflowing with sarcasm and pessimism.
MiniH0wie is right: the specifications are for 1.0 and there just isn't any logical reason to argue against it at this point. Almost every patch at this point is seeing increases in both server and client side performance.
Specifications are guidelines. They never say at what resolution you are playing in. People trying to play in 1080p with all the eye candy set to max trying to get 60 fps on a old dual core / dx9 setup are going to be disappointed.
SecurityJoin Date: 2005-01-07Member: 33133Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1963602:date=Aug 15 2012, 09:17 PM:name=lumina)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lumina @ Aug 15 2012, 09:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what does that have to do with this conversation? We are discussing minimum and recommended dystem requirements. He claimed it ran fine, and I doubt he was claiming that performance was on every/max settings. So what exactly does this benchmark do for the conversation? If he came back with a 0 fps, it wouldn't prove him wrong as that wasn't his claim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is offtopic, yes.
I picked up on it, because it's so blatantly untrue.
He claims to have 60-90 stable FPS throughout a whole game with a 3.4 GHZ CPU, while participants of the Benchmark Thread barely get 60 average FPS with CPU's clocked as high as 4.5 GHZ or more.
Not to mention the "NS2 isn't CPU bound!" claims.
I don't like it when people glorify NS2's performance problem with untrue nonsense. :P
<!--quoteo(post=1963603:date=Aug 15 2012, 09:20 PM:name=dethovu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dethovu @ Aug 15 2012, 09:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's too bad your possibly genuine statement is <b>overflowing with sarcasm and pessimism.</b>
MiniH0wie is right: the specifications are for 1.0 and there just isn't any logical reason to argue against it at this point. Almost every patch at this point is seeing increases in both server and client side performance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's sarcasm??? sorry, you but here's some serious pessimism (if you don't mind): we are at half august right now. we have patches every 1.5 weeks. that leaves them, max <b>4-5 patches</b> before they have to release version 1.0 (if they actually release end of summer)
the game feels bugged like, well.... like a game that has much bugs. too put it mildly.
-> <b>4-5 patches</b>, in which UWE will have to have MAYOR ammount of bugs sqaushed, not to mention CPU performance and movement/hitbox mechanic issues!
if you believe that they will pull this off, then fine. I just think that they won't.
-> the above is fine with someone like me.... because I know I can and will put up with it, because I love what UWE does really . I just don't think it's WISE, considering they will probably loose a massive ammount of players if they do release the game in a state which is only somewhat better then it is now. Not to mention the reviews.... bye bye new players... bye bye $$$$$$$$$
off course I know they will continue to polish after 1.0 -> but most new players wouldn't care less, they bought a game, and they'll want to play it the moment they bought it. if some bugs annoy them, they will just put this game aside. remember you can't keep a game in 'beta state' after 1.0, this is not a free mod anymore like NS1 is!!!!!!
Look at an exemplary company like Valve (I'll admit they might have more resources to do so but...), would they release a game to the public if it was in such a state?? no, they'll just postpone it untill it's GOOD, currently it just feels like UWE is pushing it out madly.
<!--quoteo(post=1963599:date=Aug 15 2012, 03:13 PM:name=XeiZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (XeiZ @ Aug 15 2012, 03:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963599"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I noticed something similar when i upgrades from my old GTX460 which was overclocked to a new AMD HD 7850 which i heavily overclocked to even higher clocks than the 7870. My framerate increased by a huge amount, but only early-midgame, lategame with lots of heavy fighting my fps still were the same. AMD x6 1090T @3,8ghz here, most of the time in the endgame one core was almost maxxed out while the others were near to idle status. So the GPU upgrade DID help but only where my old fps already were playable anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah, at the beginning of the game there isn't as much game logic being executed, esp at low playercounts. that means the gpu is free to do whatever it wants. late game when there's lots of structures and infestation and ######, then it starts chugging. wonder if there's any benefit to GPGPU on the newer cards too.
<!--quoteo(post=1963436:date=Aug 15 2012, 08:34 AM:name=darkfiction)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darkfiction @ Aug 15 2012, 08:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I did benchmark<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you didn't read, let's try it again: "Why don't you do the obvious, conclusive test? Benchmark, <b>then set the resolution to something god-awful and benchmark again</b>. If there is no major difference then you're CPU bound."
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1963602:date=Aug 15 2012, 12:17 PM:name=lumina)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lumina @ Aug 15 2012, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what does that have to do with this conversation? We are discussing minimum and recommended dystem requirements. He claimed it ran fine, and I doubt he was claiming that performance was on every/max settings. So what exactly does this benchmark do for the conversation? If he came back with a 0 fps, it wouldn't prove him wrong as that wasn't his claim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Benchmarking is relevant, because the system requirements are generally set at an acceptable performance level. The most common measure of client performance in first-person shooters are fps, so the system requirements would be something like 'X hardware is needed to get a min of Y fps'. The biggest problem is that what people consider acceptable fps varies drastically.
SecurityJoin Date: 2005-01-07Member: 33133Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1963641:date=Aug 15 2012, 10:39 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Aug 15 2012, 10:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963641"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Benchmarking is relevant, because the system requirements are generally set at an acceptable performance level. The most common measure of client performance in first-person shooters are fps, so the system requirements would be something like 'X hardware is needed to get a min of Y fps'. The biggest problem is that what people consider acceptable fps varies drastically.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
So I popped open Task Manager and Windows Performance Monitor while NS2 was running and, sure enough, its still mostly on one core: <a href="http://imgur.com/byxjG" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/byxjGl.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
<!--quoteo(post=1963813:date=Aug 15 2012, 11:25 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Aug 15 2012, 11:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963813"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So I popped open Task Manager and Windows Performance Monitor while NS2 was running and, sure enough, its still mostly on one core: <a href="http://imgur.com/byxjG" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/byxjGl.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just did the same today and was surprised to see an even distribution of 50% load on all four cores. I want to test it again in a longer game with more structures and turtling but it seems to run counter to what everyone else is seeing.
SecurityJoin Date: 2005-01-07Member: 33133Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1963822:date=Aug 16 2012, 07:00 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Aug 16 2012, 07:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963822"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just did the same today and was surprised to see an even distribution of 50% load on all four cores. I want to test it again in a longer game with more structures and turtling but it seems to run counter to what everyone else is seeing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What CPU and clock speeds do you have? Is Hyper-Threading on? If so, turn it off. There have been some attempts to explain why it shows 50% load like that, while its actually using / maxing out only one core on page 3 of this thread.
NS2 doesn't have proper Multicore Support yet, so it should look somewhat like on ScardyBob's Screenhot. Afaik it creates one main thread, using / maxing out one core and one small side thread on a different core, which handles the physics and isn't really worth mentioning performance-wise.
You should also test it in a full server lategame with many structures, as you said.
<!--quoteo(post=1963822:date=Aug 16 2012, 05:00 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Aug 16 2012, 05:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963822"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just did the same today and was surprised to see an even distribution of 50% load on all four cores. I want to test it again in a longer game with more structures and turtling but it seems to run counter to what everyone else is seeing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's Windows rapidly shifting the thread's core-affinity, far faster than the measure-interval of the task-mananger, as such it looks as if it does something on all cores simultaneously, while in fact it does not. Ask yourself this question: If NS2 only uses 50% of every one of your cores, why isn't your FPS 100+ all the time (GPU-bottleneck notwithstanding)?
I can go from full texture detail and every eyecandy setting on @ 1920x1080, to everything on low and off @ 680x480 and theres absolutely 0 difference in my fps.
Then, with the cpu overclocking from 3.4ghz to 5.0ghz you can definitely see a difference at every stage of the round.
So, its pretty easy to conclude that its not GPU bottlenecking in any way at this point. Only time youre going to have trouble is when you have a really old gpu, and if it doesnt have enough texture memory.
<!--quoteo(post=1963839:date=Aug 16 2012, 01:08 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Aug 16 2012, 01:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's Windows rapidly shifting the thread's core-affinity, far faster than the measure-interval of the task-mananger, as such it looks as if it does something on all cores simultaneously, while in fact it does not. Ask yourself this question: If NS2 only uses 50% of every one of your cores, why isn't your FPS 100+ all the time (GPU-bottleneck notwithstanding)?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was making an observation, not a conclusion. Plus my GPU was at 98-99%
<!--quoteo(post=1963861:date=Aug 16 2012, 03:06 AM:name=LPC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LPC @ Aug 16 2012, 03:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963861"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is there even any game out there that utilizes 6 cores?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There are some other applications that take advantage of 6 cores but few if any games.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1963861:date=Aug 16 2012, 01:06 AM:name=LPC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LPC @ Aug 16 2012, 01:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963861"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have a 2.8 Ghz AMD Hexacore (6 cores)
my framerate mostly drops to 10-20 fps in combat situations.
I probably should have just bought a much higher clocked dual core?
Is there even any game out there that utilizes 6 cores?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm a fan of fairly high clocked quad cores because they - Give good gaming performance - Still have decent performance when using heavily multi-threaded programs (mostly video editting and Excel)
<!--quoteo(post=1963641:date=Aug 15 2012, 03:39 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Aug 15 2012, 03:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963641"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Benchmarking is relevant, because the system requirements are generally set at an acceptable performance level. The most common measure of client performance in first-person shooters are fps, so the system requirements would be something like 'X hardware is needed to get a min of Y fps'. The biggest problem is that what people consider acceptable fps varies drastically.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. No game basis their requirements off of max settings. None. I can list a ton of games that can't be played on max settings with their recommended system requirements. Well, at least not with acceptable performance.
But, what does your post have to do with what I asked? The guy claimed his game ran fine. The response was to max out his graphics and prove that it ran fine. How do you not see the lack of common sense in this request?
SecurityJoin Date: 2005-01-07Member: 33133Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1964035:date=Aug 16 2012, 08:39 PM:name=lumina)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lumina @ Aug 16 2012, 08:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wrong. No game basis their requirements off of max settings. None. I can list a ton of games that can't be played on max settings with their recommended system requirements. Well, at least not with acceptable performance.
But, what does your post have to do with what I asked? The guy claimed his game ran fine. The response was to max out his graphics and prove that it ran fine. How do you not see the lack of common sense in this request?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1964040:date=Aug 16 2012, 01:53 PM:name=Security)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Security @ Aug 16 2012, 01:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What exactly do you want? I can't follow you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you not follow?
1. No company basis required, or recommended, requirements on maxed settings. There are many games that come out before the required hardware is even available for them to be run on max settings. The most famous of these would be Crysis. The first one came out without there being any single graphics card that could run it on max settings.
You, and this other guy, keep claiming the exact opposite of this reality.
2. None of this makes sense anyways. A guy claimed his game ran fine. You told him to prove it. He did. You then claimed the game had to run fine on max settings, which is something he never claimed. I point this out and get responses that don't even make sense. You and this other guy just keep claiming this benchmark means something. It doesn't mean anything. It can't prove the point of the OP, and it clearly doesn't prove that guy wrong.
If you are still confused, I will be glad to say it again. What is this, like the third time now?
SecurityJoin Date: 2005-01-07Member: 33133Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1964073:date=Aug 16 2012, 09:45 PM:name=lumina)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lumina @ Aug 16 2012, 09:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What do you not follow?
1. No company basis required, or recommended, requirements on maxed settings. There are many games that come out before the required hardware is even available for them to be run on max settings. The most famous of these would be Crysis. The first one came out without there being any single graphics card that could run it on max settings.
You, and this other guy, keep claiming the exact opposite of this reality.
2. None of this makes sense anyways. A guy claimed his game ran fine. You told him to prove it. He did. You then claimed the game had to run fine on max settings, which is something he never claimed. I point this out and get responses that don't even make sense. You and this other guy just keep claiming this benchmark means something. It doesn't mean anything. It can't prove the point of the OP, and it clearly doesn't prove that guy wrong.
If you are still confused, I will be glad to say it again. What is this, like the third time now?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1: the game is CPU limited, so you HAVE to benchmark on low and high if you want to be sure the CPU/GPU is actually making a diffirence. this is however <u>irrelevant</u> if you just want to claim the game runs fine on your rig! (I agree with lumina)
2. a game only runs fine when it <u>never</u> drops below 30fps or so, and even that is consider NOT fine by MANY gamers.
-> his benchmarks _did_ show him dropping below 30 fps, and that almost happens when you need it THE MOST -> in combat. so that is just not really good basically. depends on what you think is 'fine'.
edit: just read Security's post below: apparently he did a benchmark in the readyroom.... this is a beginners-mistake...
SecurityJoin Date: 2005-01-07Member: 33133Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1964108:date=Aug 16 2012, 11:08 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Aug 16 2012, 11:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964108"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not a big deal anyway. Turning all the graphic settings down barley makes any difference at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True.
However, that he didn't benchmark with the highest graphic settings, as noted in the Benchmark Thread Guidelines, indicates that he probably didn't pay attention to the guidelines at all.
So he might have just benchmarked in the readyroom, like on his screenshots. Which would explain his unrealistic claims of stable 60-90 FPS with his 3.4 Ghz CPU. Thats why I asked him to do it again, taking account of the guidelines this time.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1964035:date=Aug 16 2012, 11:39 AM:name=lumina)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lumina @ Aug 16 2012, 11:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wrong. No game basis their requirements off of max settings. None. I can list a ton of games that can't be played on max settings with their recommended system requirements. Well, at least not with acceptable performance.
But, what does your post have to do with what I asked? The guy claimed his game ran fine. The response was to max out his graphics and prove that it ran fine. How do you not see the lack of common sense in this request?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> NS2 is a bit different from many games because its mostly CPU bottlenecked (few other games are) and, therefore, disabling graphical options usually only nets you a small 5-10% improvement in framerate. Benchmarking at max or low settings will not give very different results.
Also, darkfiction's benchmark is about what I'd except from his specs (Ivy Bridge i5 + 5850's) and I'd agree that its playable (I have a similar setup with a 2500k OC'd to 4.5 and 6950, with my latest benchmark being 53.7 fps ranging from 0 to 89). However, these are extremely powerful systems we have and that we can barely stay about 30fps is problematic (my system frequently stays in the triple digit fps range in other FPS games, such as L4D1/2).
Comments
I noticed something similar when i upgrades from my old GTX460 which was overclocked to a new AMD HD 7850 which i heavily overclocked to even higher clocks than the 7870.
My framerate increased by a huge amount, but only early-midgame, lategame with lots of heavy fighting my fps still were the same. AMD x6 1090T @3,8ghz here, most of the time in the endgame one core was almost maxxed out while the others were near to idle status. So the GPU upgrade DID help but only where my old fps already were playable anyway.
Thats the sole purpose of the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=119506" target="_blank">Benchmark Thread's</a> Guidelines, which I linked to him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what does that have to do with this conversation? We are discussing minimum and recommended dystem requirements. He claimed it ran fine, and I doubt he was claiming that performance was on every/max settings. So what exactly does this benchmark do for the conversation? If he came back with a 0 fps, it wouldn't prove him wrong as that wasn't his claim.
It's too bad your possibly genuine statement is overflowing with sarcasm and pessimism.
MiniH0wie is right: the specifications are for 1.0 and there just isn't any logical reason to argue against it at this point. Almost every patch at this point is seeing increases in both server and client side performance.
Specifications are guidelines. They never say at what resolution you are playing in. People trying to play in 1080p with all the eye candy set to max trying to get 60 fps on a old dual core / dx9 setup are going to be disappointed.
It is offtopic, yes.
I picked up on it, because it's so blatantly untrue.
He claims to have 60-90 stable FPS throughout a whole game with a 3.4 GHZ CPU, while participants of the Benchmark Thread barely get 60 average FPS with CPU's clocked as high as 4.5 GHZ or more.
Not to mention the "NS2 isn't CPU bound!" claims.
I don't like it when people glorify NS2's performance problem with untrue nonsense. :P
MiniH0wie is right: the specifications are for 1.0 and there just isn't any logical reason to argue against it at this point. Almost every patch at this point is seeing increases in both server and client side performance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's sarcasm??? sorry, you but here's some serious pessimism (if you don't mind): we are at half august right now. we have patches every 1.5 weeks. that leaves them, max <b>4-5 patches</b> before they have to release version 1.0 (if they actually release end of summer)
the game feels bugged like, well.... like a game that has much bugs. too put it mildly.
-> <b>4-5 patches</b>, in which UWE will have to have MAYOR ammount of bugs sqaushed, not to mention CPU performance and movement/hitbox mechanic issues!
if you believe that they will pull this off, then fine. I just think that they won't.
-> the above is fine with someone like me.... because I know I can and will put up with it, because I love what UWE does really
. I just don't think it's WISE, considering they will probably loose a massive ammount of players if they do release the game in a state which is only somewhat better then it is now. Not to mention the reviews.... bye bye new players... bye bye $$$$$$$$$
off course I know they will continue to polish after 1.0 -> but most new players wouldn't care less, they bought a game, and they'll want to play it the moment they bought it. if some bugs annoy them, they will just put this game aside. remember you can't keep a game in 'beta state' after 1.0, this is not a free mod anymore like NS1 is!!!!!!
Look at an exemplary company like Valve (I'll admit they might have more resources to do so but...), would they release a game to the public if it was in such a state?? no, they'll just postpone it untill it's GOOD, currently it just feels like UWE is pushing it out madly.
/end of pessimism.
/going to sleep now
My framerate increased by a huge amount, but only early-midgame, lategame with lots of heavy fighting my fps still were the same. AMD x6 1090T @3,8ghz here, most of the time in the endgame one core was almost maxxed out while the others were near to idle status. So the GPU upgrade DID help but only where my old fps already were playable anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah, at the beginning of the game there isn't as much game logic being executed, esp at low playercounts. that means the gpu is free to do whatever it wants. late game when there's lots of structures and infestation and ######, then it starts chugging. wonder if there's any benefit to GPGPU on the newer cards too.
But you didn't read, let's try it again:
"Why don't you do the obvious, conclusive test? Benchmark, <b>then set the resolution to something god-awful and benchmark again</b>. If there is no major difference then you're CPU bound."
Benchmarking is relevant, because the system requirements are generally set at an acceptable performance level. The most common measure of client performance in first-person shooters are fps, so the system requirements would be something like 'X hardware is needed to get a min of Y fps'. The biggest problem is that what people consider acceptable fps varies drastically.
Correct, thanks.
<a href="http://imgur.com/byxjG" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/byxjGl.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
<a href="http://imgur.com/byxjG" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/byxjGl.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just did the same today and was surprised to see an even distribution of 50% load on all four cores. I want to test it again in a longer game with more structures and turtling but it seems to run counter to what everyone else is seeing.
What CPU and clock speeds do you have? Is Hyper-Threading on? If so, turn it off.
There have been some attempts to explain why it shows 50% load like that, while its actually using / maxing out only one core on page 3 of this thread.
NS2 doesn't have proper Multicore Support yet, so it should look somewhat like on ScardyBob's Screenhot.
Afaik it creates one main thread, using / maxing out one core and one small side thread on a different core, which handles the physics and isn't really worth mentioning performance-wise.
You should also test it in a full server lategame with many structures, as you said.
It's Windows rapidly shifting the thread's core-affinity, far faster than the measure-interval of the task-mananger, as such it looks as if it does something on all cores simultaneously, while in fact it does not. Ask yourself this question: If NS2 only uses 50% of every one of your cores, why isn't your FPS 100+ all the time (GPU-bottleneck notwithstanding)?
Then, with the cpu overclocking from 3.4ghz to 5.0ghz you can definitely see a difference at every stage of the round.
So, its pretty easy to conclude that its not GPU bottlenecking in any way at this point. Only time youre going to have trouble is when you have a really old gpu, and if it doesnt have enough texture memory.
I was making an observation, not a conclusion.
Plus my GPU was at 98-99%
my framerate mostly drops to 10-20 fps in combat situations.
I probably should have just bought a much higher clocked dual core?
Is there even any game out there that utilizes 6 cores?
There are some other applications that take advantage of 6 cores but few if any games.
my framerate mostly drops to 10-20 fps in combat situations.
I probably should have just bought a much higher clocked dual core?
Is there even any game out there that utilizes 6 cores?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, for gaming you unfortunaly are better off with a Dual- or Quadcore, clocked as high as possible.
There are very few games making good use of multithreading. And even if they do, they usually use a maximum of 2-4 cores.
More cores are always nice to have, but you should primarily go for the highest clock speed possible, as most games will just use one core anyways.
my framerate mostly drops to 10-20 fps in combat situations.
I probably should have just bought a much higher clocked dual core?
Is there even any game out there that utilizes 6 cores?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a fan of fairly high clocked quad cores because they
- Give good gaming performance
- Still have decent performance when using heavily multi-threaded programs (mostly video editting and Excel)
Wrong. No game basis their requirements off of max settings. None. I can list a ton of games that can't be played on max settings with their recommended system requirements. Well, at least not with acceptable performance.
But, what does your post have to do with what I asked? The guy claimed his game ran fine. The response was to max out his graphics and prove that it ran fine. How do you not see the lack of common sense in this request?
But, what does your post have to do with what I asked? The guy claimed his game ran fine. The response was to max out his graphics and prove that it ran fine. How do you not see the lack of common sense in this request?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What exactly do you want? I can't follow you.
What do you not follow?
1. No company basis required, or recommended, requirements on maxed settings. There are many games that come out before the required hardware is even available for them to be run on max settings. The most famous of these would be Crysis. The first one came out without there being any single graphics card that could run it on max settings.
You, and this other guy, keep claiming the exact opposite of this reality.
2. None of this makes sense anyways. A guy claimed his game ran fine. You told him to prove it. He did. You then claimed the game had to run fine on max settings, which is something he never claimed. I point this out and get responses that don't even make sense. You and this other guy just keep claiming this benchmark means something. It doesn't mean anything. It can't prove the point of the OP, and it clearly doesn't prove that guy wrong.
If you are still confused, I will be glad to say it again. What is this, like the third time now?
1. No company basis required, or recommended, requirements on maxed settings. There are many games that come out before the required hardware is even available for them to be run on max settings. The most famous of these would be Crysis. The first one came out without there being any single graphics card that could run it on max settings.
You, and this other guy, keep claiming the exact opposite of this reality.
2. None of this makes sense anyways. A guy claimed his game ran fine. You told him to prove it. He did. You then claimed the game had to run fine on max settings, which is something he never claimed. I point this out and get responses that don't even make sense. You and this other guy just keep claiming this benchmark means something. It doesn't mean anything. It can't prove the point of the OP, and it clearly doesn't prove that guy wrong.
If you are still confused, I will be glad to say it again. What is this, like the third time now?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="http://security.anti-cheat.com/wat_.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
1: the game is CPU limited, so you HAVE to benchmark on low and high if you want to be sure the CPU/GPU is actually making a diffirence. this is however <u>irrelevant</u> if you just want to claim the game runs fine on your rig! (I agree with lumina)
2. a game only runs fine when it <u>never</u> drops below 30fps or so, and even that is consider NOT fine by MANY gamers.
-> his benchmarks _did_ show him dropping below 30 fps, and that almost happens when you need it THE MOST -> in combat. so that is just not really good basically. depends on what you think is 'fine'.
edit: just read Security's post below: apparently he did a benchmark in the readyroom.... this is a beginners-mistake...
True.
However, that he didn't benchmark with the highest graphic settings, as noted in the Benchmark Thread Guidelines, indicates that he probably didn't pay attention to the guidelines at all.
So he might have just benchmarked in the readyroom, like on his screenshots. Which would explain his unrealistic claims of stable 60-90 FPS with his 3.4 Ghz CPU.
Thats why I asked him to do it again, taking account of the guidelines this time.
<i>(Maybe even lumina gets it this time. :p)</i>
But, what does your post have to do with what I asked? The guy claimed his game ran fine. The response was to max out his graphics and prove that it ran fine. How do you not see the lack of common sense in this request?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS2 is a bit different from many games because its mostly CPU bottlenecked (few other games are) and, therefore, disabling graphical options usually only nets you a small 5-10% improvement in framerate. Benchmarking at max or low settings will not give very different results.
Also, darkfiction's benchmark is about what I'd except from his specs (Ivy Bridge i5 + 5850's) and I'd agree that its playable (I have a similar setup with a 2500k OC'd to 4.5 and 6950, with my latest benchmark being 53.7 fps ranging from 0 to 89). However, these are extremely powerful systems we have and that we can barely stay about 30fps is problematic (my system frequently stays in the triple digit fps range in other FPS games, such as L4D1/2).