Does ns2 require an ssd for good performance
ZenoTasedro
Join Date: 2012-06-13 Member: 153227Members
Join Date: 2012-06-13 Member: 153227Members
It seems to me that most people who are getting decent performance out of this game are using solid state drives. I haven't yet spent the money to drop one into either my laptop or desktop, and i get a lot of random jitter throughout the game. Others that I play with seem to notice similar issue on much different rigs, the commonality being that they are not using SSD's.
If the performance issue is indeed related to seeking or pulling data off the hard drive that would suggest to me that resources aren't being efficiently stored in ram or in video buffers. My gaming pc has a 3.1ghz i7, 12gb of ddr3, nvidia 560gtx w/3gb vram and a 7200 rpm hdd. Since I can play max payne 3, skyrim, etc on nearly full quality at 1920x1080 and get a decent framerate I feel I should be able to get a decent framerate at 1280x1024 using "rediculously awful" settings. Are there any performance tweeks anyone can recommend that would help me, and others, out with this? Or should I bite the bullet and just buy a solid state drive?
If the performance issue is indeed related to seeking or pulling data off the hard drive that would suggest to me that resources aren't being efficiently stored in ram or in video buffers. My gaming pc has a 3.1ghz i7, 12gb of ddr3, nvidia 560gtx w/3gb vram and a 7200 rpm hdd. Since I can play max payne 3, skyrim, etc on nearly full quality at 1920x1080 and get a decent framerate I feel I should be able to get a decent framerate at 1280x1024 using "rediculously awful" settings. Are there any performance tweeks anyone can recommend that would help me, and others, out with this? Or should I bite the bullet and just buy a solid state drive?
Comments
And keep your eye on the server tick rate as well, because if that goes below 20 or 25 you will gradually start losing FPS
net_stats in the console
To get "good" performance you need to travel to the future when NS2 is actually happening in real life, and get a computer from that time period.
yeah i agree, i have a ssd and it has increased my performance quite a lot, i would recommend it if you can afford it.
Its purely CPU based in my opinion, 4ghz+ and you're good to go.
Nobody is currently getting decent performance out of this game, not even the people with 4+ GHz overclocks.
Have my i5 at 4.6 GHz, never maintain 30 FPS the "entire game". :/ I start at about 50 and get to about 15 near the end
I wonder if it's really worth it. :p I mean, mostly you just read new stuff into your memory abit, it's not like you need to constantly load stuff from your drives? Rite? >:(
EDIT: TLDR: <b>Has anyone had NS2 on an HDD and a SSD both & experienced a noticeable performance boost?</b>
I wonder if it's really worth it. :p I mean, mostly you just read new stuff into your memory abit, it's not like you need to constantly load stuff from your drives? Rite? >:(
EDIT: TLDR: <b>Has anyone had NS2 on an HDD and a SSD both & experienced a noticeable performance boost?</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes.
I have steam installed on a typical HDD. I moved NS2 to my SSD, and made a linked directory on the HDD to teh location on SSD. Load time is much improved, not sure of in game FPS (doubt it would help there tbh)
edit: I used this guide to do this: <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/262456-32-guide-transfer-steam-games" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/262456-3...fer-steam-games</a>
Yes, and no not really.
Got an SSD for Christmas. I had fps around 30ish before, 20 on bad days, 40 on good days. I have about the same now. If there was a difference it was definitely < 5FPS increase. As has been suggested earlier in the thread, I do think my game starts up faster now, which is nice.
My processor is the biggest bottleneck in my machine though. My proc is an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ 3.0Ghz. The widespread consensus is that NS2 is processor bottlenecked on most or all machines. Unless you have a super future processor from space and a very nice graphics card, your HDD speed is probably not your biggest bottleneck with NS2, and if it is, you're probably already getting a framerate I'd strangle a puppy for.
I have an i7 2600k, SSD, and nvidia 570. My CPU is OC'd to ~4.5ghz. I get ~80 fps at the start of games and 40-60 after 15 minutes. Late game it probably drops to 20-40 and gets incredibly choppy as the server tickrate plummets and begins to choke. For a minimum consistent FPS for a game to be competitive, I'd say it needs a stable 60-80 fps, all game long.
It speeds up load times that is all
IE when server changes map or when you start the game.
NS2 is cpu bound currently
More cores past 3 or so will not help really.
You need high clock speeds with high IPC
Sandy bridge/Ivy bridge should perform the best when OCed.
I get 99fps in the start of the game and it drops to 80~ after 10 mins or so with some dips to 40 at times late game
I am OCed over 5.2ghz on a I7 extreme cpu
Also have sli 590s but that does nothing really I think for this game
might help take some load off with phys-x since it can load a whole gpu to run it.
TL;DR
You need high clock speeds(Ghz) to run ns2 with good fps currently
My GPU (460gtx oc) has gone down from 100% usage lategame to about 60% too. I think the worst part about performance are the servers at the moment, while in 209 the servers were at least decent in noticed that in 210 most of the server will drop their tickrates to sub 10 at about 2-6 minutes into the game.
edit: while i´m saying that my performance increased, i didnt mean that its playable for me, basically its worse than in 209 due to the servers.
Dude when NS2 is happening in real life I so shotgun hiding in the command station. Have fun dealing with the Kharaa guys!
Not true. So far I've experienced zero FPS issues, hitching, decent load times, etc. I'm running an i7-3820 (Sandy Bridge-E) with a GTX 680 and the game is loading off a typical magnetic HDD. Only issues of note I've experienced are all related to the servers I've played on (highly-varied latency, rubber-banding, etc.).
EDIT: As for performance, I'm running pretty fine with 4Ghz OC'd and a crappy GTX460 OC'd. Wouldn't dream of playing Quake with my NS2 fps, but it's passable.
The most obvious is: start playing marine for the first time after a boot, shoot from rifle = freeze, switch to pistol = freeze, switch to axe = freeze, do all that again = no freeze.
I've made a thread about this before: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=118716" target="_blank">short freezes on first-time-loading of assets?</a>
The most obvious is: start playing marine for the first time after a boot, shoot from rifle = freeze, switch to pistol = freeze, switch to axe = freeze, do all that again = no freeze.
I've made a thread about this before: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=118716" target="_blank">short freezes on first-time-loading of assets?</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I think they are waiting until everything is in the game before they work on pre-loading this stuff.
I do.
i5 at 4.7Ghz and I get 50-100 FPS
ATI HD6970 GPU
Crucial M4 SSD
8GB DDR3 1600Mhz
I can't say if an SSD does anything for in-game performance but it certainly causes me to load the game faster than everybody else from what i've seen, i'm always the first in the ready room after a new map loads, and loading only takes a couple seconds.
Nope, you're not getting 50fps stable throughout the game on that clock speed. You may think you are, but you aren't.
Even if you did, 50fps is not "decent performance".
I play this on an i5 2500k@ 4,3ghz (sometimes 4,5ghz), gtx 670 , game installed on an ssd.
All Drivers are up to date, no problems with other games or applications.
In Mid- endgame, there are massive fps-drops down to 30, sometimes 25.
This happen most time in very crowded areas (structures, players).
And if the servertickrate starting to drop, EVERY1 losing massive fps.
Better fps cause ssd? Dont think so. But im sure it helps against some small hitching if parts of the level are loaded ingame.
Btw. i have the same results with 4,8ghz and my old ati5870. Seem to be the server is the limiting factor here.
<!--quoteo(post=1944095:date=Jun 17 2012, 02:02 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jun 17 2012, 02:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1944095"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like how you somehow know more about how my PC runs NS2 than myself! are you a wizard?
<!--quoteo(post=1944095:date=Jun 17 2012, 02:02 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jun 17 2012, 02:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1944095"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even if you did, 50fps is not "decent performance".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
50 FPS is decent for any modern game, it says you're from Norway so maybe you aren't clear on what the word "decent" actually means?
I guess your computer must be running on magic pixie dust then, because none of the other people, myself included, running that exact same clock speed on that exact same cpu, can keep 50fps stable throughout the endgame.
<!--quoteo(post=1944099:date=Jun 17 2012, 03:25 PM:name=paradoxum)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (paradoxum @ Jun 17 2012, 03:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1944099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->50 FPS is decent for any modern game, it says you're from Norway so maybe you aren't clear on what the word "decent" actually means?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Multiplayer games with less than 50fps stable? OK pal. It says you're from Assghanistan, so maybe you aren't clear on how to write a forum post without making an ass of yourself?
@Fanatic Maybe he's playing by himself :P