<!--quoteo(post=2052654:date=Dec 28 2012, 11:15 PM:name=YMICrazy502)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (YMICrazy502 @ Dec 28 2012, 11:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052654"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There was a benchmark thread already if anyone wants to look at detailed results
C2Q Q6600 @ 3.15 Ghz ATI 7850 @ 1050/1450 Mhz 4GB DDR2/1111 5-5-5-15 Graphics @ Max
I average around 50 fps while out of combat and I dip down to about 30 fps in intense combat. The CPU is the bottleneck when the lag hits. I see full core utilization on 2 of my cores while my 2 other cores sit idling. My GPU never goes above 80% utilization.
<!--quoteo(post=2052663:date=Dec 29 2012, 04:49 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Dec 29 2012, 04:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052663"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well thankfully no one else seems to agree with your opinion so have a nice day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's like watching 2 children fighting over which children show is the best, pointless. Software benchmark are more accurate, /thread. Yet you still need to trust the person posting them that they are truthful about settings and haven't altered the result, /thread.
<!--quoteo(post=2052872:date=Dec 29 2012, 07:42 AM:name=SanCo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SanCo @ Dec 29 2012, 07:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052872"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's like watching 2 children fighting over which children show is the best, pointless. Software benchmark are more accurate, /thread. Yet you still need to trust the person posting them that they are truthful about settings and haven't altered the result, /thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you're like the little girl who thinks she knows best I guess. What possessed you to try and solve a dispute that was already over?
I don't see how a C2D could average above 40. I tried disabling HT and limiting my cores to 2 on my i7 and my average performance tanked all the way to 40fps. So NS2 does benefit from multiple cores and HT technologies in some way.
<!--quoteo(post=2052644:date=Dec 29 2012, 03:41 PM:name=AlphaWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AlphaWolf @ Dec 29 2012, 03:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052644"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here are the results I have for a system that I built almost two years ago, and even then it was considered mid-range:
I created a totally unrealistic scenario: spawned 10 exos, 10 regular marines, 6 or so onos, 8 or so fades, 6 or so skulks, and 8 or so lerks all in the data core hive room in ns2_summit with full infestation. In addition, I also dropped about 20 crags, a few shifts (and maxed out their egg deployment) and all upgrades. I then went lerk and spammed spores and umbra all over the room. All graphic settings are at their maximum. Tried with and without shades to stealth all of the aliens.
Try as I might, I couldn't get the FPS to drop below 33 (measured with fraps.) Here are my specs:
As I stated earlier, this isn't exactly a high end system, and 33fps isn't bad at all, and given how unrealistic of a scenario I created, I can't see it staying that low on a regular basis. I'm also running windows 8 (with metro apps removed) if that matters to anybody.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 7850 came out <i>this year</i>, in Feb/March, there is no way this rig is almost 2 years old.
<!--quoteo(post=2053056:date=Dec 29 2012, 06:00 PM:name=SrsSarcasM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SrsSarcasM @ Dec 29 2012, 06:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053056"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The 7850 came out <i>this year</i>, in Feb/March, there is no way this rig is almost 2 years old.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The processor is technically 2 years old. A 2600K @ 4.4 though? That's still considered a high end system.
This is at 1024x768. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Zick/Junk/PC/ns2fps_zps93e54172.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
This is at 1152x864. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Zick/Junk/PC/ns2fps1152x864_zps7b062c49.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
This is at 1280x1024. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Zick/Junk/PC/ns2fps1280x1024_zpsc700a173.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Checked out ns2 on my old rig (q6600@3ghz with gtx 275) and i have to say i'm quite disappointed, especially considering that something like this is what the average player might have.
While fps can go as high as 60-80, its usually dropping below 30 where/when it matters. (lowest settings possible and 720p instead of my monitors native res of 1080p) Those drops cause mouselag, stutter - all the lovely stuff that you like while playing fast competitive fps games.
Its a horrible experience playing like that. (after testing it on 5 different servers[since i wanted to be fair and test it only on the best possible servers] i <b><u>never want to touch ns2 on this pc again</u></b>)
I feel kinda ashamed that i dared to whine about performance every now and then playing mainly on an i5@4.2ghz... (you also have big fps drops etc and need to play on minimum settings with a pc like that - but at least you can enjoy playing the majority of the time)
I just now really understand the ppl with their performance whine posts saying, "but i can run other games on..." (this ######ty pc can really handle every modern game on decent settings...)
<!--quoteo(post=2053181:date=Dec 29 2012, 11:50 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Dec 29 2012, 11:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053181"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just now really understand the ppl with their performance whine posts saying, "but i can run other games on..." (this ######ty pc can really handle every modern game on decent settings...)
NS2 performance is worse than i thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea I made my PC 2 years ago and it is holding up fairly well. The worse it gets is 40ish during gigantic battles with spores and grenades etc. But I also have to wonder if people leave because they keep getting killed over and over due to their computer's performance. I have previously refused to play games that ran like crap on my PC just because I felt so helpless and useless to the team not being able to shoot anything. Most popular games have low requirements and so it is something to think about. But I have to wonder if it is partly the lua scripting. We had an entire team of around 9-10 gorges rush our home base and each of them built 3 hydras and kept healing each other till we could barely move in the slideshow.
NVIDIA System Information report created on: 12/29/2012 23:58:16 <!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>FPS: 60 in ready room, 30 by late-game in 20 player server.
</b><b>Processor: Intel i7 920 @ 2.93 Ghz
</b><b>Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-bit (Service Pack 1) </b> <b>GPU processor: GeForce GTX 560 Ti (x2 in SLi)<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></b> <!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Driver version: 310.70 CUDA Cores: 384 Core clock: 835 MHz Shader clock: 1670 MHz Memory data rate: 4000 MHz Memory interface: 256-bit Memory bandwidth: 128.00 GB/s Total available graphics memory: 3835 MB Dedicated video memory: 1024 MB GDDR5 System video memory: 0 MB Shared system memory: 2811 MB <!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
4850 is a bottleneck? I doubt it, even with that CPU you have. You can run the game low everything 800x600 and still get terrible fps, NS2's lack of optimization is in the code that always runs despite your settings. Soccerguy you should probably disable SLI, as it's not doing much for FPS.
<!--quoteo(post=2053259:date=Dec 30 2012, 06:35 AM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 30 2012, 06:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053259"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4850 is a bottleneck? I doubt it, even with that CPU you have. You can run the game low everything 800x600 and still get terrible fps, NS2's lack of optimization is in the code that always runs despite your settings. Soccerguy you should probably disable SLI, as it's not doing much for FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure how you figure a 4850 isn't a bottleneck?
It's a very old card.
This article shows that even an i5-750 @ 4GHz running a GTX 460 the GPU is the main bottle neck and benefits from a better card. <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bottleneck,2737.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-p...eneck,2737.html</a>
And even though it's only an i5-750 and I have a 2500k, clock for clock there isn't much difference between them. <a href="http://semiaccurate.com/2011/01/02/intel-core-i7-2500k-review/" target="_blank">http://semiaccurate.com/2011/01/02/intel-c...7-2500k-review/</a>
Now a GTX 460 compared to a 4850; GTX 460 G3D Mark: 2669 HD4850 G3D Mark: 1040
I just did the first two steps in the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=117259" target="_blank">Performance thread</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2053346:date=Dec 30 2012, 01:29 PM:name=MiniH0wie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MiniH0wie @ Dec 30 2012, 01:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This article shows that even an i5-750 @ 4GHz running a GTX 460 the GPU is the main bottle neck and benefits from a better card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In any other game that isn't NS2 this would be true. I can get 250 frames in empty rooms and it's still not limited by GPU.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
Intel i7 930 running at 2.8 + hyperthreading. (4 cores, 8 'cores') 6GB memory crucial SSD + standard datadisks. (NS/steam is on the slower datadisks) gainward phantom gforce 570 nice broadband connection Win 7 Pro, 64b, fully patched.
All drivers updated to latest. resolution is 1920*1080 I run fullscreen windowed without vsync.
pretty much everything in NS2 is set to max / on, except particles (low), ambien occlusion (off), and the experimental one.
Below image is a graph made from fps from a match in NS2 with fraps. As it pretty much stays at 30+ on its low values I find it pretty ok to play with, personally.
<!--quoteo(post=2053423:date=Dec 30 2012, 02:36 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 30 2012, 02:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053423"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In any other game that isn't NS2 this would be true. I can get 250 frames in empty rooms and it's still not limited by GPU.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This below just proves my point that my GPU is holding me back. Below has a slower clock speed but a better card and running at a higher resolution with more setting on high and manages to get better FPS than I'm getting. I run everything on low and at low resolution 1280x1024 but just manage to stay above 30 but no more than 80. While he's staying above 30 and even as high as 100+ running at 1920x1080 and most everything on high.
<!--quoteo(post=2053454:date=Dec 30 2012, 05:10 PM:name=DC_Darkling)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DC_Darkling @ Dec 30 2012, 05:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Intel i7 930 running at 2.8 + hyperthreading. (4 cores, 8 'cores') 6GB memory crucial SSD + standard datadisks. (NS/steam is on the slower datadisks) gainward phantom gforce 570 nice broadband connection Win 7 Pro, 64b, fully patched.
All drivers updated to latest. resolution is 1920*1080 I run fullscreen windowed without vsync.
pretty much everything in NS2 is set to max / on, except particles (low), ambien occlusion (off), and the experimental one.
Below image is a graph made from fps from a match in NS2 with fraps. As it pretty much stays at 30+ on its low values I find it pretty ok to play with, personally.
I also found my GPU to be the bottleneck (GTX 570). I lowered resolution and got better framerates. End game battle experience became much better.
<b>1920x1080, VSync off, AO off, Particles low, Texture streaming off</b> FPS in Menu >120 Ready room >60 (with 24 players) Game >50 (with 24 players) Big end game base battles >30 (with 24 players)
<b>1600x900, VSync off, AO off, Particles low, Texture streaming off</b> FPS in Menu >160 Big end game base battles >40 (with 24 players)
Playing on max settings with ambient occlusion and Vsync off @ 1600x900 resolution.
At the beginning of the game my frame rate is 80 - 110 In the late game my frame rate can drop as low as 30, sometimes lower.
Graphic settings have no effect on my fps at all. Turning ambient occlusion to high doesn't lower my fps further when in the late game but I can hear my card working harder so for the reason I keep it off.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
<!--quoteo(post=2053481:date=Dec 31 2012, 02:05 AM:name=MiniH0wie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MiniH0wie @ Dec 31 2012, 02:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This below just proves my point that my GPU is holding me back. Below has a slower clock speed but a better card and running at a higher resolution with more setting on high and manages to get better FPS than I'm getting. I run everything on low and at low resolution 1280x1024 but just manage to stay above 30 but no more than 80. While he's staying above 30 and even as high as 100+ running at 1920x1080 and most everything on high.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sorry but I have to correct you. Allow me to explain.
As you already said, my video card is better. But you went wrong. my CPU is also superior.
Yours is a i5-2500k. This is, according to the intel site, a 4 core with 4 threads, running at 3.7. (did you overclock?) Mine is a 4 core with 8 threads. Windows 7 + new games like NS2 can run multiple threads, so my CPU can run more threads for NS2 at one time. While its not as black and white as im gona say now, I can sort of run twice as much on my cpu as you can.
From the looks of it, both would be a bottleneck considering many stated its a CPU intensive task. (I can check next time I play myself) This may not feel strange to me, as many physics calculations in many games run directly on most CPUs instead the vid card.
<!--quoteo(post=2053950:date=Dec 31 2012, 09:19 PM:name=DC_Darkling)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DC_Darkling @ Dec 31 2012, 09:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053950"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yours is a i5-2500k. This is, according to the intel site, a 4 core with 4 threads, running at 3.7. (did you overclock?) Mine is a 4 core with 8 threads.
..... I can sort of run twice as much on my cpu as you can......<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having more threads on an Intel CPU does not actually affect frames per second as much as you might think. There are some benchmark tests out there that show there is really not that much of a jump in performance by having more threads, except for possibly when it comes to video/media editing/compiling code.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
<!--quoteo(post=2053956:date=Jan 1 2013, 02:27 AM:name=Res)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Res @ Jan 1 2013, 02:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having more threads on an Intel CPU does not actually affect frames per second as much as you might think. There are some benchmark tests out there that show there is really not that much of a jump in performance by having more threads, except for possibly when it comes to video/media editing/compiling code.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your right in that depending on the kind of game it may or may not need as many cores. (also, I did not get NS2 to use more then 4 cores). So I thought.. What can I do to test this? Putting some of my cores in parked mode, would be possible. But the registry edit is questionable. it sometimes works, sometimes does not. So instead I just kicked up prime, set its torture tests to calculations which a CPU does not like, and started NS. Note my cpu was around max on all 8 'cores' before I even started NS2.
It ran FINE. fps was slightly less, but well in the 40+ ranges. On a maxed cpu. So yeh.. I would start blaiming the vid cards aswell. (on a side note, this is a cpu which model is not THAT old. And not all cpu are as good at certain calculations. so results may very)
<!--quoteo(post=2053950:date=Jan 1 2013, 02:19 AM:name=DC_Darkling)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DC_Darkling @ Jan 1 2013, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053950"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Windows 7 + new games like NS2 can run multiple threads, so my CPU can run more threads for NS2 at one time. While its not as black and white as im gona say now, I can sort of run twice as much on my cpu as you can.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As of now, 2600K = 2500K in games. HT doesn't provide the tiniest benefit (which it does in video/audio encoding and many productivity tasks). I can't name a single game which benefits from more than 4 cores.
I get a steady 50ish FPS on 20-24 players, all maxed @ 1680*1050 except AO set to OFF. I rarely dip below 30 FPS when things get messy with many players during late game.
My bottleneck seems to be my GPU: r_stats 1 shows that the CPU usually waits 5ms for the GPU. With AO maxed it was 8ms.
Overall I'm satisfied with *my* performance, even if it's quite poor for the average PC out there.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
simple.. I took the csv log which made a list of fps.
Then I went to a editor like excel or Libreoffice calc, and opened that csv. Then I used the graph option, and tada.
Your are right. I checked and most my games run at 4 cores max. However, lets asume for a minute that a game will push those 4 cores to its max. If you got more cores left for your OS to do other stuff, or put in parking, its still gona be slightly faster. (especially with turbo).
But I will agree that the difference is probably not worth noticing.
Comments
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=119506" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=119506</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
ATI 7850 @ 1050/1450 Mhz
4GB DDR2/1111 5-5-5-15
Graphics @ Max
I average around 50 fps while out of combat and I dip down to about 30 fps in intense combat. The CPU is the bottleneck when the lag hits. I see full core utilization on 2 of my cores while my 2 other cores sit idling. My GPU never goes above 80% utilization.
It's like watching 2 children fighting over which children show is the best, pointless. Software benchmark are more accurate, /thread. Yet you still need to trust the person posting them that they are truthful about settings and haven't altered the result, /thread.
And you're like the little girl who thinks she knows best I guess. What possessed you to try and solve a dispute that was already over?
Wish this game was less intensive/better optimized.
RAM = 5GB DDR2
Radeon HD 5750 1GB Video Card
full detail iam taking 91-95 fps after the last patch.
RAM = 5GB DDR2
Radeon HD 5750 1GB Video Card
full detail iam taking 91-95 fps after the last patch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Readyroom doesn't count...
I tried disabling HT and limiting my cores to 2 on my i7 and my average performance tanked all the way to 40fps. So NS2 does benefit from multiple cores and HT technologies in some way.
I created a totally unrealistic scenario: spawned 10 exos, 10 regular marines, 6 or so onos, 8 or so fades, 6 or so skulks, and 8 or so lerks all in the data core hive room in ns2_summit with full infestation. In addition, I also dropped about 20 crags, a few shifts (and maxed out their egg deployment) and all upgrades. I then went lerk and spammed spores and umbra all over the room. All graphic settings are at their maximum. Tried with and without shades to stealth all of the aliens.
Try as I might, I couldn't get the FPS to drop below 33 (measured with fraps.) Here are my specs:
i7 2600k @ 4.4
Sapphire OC 7850
8GB 1600 8-8-8
Samsung 840 Pro
As I stated earlier, this isn't exactly a high end system, and 33fps isn't bad at all, and given how unrealistic of a scenario I created, I can't see it staying that low on a regular basis. I'm also running windows 8 (with metro apps removed) if that matters to anybody.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 7850 came out <i>this year</i>, in Feb/March, there is no way this rig is almost 2 years old.
The processor is technically 2 years old. A 2600K @ 4.4 though? That's still considered a high end system.
8GB RAM
ATI HD4850 512MB (my bottle neck)
Win7 64bit
This is at 1024x768.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Zick/Junk/PC/ns2fps_zps93e54172.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
This is at 1152x864.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Zick/Junk/PC/ns2fps1152x864_zps7b062c49.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
This is at 1280x1024.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Zick/Junk/PC/ns2fps1280x1024_zpsc700a173.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
While fps can go as high as 60-80, its usually dropping below 30 where/when it matters. (lowest settings possible and 720p instead of my monitors native res of 1080p)
Those drops cause mouselag, stutter - all the lovely stuff that you like while playing fast competitive fps games.
Its a horrible experience playing like that. (after testing it on 5 different servers[since i wanted to be fair and test it only on the best possible servers] i <b><u>never want to touch ns2 on this pc again</u></b>)
I feel kinda ashamed that i dared to whine about performance every now and then playing mainly on an i5@4.2ghz... (you also have big fps drops etc and need to play on minimum settings with a pc like that - but at least you can enjoy playing the majority of the time)
I just now really understand the ppl with their performance whine posts saying, "but i can run other games on..." (this ######ty pc can really handle every modern game on decent settings...)
NS2 performance is worse than i thought.
NS2 performance is worse than i thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea I made my PC 2 years ago and it is holding up fairly well. The worse it gets is 40ish during gigantic battles with spores and grenades etc. But I also have to wonder if people leave because they keep getting killed over and over due to their computer's performance. I have previously refused to play games that ran like crap on my PC just because I felt so helpless and useless to the team not being able to shoot anything. Most popular games have low requirements and so it is something to think about. But I have to wonder if it is partly the lua scripting. We had an entire team of around 9-10 gorges rush our home base and each of them built 3 hydras and kept healing each other till we could barely move in the slideshow.
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>FPS: 60 in ready room, 30 by late-game in 20 player server.
</b><b>Processor: Intel i7 920 @ 2.93 Ghz
</b><b>Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-bit (Service Pack 1)
</b>
<b>GPU processor: GeForce GTX 560 Ti (x2 in SLi)<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></b>
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Driver version: 310.70
CUDA Cores: 384
Core clock: 835 MHz
Shader clock: 1670 MHz
Memory data rate: 4000 MHz
Memory interface: 256-bit
Memory bandwidth: 128.00 GB/s
Total available graphics memory: 3835 MB
Dedicated video memory: 1024 MB GDDR5
System video memory: 0 MB
Shared system memory: 2811 MB
<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Not sure how you figure a 4850 isn't a bottleneck?
It's a very old card.
This article shows that even an i5-750 @ 4GHz running a GTX 460 the GPU is the main bottle neck and benefits from a better card.
<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bottleneck,2737.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-p...eneck,2737.html</a>
And even though it's only an i5-750 and I have a 2500k, clock for clock there isn't much difference between them.
<a href="http://semiaccurate.com/2011/01/02/intel-core-i7-2500k-review/" target="_blank">http://semiaccurate.com/2011/01/02/intel-c...7-2500k-review/</a>
Now a GTX 460 compared to a 4850;
GTX 460 G3D Mark: 2669
HD4850 G3D Mark: 1040
Setting NS2 to high gave me a 20 FPS boost
In any other game that isn't NS2 this would be true. I can get 250 frames in empty rooms and it's still not limited by GPU.
6GB memory
crucial SSD + standard datadisks. (NS/steam is on the slower datadisks)
gainward phantom gforce 570
nice broadband connection
Win 7 Pro, 64b, fully patched.
All drivers updated to latest.
resolution is 1920*1080
I run fullscreen windowed without vsync.
pretty much everything in NS2 is set to max / on, except particles (low), ambien occlusion (off), and the experimental one.
Below image is a graph made from fps from a match in NS2 with fraps.
As it pretty much stays at 30+ on its low values I find it pretty ok to play with, personally.
<img src="http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8854/fpsns2.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
This below just proves my point that my GPU is holding me back. Below has a slower clock speed but a better card and running at a higher resolution with more setting on high and manages to get better FPS than I'm getting.
I run everything on low and at low resolution 1280x1024 but just manage to stay above 30 but no more than 80. While he's staying above 30 and even as high as 100+ running at 1920x1080 and most everything on high.
<!--quoteo(post=2053454:date=Dec 30 2012, 05:10 PM:name=DC_Darkling)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DC_Darkling @ Dec 30 2012, 05:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Intel i7 930 running at 2.8 + hyperthreading. (4 cores, 8 'cores')
6GB memory
crucial SSD + standard datadisks. (NS/steam is on the slower datadisks)
gainward phantom gforce 570
nice broadband connection
Win 7 Pro, 64b, fully patched.
All drivers updated to latest.
resolution is 1920*1080
I run fullscreen windowed without vsync.
pretty much everything in NS2 is set to max / on, except particles (low), ambien occlusion (off), and the experimental one.
Below image is a graph made from fps from a match in NS2 with fraps.
As it pretty much stays at 30+ on its low values I find it pretty ok to play with, personally.
<img src="http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8854/fpsns2.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>1920x1080, VSync off, AO off, Particles low, Texture streaming off</b>
FPS in
Menu >120
Ready room >60 (with 24 players)
Game >50 (with 24 players)
Big end game base battles >30 (with 24 players)
<b>1600x900, VSync off, AO off, Particles low, Texture streaming off</b>
FPS in
Menu >160
Big end game base battles >40 (with 24 players)
CPU: Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.6 GHz
GPU: EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 Superclocked 1.28 GB
RAM: 6 GB Kingston DDR2 1066 MHz
Windows 7 64bit Home
CPU: i5 2500k @ 3.3 Ghz
RAM: 8gb @ 1866 Mhz DDR3
GPU: Gefore GTX 580 OC --- Using current Nvidia drivers 310.70
Playing on max settings with ambient occlusion and Vsync off @ 1600x900 resolution.
At the beginning of the game my frame rate is 80 - 110
In the late game my frame rate can drop as low as 30, sometimes lower.
Graphic settings have no effect on my fps at all. Turning ambient occlusion to high doesn't lower my fps further when in the late game but I can hear my card working harder so for the reason I keep it off.
CPU: i7 2600K @ 4.5 GHz
RAM: 16 GB @ 1962 MHz DDR3
GPU: Geforce GTX 680 no OC with current Nvidia drivers
All settings off/minimum except:
Texture Quality = High
Anti-aliasing = On
Anisotropic Filtering = On
Multicore Rendering = On
Resolution = 1920x1080, 120 Hz, Windowed Fullscreen
On a 24 player match on Tram: min 45, max 180, average 103 fps
Aliens had the whole map, and most of the action happened on ET.
I run everything on low and at low resolution 1280x1024 but just manage to stay above 30 but no more than 80. While he's staying above 30 and even as high as 100+ running at 1920x1080 and most everything on high.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sorry but I have to correct you. Allow me to explain.
As you already said, my video card is better. But you went wrong. my CPU is also superior.
Yours is a i5-2500k. This is, according to the intel site, a 4 core with 4 threads, running at 3.7. (did you overclock?)
Mine is a 4 core with 8 threads.
Windows 7 + new games like NS2 can run multiple threads, so my CPU can run more threads for NS2 at one time. While its not as black and white as im gona say now, I can sort of run twice as much on my cpu as you can.
From the looks of it, both would be a bottleneck considering many stated its a CPU intensive task. (I can check next time I play myself)
This may not feel strange to me, as many physics calculations in many games run directly on most CPUs instead the vid card.
Mine is a 4 core with 8 threads.
..... I can sort of run twice as much on my cpu as you can......<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having more threads on an Intel CPU does not actually affect frames per second as much as you might think. There are some benchmark tests out there that show there is really not that much of a jump in performance by having more threads, except for possibly when it comes to video/media editing/compiling code.
Your right in that depending on the kind of game it may or may not need as many cores. (also, I did not get NS2 to use more then 4 cores).
So I thought.. What can I do to test this? Putting some of my cores in parked mode, would be possible. But the registry edit is questionable. it sometimes works, sometimes does not.
So instead I just kicked up prime, set its torture tests to calculations which a CPU does not like, and started NS. Note my cpu was around max on all 8 'cores' before I even started NS2.
It ran FINE. fps was slightly less, but well in the 40+ ranges. On a maxed cpu.
So yeh.. I would start blaiming the vid cards aswell.
(on a side note, this is a cpu which model is not THAT old. And not all cpu are as good at certain calculations. so results may very)
As of now, 2600K = 2500K in games. HT doesn't provide the tiniest benefit (which it does in video/audio encoding and many productivity tasks).
I can't name a single game which benefits from more than 4 cores.
On topic:
2500K @ 4.2 Ghz
Asus 6950 2GB
8GB DDR3 1600
SSD Samsung 830 128GB
I get a steady 50ish FPS on 20-24 players, all maxed @ 1680*1050 except AO set to OFF.
I rarely dip below 30 FPS when things get messy with many players during late game.
My bottleneck seems to be my GPU: r_stats 1 shows that the CPU usually waits 5ms for the GPU.
With AO maxed it was 8ms.
Overall I'm satisfied with *my* performance, even if it's quite poor for the average PC out there.
Then I went to a editor like excel or Libreoffice calc, and opened that csv. Then I used the graph option, and tada.
Your are right. I checked and most my games run at 4 cores max. However, lets asume for a minute that a game will push those 4 cores to its max. If you got more cores left for your OS to do other stuff, or put in parking, its still gona be slightly faster. (especially with turbo).
But I will agree that the difference is probably not worth noticing.
GPU: GTX 560 superclock
@766p (high as my baddy monitor goes) i can max out the game with 75 fps on stock GPU clock, overclocked into the 80's. I dont have noticable dips.
Previous specs were phenom 1055t 6 core CPU @2.8ghz + the same gtx 560, and i would struggle to stay in the 40's on low and high settings.