Need patch added optimization, very bad performance !

Tiger_ausf

Hi guys, 2 days ago bought this wonderful game but noticed a very bad performance. I play in minimal seetings with 1024 * 768 and average 25 - 35 fps! Its not funny ...
My configuration:
Amd athlon 2 x2 260 3.2 ghz
Geforce 9800 gtx 1 gb
4 gb ram
Windows 7
And sorry for my english because i live in Ukraine

IronHorse

<strike>I'm sorry but your system is below minimum requirements to play.</strike> You may just meet the minimum
:( Your system is pretty old, and i doubt you can buy those parts anywhere.

The minimum requirement is a Intel Core2 Duo @ 2.66GHz, and your CPU is around that, give or take

<a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+II+X2+260" target="_blank">http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php...thlon+II+X2+260</a>


sry again :(

NSDigi

<!--coloro:#2E8B57--><span style="color:#2E8B57"><!--/coloro-->Benchmarking only provides a quick look at performance and does not show true performance. Reading Minimum Requirements directly from the main page, he passes.
<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><img src="http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae241/DigiPhotobucket/Games/NS2_SS2.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />

IronHorse

Thats a pretty standard site for benchmarking that is used often, and while benchmarks aren't indicative of everything they are almost always spot on in regards to performance <b>and used in the industry as measures of such.</b> <strike>So he is still under the minimum required,</strike> NSDigi, because of the differences in architecture between AMD and Intel chips do not make their corresponding GHz equal in comparison. AMD x2 @ 3.2 ghz < Intel Core2 Duo @ 2.66 ghz

Thus, performance wise, there is not much you can do with that system...

Linksys_Router

^^^

Iron has the right idea here.

ultranewb

<!--quoteo(post=2028238:date=Nov 18 2012, 05:17 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Nov 18 2012, 05:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028238"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry but your system is below minimum requirements to play. :( Your system is pretty old, and i doubt you can buy those parts anywhere.

The minimum requirement is a Intel Core2 Duo @ 2.66GHz, and your CPU is slower than that:

<a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+II+X2+260" target="_blank">http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php...thlon+II+X2+260</a>


sry again :(<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Look again.

The X2 260 scores higher than the Intel Core2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66GHz on that chart. It also outscores many Duo Core 2's ranging from 2.6 to 3.0 Ghz.

NSDigi

<!--coloro:#2E8B57--><span style="color:#2E8B57"><!--/coloro-->That's not the point here, the point is that the main page says a duel core 2.66 GHz processor is required. He has more than that, going on the same logic as the minimum requirements are displayed. But, lets explore your logic for a second ... the exact processor was never specified, for example, there are a few Core2 Duo's clocked at 2.66 GHz
<ul><li>E6700 - PassMark of 1583</li><li>E6750 - PassMark of 1750</li><li>E8135 - PassMark of 1810</li></ul>Only one of those processors out perform his Athon 260, and again, is only by numbers through a benchmark. I suggest the reading of <a href="http://www.futuretech.blinkenlights.nl/perf.html" target="_blank"><b>this article</b></a> and rediscover your understanding of how PassMark benchmarks ...

Edit - Thank you <i>ultranewb</i>, you snuck in before me :)<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->

IronHorse

<i>I stand corrected,</i> there are in fact three Core2 Duos that can be counted as a minimum requirement (the one 3.0ghz doesnt have a model number so i dont trust it) and are below what the OP has.

Semantics aside now, being around the minimum requirements still doesn't mean that you should be expecting more than the current FPS you are receiving.
The game is very CPU demanding and minimum requirements for any game merely cover the ability "to run the game"
While i would typically list ways to get more FPS, i believe you probably have already tried them, and there's really no big gain to be had if you have everything to low already with that system.
So what i said earlier still stands
<!--quoteo(post=2028252:date=Nov 18 2012, 03:33 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Nov 18 2012, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028252"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thus, performance wise, there is not much you can do with that system...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Here would be a better comparison to the age of the system just for reference's sake:
<a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+II+X2+260&id=140" target="_blank">http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AM...+260&id=140</a>

ScardyBob

Being near the minimum requirements means your going to get minimal performance. An average of 25-30 fps is about what I'd expect with barely exceeding the minimum requirements.

METROID

Many years ago I've read in some gamer's magazine that matching the minimum requirements only guarantees starting the game. And no performance guarantee. While matching the recomended requirements guarantees you to run the game on medium settings with playable FPS. And I still think that's true.

Sampson

i still dont understand this... i get 50-35 fps with an OCed quad 3.0 ghz processor... yea, OCed to 3.0 ghz lol



Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 3.0ghz (OCed)
RAM: 4.00 GB
64-bit
Windows 7 Ultimate
Vid Card: ATI Radeon HD 5700

idk, it works for me....

kalv

Change NS.exe priority to high. That worked for me.

Tiger_ausf

Very strange i play in battlefield 3 multiplayer and avarage 45 -50 fps on high - medium seetings with 1280 * 960 and in this i have 25 fps with 1024 * 768.

Obraxis

<!--quoteo(post=2028525:date=Nov 19 2012, 07:41 AM:name=Tiger_ausf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tiger_ausf @ Nov 19 2012, 07:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028525"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Very strange i play in battlefield 3 multiplayer and avarage 45 -50 fps on high - medium seetings with 1280 * 960 and in this i have 25 fps with 1024 * 768.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Battlefield 3 has been optimized for consoles which are from the 2004-2005 era, with an engine team 40 times the size of UWE. That's nearly 8 years old specs from the consoles so it's understandable on your lowest PC settings you would get OK performance. NS2 is a brand new game and engine for PC only and does require a decent gaming PC to run. As Scardybob said, you will get minimum performance if you're at the minimum specs.

NS2 is always being optimized, so you can either wait a little longer or upgrade your PC, which is getting a bit long in the tooth now anyway.

A_Pajander

<!--quoteo(post=2028252:date=Nov 19 2012, 01:33 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Nov 19 2012, 01:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028252"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats a pretty standard site for benchmarking that is used often,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Their test seems to be heavily threaded though. There's no way an i7 will give 100% more performance over i5-2500k in games:

<a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2500K+%40+3.30GHz&id=804" target="_blank">http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=In...0GHz&id=804</a>

The performance increase you'll get from 2600k is maybe 10%. Not to mention those 8-core Bulldozers, which can't compete with a 2500k. Games still depend heavily on 1-2 cores so that's not the best benchmark if we're talking about a gaming rig.

ScardyBob

<!--quoteo(post=2028388:date=Nov 18 2012, 07:21 PM:name=Sampson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sampson @ Nov 18 2012, 07:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028388"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i still dont understand this... i get 50-35 fps with an OCed quad 3.0 ghz processor... yea, OCed to 3.0 ghz lol



Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 3.0ghz (OCed)
RAM: 4.00 GB
64-bit
Windows 7 Ultimate
Vid Card: ATI Radeon HD 5700

idk, it works for me....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clockspeed is only a rough rule-of-thumb. Architecture is starting to play more of role as AMD has been falling behind Intel in CPU gaming performance.