<!--quoteo(post=2009637:date=Nov 4 2012, 08:03 AM:name=Lord Mondando)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lord Mondando @ Nov 4 2012, 08:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2009637"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its a souped up one (remember, not all gfx cards are made equally and PNY appear to have done a very good job retooling this chipset circa late 2010), reason I got it was after significant amount of market research. For dx11 cards at 300w (and before anyone starts, I am getting zero power issues) this PNY number was the best thing on the easily accessible british market. Critically it has 128-bit memory interface not 64 like the gt 610 or 520.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sorry, doesn't matter if its an overclocked version, that card was not even entry level at the time. It's extremely slow. I'm not sure how you even play those other games.
A second-hand ati 5770 will pump out double or even triple the frames, cost 40 quid second-hand and easily run on a 300 watt PSU (mine ran no probs with a cheapy non 80+ PSU)
The game does need optimisation, but its a bit much expecting it to run on a 3 year old entry-level card.
Lord MondandoJoin Date: 2012-11-03Member: 166566Members
edited November 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2010047:date=Nov 4 2012, 08:32 PM:name=eigerascent)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eigerascent @ Nov 4 2012, 08:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010047"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am sorry, doesn't matter if its an overclocked version, that card was not even entry level at the time. It's extremely slow. I'm not sure how you even play those other games.
A second-hand ati 5770 will pump out double or even triple the frames, cost 40 quid second-hand and easily run on a 300 watt PSU (mine ran no probs with a cheapy non 80+ PSU)
The game does need optimisation, but its a bit much expecting it to run on a 3 year old entry-level card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks for the advice. But i'm afraid you're wrong (by which I mean, it does most games. and its not the same as the Zotac card your referencing, the memory specifications are quite different. Its also only 2 years old having first been released around october 2010, also now discontinued 410 and 420 were the 'entry level' offers of that 4' iteration of cards).
Nonetheless, take it as a fact that my card, does just fine with other games. By which i mean 1000x800 generally a mix of medium and high.
Remember again, playing NS2 on 800x600 very low settings.
IF its all the same to you i'd rather not get dragged into a massive ATI vs. nvidia fight. I'm not trying to be combative here, just empirical. This is not the first dx11 game i've played it with, and If knew it ran like ###### on modern games (not that theres been that much process tech or software wise in graphics in the last 2-3 years) why would I be here?
<!--QuoteBegin-'BigImp'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ('BigImp')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not sure if you tried or not, but these settings are better on than off for me, so try: Vertical Sync: Triple Buffered Texture Streaming: On Multi-core Render: On
and of course, if you're not already, make sure you have no background programs (except Steam) running when you play the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That actually (not the steam thing, that was already done) seems to have made a slightly noticeable difference. Slightly slower overall frame rate. On the tram map i'd go as far to say a 50-60 improvement. None noticeable on Refinery however (in both cases around the map, not in any specific area).
Lord MondandoJoin Date: 2012-11-03Member: 166566Members
Ok judging by the fact i've managed to get a positive kill ratio as a aliens for the first time. I'm going to say it <u><b>at least helps to turn multicore and texture streaming on</u></b>. However leave <u>vsync off</u> (this makes sense as it requires the gpu draw each frame multiple times.
N.B this does not correspond to a FPS increase, it simply alleviates (not entirely fixes, though now they appear to mostly (not entirely) be happening in heavily infested areas) the random lag spikes that basically ruin combat.
I'd be interested to see how others with this problem got on in tests of Mutlicore + streaming off and on (perhaps all else off for testing purposes)
<!--quoteo(post=2010124:date=Nov 4 2012, 05:36 PM:name=Lord Mondando)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lord Mondando @ Nov 4 2012, 05:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010124"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok judging by the fact i've managed to get a positive kill ratio as a aliens for the first time. I'm going to say it <u><b>at least helps to turn multicore and texture streaming on</u></b>. However leave <u>vsync off</u> (this makes sense as it requires the gpu draw each frame multiple times.
N.B this does not correspond to a FPS increase, it simply alleviates (not entirely fixes, though now they appear to mostly (not entirely) be happening in heavily infested areas) the random lag spikes that basically ruin combat.
I'd be interested to see how others with this problem got on in tests of Mutlicore + streaming off and on (perhaps all else off for testing purposes)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2010089:date=Nov 4 2012, 02:06 PM:name=Lord Mondando)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lord Mondando @ Nov 4 2012, 02:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for the advice. But i'm afraid you're wrong (by which I mean, it does most games. and its not the same as the Zotac card your referencing, the memory specifications are quite different. Its also only 2 years old having first been released around october 2010, also now discontinued 410 and 420 were the 'entry level' offers of that 4' iteration of cards).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sweet jesus in heaven above, I advise people on graphics cards, if you want to game on it, go for it. It's a low profile HTPC card from 2010. Running a game is subjective, my friend plays BF3 on a 8800GT (about twice as fast as a 430 GT) and to me it looks like a slideshow.
Lord MondandoJoin Date: 2012-11-03Member: 166566Members
edited November 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2010184:date=Nov 4 2012, 10:11 PM:name=eigerascent)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eigerascent @ Nov 4 2012, 10:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sweet jesus in heaven above, I advise people on graphics cards, if you want to game on it, go for it. It's a low profile HTPC card from 2010. Running a game is subjective, my friend plays BF3 on a 8800GT (about twice as fast as a 430 GT) and to me it looks like a slideshow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fps stutter is not subjective. I'm sorry, but theres a lot of loose and fast talk that seems to do little but try to diminish there is a legitimate problem here. My gt430 is not deep blue, cool. I opened with that. It is however proven capable of providing smooth gameplay in dx11 games of comparable graphical niceties.
Nor I am doing what should not be achievable with a computer well above minimum and only a hair's breadth below recommended specs. Not trying to render 'UP' in real time. Just trying to get smooth gameplay (again I don't know how many times I have to stress, this is an issue i'm getting on 800x600. Specifically apparently random bits of framerate stutter. I'm not ###### i'm not pulling 80 fps on 1200x1000 all medium). If it can handle other games with far shinier dx11 graphics fine, why not this?
<!--quoteo(post=2009412:date=Nov 4 2012, 07:35 AM:name=Lord Mondando)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lord Mondando @ Nov 4 2012, 07:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2009412"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's no logical reason however why v-sync would make the game run faster<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as you stay above 60 fps, v-sync is more about making it smoother, rather than faster. There are two types of gamers out there: people that don't mind screen tearing and people that do.
And, yes, I was specifically referring to the bug I have, in that v-sync and multicore interfere with each other, so in that case, enabling v-sync actually does make it "faster" for me because with it off, it stutters like a mo fo because of the bug. This has only been since build 225.
I have to have v-sync ON and multicore OFF to make the game playable on an i5 3.4Ghz Ivy Bridge paired with a 1GB 6850 and 8Gb of DDR3 1600
I'm having issues with the performance also. Altough I play on a laptop, it has some decent spec: <ul><li>i7-2820QM (similar results compared to a desktop i5-2500K as seen <a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html" target="_blank">here</a></li><li>16gb ram at 1600mhz</li><li>500 hdd at 7200rpm</li><li>Amd hd6990m 2gb ram (wich according to the same site has the cpu benchmark is similar to a desktop 6870 <a href="http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html" target="_blank">here</a> )</li></ul> (ps- My system only has 1 graphic card. The dedicated one, nothing like those new laptops with 2 graphics where one is crappy to save battery)
My game doens't preform well at all. Playing at 1920x1080 is not a good idea, even with almost everything off. Reducing to 1600x900 makes it a bit ugly, but i've got used to it, however the framerates continue to drop a lot, usually to ~30
Now the really cool thing. Yesterday I decided to test the different option impact on frames. This is what astounished me: Playing at 1920x1080 with everything on/high I got ~35 fps near some infestation and there was some ambience light around. Changing to 1280x720 (the 720p resolution) and keeping the same details I got the same framerate (around 35)
On my machine this is what I found out (according to my memory: <ul><li>Texture Quality: I belive texture quality shouldn't have any impact on framerate. I have more then enough vram to hold it, however I notice around 2-4 fps drops when changing from medium to high (could be from some effects around)</li><li>Anti aliasing: Turning it on caused around 3-4 fps drop</li><li>Bloom: Turning it on caused another 3-4 fps drop</li><li>Atmospherics: Turning it on didnt cause any performance issues. However I belive the reason was because i was on a spot where there were no Atmospheric intese efects</li><li>Anisotropic Filtering: No fps changes (as expected)</li><li>Ambient occlusion: Around 5-10 fps drops when on (medium to high didnt cause any diference)</li><li>Infestation: Changing to rich caused 1-3 fps drops</li><li>Shadows: Around 10-15 fps drops when they were on</li><li>Texture streaming: no change</li><li>Multicore Rendering: around 10 fps drop when it was off</li></ul>
I'm not sure how to improve my fps. Even with everything off, it drops to 30 fps on some intese scenes. Having 5 macs reparing a exo player caused it to drop to 10 fps :(
Yup, the Team need to work on optimization. I'm having 60 fps almost maxed out, and in specific situations FPS drops to 30. For example, when I look on one part of the map I have 60fps, but a few pixels in the other direction drops me to 30.
Also changing settings to low have almost no impact on fps drops. I tried turning EVERYTHING to LOW or OFF (Infestation and Ambient Occlusion hits the fps the most), and it still drops in certain parts of maps. or in fight.
Yep. Just want to echo what everyone else is saying. Performance is <i>terrible</i> in combat for me.
Running around in the Ready Room I'm getting 100-200 fps depending on where I'm looking/map, but as soon as I join the game and actually start playing it becomes almost unplayable.
This performance problem thing seems to be the most frequently discussed topic on these forums.
Here's something i noticed.
Perfectly fine FPS about 5-10 minutes to begin each round. Even in high combat situation it'll be perfectly fine. But after about 5-10 minutes, regardless of video settings, fps starts to go downhill (often to borderline unplayable) till the map changes then it's fine for 5-10 minutes again, then repeat, downhill. I would speculate it's something , like, take for instance with the infestation, even if we cant see it or we're not looking at it, maybe it's still being rendered and taxing the system even if it's not visible? Or something similar to a glitch that was popular in TF2 when you could continuously shoot flares into a specific spot on specific maps, and it would build over time and give everybody massive FPS drop till the server shut down? Maybe that would seem to fit in with the whole +time on map =lessfps problem?
Does anyone else notice the more time spent on the map the less fps?
<!--quoteo(post=2011031:date=Nov 5 2012, 09:50 PM:name=ilove2Quack)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ilove2Quack @ Nov 5 2012, 09:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2011031"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yep. Just want to echo what everyone else is saying. Performance is <i>terrible</i> in combat for me.
Running around in the Ready Room I'm getting 100-200 fps depending on where I'm looking/map, but as soon as I join the game and actually start playing it becomes almost unplayable.
Same Situation bro.. i hear ya.. i have a friend who had very similar spec to mine (not identical but similar, just different manufactor) and run the game smooth like butter.
<!--quoteo(post=2003037:date=Oct 31 2012, 10:55 AM:name=Mkilbride)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mkilbride @ Oct 31 2012, 10:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2003037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So I last played Build 224, which wasn't that long ago. Performance had improved, that was nice.
Now it's 227, performance is gone again, and it wasn't even good before.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2010856:date=Nov 5 2012, 03:16 AM:name=Apocalipsus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Apocalipsus @ Nov 5 2012, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010856"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm having issues with the performance also. Altough I play on a laptop, it has some decent spec: <ul><li>i7-2820QM (similar results compared to a desktop i5-2500K as seen <a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html" target="_blank">here</a></li><li>16gb ram at 1600mhz</li><li>500 hdd at 7200rpm</li><li>Amd hd6990m 2gb ram (wich according to the same site has the cpu benchmark is similar to a desktop 6870 <a href="http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html" target="_blank">here</a> )</li></ul> (ps- My system only has 1 graphic card. The dedicated one, nothing like those new laptops with 2 graphics where one is crappy to save battery)
My game doens't preform well at all. Playing at 1920x1080 is not a good idea, even with almost everything off. Reducing to 1600x900 makes it a bit ugly, but i've got used to it, however the framerates continue to drop a lot, usually to ~30<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can only join these 2 gentlemen with the same issues:
Used to run smoother during last beta. Multi switch doesn't seem to do anything. Menu at times starts with either 30 or 70 FPS. (some kind of processor turbo boost recognition bug?!)
Some new tests. I was messing around with the catalysts driver options, and testing, and found out almost no catalyst options mess with the fps. After changing everything on the game option to low/off at 1600x900 I got 200fps on the menu (yee) game now runs 95% of the time over 50 fps (yee)
The strange thing is that I closed the game to do something else, and when I came back the fps on the menu droped to 150. Thats 50 fps less without changing anything. The game still performes over 50fps nicely. It's just strange that 50 fps disapeared....
PS: I'm mesuring with fraps.
PPS: Gonna record a demo and try diferent options and do a benchmark with fraps. After that I'll do a clean driver install (last time I just upgraded from 12.8 to 12.10)
I measure with MSI Afterburner and both VRAM, CPU, and GPU usage are below 50%, so it's not using my system properly, I know that for sure. My temps are stable across the board.
Hi I got performance issues as well, as I wrote in another topic, but I'm replying here for a little OT question. How did you set your afterburner to display CPU usage?
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited December 2012
For those wishing simply to contribute to performance in ns2 , possibly helping the cause of your slow downs for everyone down the road yet without an immediate fix for you personally... Please submit a performance log of the most polarizing instance of fps drop by typing p_logall to create a round long log of your performance. The log is saved in your appdata folder (Windows key + R, %appdata%\Natural Selection 2) at the end of a round or exit and you can zip it up and link it
<!--quoteo(post=2012432:date=Nov 6 2012, 02:54 AM:name=Apocalipsus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Apocalipsus @ Nov 6 2012, 02:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2012432"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The strange thing is that I closed the game to do something else, and when I came back the fps on the menu droped to 150. Thats 50 fps less without changing anything. The game still performes over 50fps nicely. It's just strange that 50 fps disapeared....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same issue here in the menu. Sometimes I get 70 FPS in the menu and at times I get 30.
<!--quoteo(post=2012992:date=Nov 6 2012, 12:14 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Nov 6 2012, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2012992"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For those wishing simply to contribute to performance in ns2 , possibly helping the cause of your slow downs for everyone down the road yet without an immediate fix for you personally... Please submit a performance log of the most polarizing instance of fps drop by typing p_logall to create a round long log of your performance. The log is saved in your appdata folder at the end of a round or exit and you can zip it up and link it<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hopped into a random server and played a full game. Heres the log of it, hope it helps somehow.
THANK GOD i'm not alone!!! I realise I don't exactly have the best of rigs but yeah 30fps max on lowest possible settings
AMD A8-3500 APU with Radeon HD Graphics, 1500 Mhz, 4 Cores, 4 Logical Processors AMD Radeon HD 6620G, 6GB RAM DDR 3 Windows 7 64-bit
I've been told APU is what's causing alot of my problems, but this is the first game i've ever come across that's next to unplayable and i've played the elitest of graphic consuming games (i.e.Crysis,GTA4,Arma2) and still managed to get a comfortable fps on medium let alone lowest possible.
I'd like to let you all know after reading here and there I can confirm that one trick has worked for me as a "band-aid" regarding this issue. I was able to get the game back to playable framerates after 2 things:
First I rolled back to catalyst 12.8 (was supposed to do a clean install with 12.10 but windows ended up doing a rollback with the previous drivers). Then After I have started the game I promote the NS2 process priority to "high" in task manager.
I suggest you try the latter trick before touching your drivers, it seemed to have a larger impact on the performance. This is not a fix though, it only increases the median fps so that you are able to play fast action somewhat tolerably, the frame drops still exist.
PS. I would like to see an acknowledgement from the devs that this is a known issue and that it's being worked on. It's pretty freaky how turning all the settings to minimun has no affect on the frame drops at all.
I don't see why people are expecting much change by messing with video settings when they are CPU bottlenecked.
additionally laptop processors are notorious for underclocking themselves when they get too hot - don't ever expect it to reach its "turbo" speed because it wont. About those i7-2820QMs, they only run around 2.3 ghz and the only reason they are near the 2500k in the passmark benchmark is because it is highly threaded and responds well to hyperthreading. For gaming, 2.3 ghz doesn't cut it - games arn't nearly as multithreaded as other types of applications that can be made massively parallel.
<!--quoteo(post=2014232:date=Nov 7 2012, 10:07 AM:name=moobar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (moobar @ Nov 7 2012, 10:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014232"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see why people are expecting much change by messing with video settings when they are CPU bottlenecked.
additionally laptop processors are notorious for underclocking themselves when they get too hot - don't ever expect it to reach its "turbo" speed because it wont. About those i7-2820QMs, they only run around 2.3 ghz and the only reason they are near the 2500k in the passmark benchmark is because it is highly threaded and responds well to hyperthreading. For gaming, 2.3 ghz doesn't cut it - games arn't nearly as multithreaded as other types of applications that can be made massively parallel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CPU: i7 2630QM here. Runs at 2.9 like a champ
Does not underclock under pressure.
Can we cut the crap and bashing of 1 year old CPUs please when a real problem exists with 1.0?!
yes I have been playing since alpha. No ... some FPS issues are new to 1.0.
Moobar, I know my 2500K is almost two years old now.
But are you saying a Intel 2500K @ 4.5GHZ is not enough processing power? The game doesn't use above two threads, so even if I moved to one of the latest, I wouldn't see a performance improvement really unless I went to over 5GHZ...and that's absurd! Most stock processors do at least 3.2GHZ these days, which is enough. Unless you're AMD.
But still, even if I had 3960K @ 4.8GHZ or so, my performance wouldn't improve much unless NS2 become better threaded.
They made it in lua, to make it very moddable, but lua is also single threaded by default...so poor performance. The engine, at it's core, is poorly designed. I'm sorry.
<!--quoteo(post=2014302:date=Nov 7 2012, 11:20 AM:name=Mkilbride)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mkilbride @ Nov 7 2012, 11:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014302"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Moobar, I know my 2500K is almost two years old now.
But are you saying a Intel 2500K @ 4.5GHZ is not enough processing power? The game doesn't use above two threads, so even if I moved to one of the latest, I wouldn't see a performance improvement really unless I went to over 5GHZ...and that's absurd! Most stock processors do at least 3.2GHZ these days, which is enough. Unless you're AMD.
But still, even if I had 3960K @ 4.8GHZ or so, my performance wouldn't improve much unless NS2 become better threaded.
They made it in lua, to make it very moddable, but lua is also single threaded by default...so poor performance. The engine, at it's core, is poorly designed. I'm sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
my 2500k is at 4.5 ghz as well
I don't have gamebreaking performance issues described in this thread. Sure my min fps drops down to the low 40's sometimes, but the game runs butter smooth and I wouldn't be able to tell if I didn't have the numbers on.
when i was at 3.3 ghz the game was fine as well.
However, I believe a significant portion of the people who are having -severe- framerate issues are limited by their processors. 3.0ghz is recommended for a reason and the majority of posts here having a problem doesn't meet that requirement. turbo doesn't count. nor does adding more cores.
The performance is horrible, usually I play at 40-50 fps, but when i attack the enemy base or appear many enemies, the fps lowered at 15-20 fps.
I play with Oclussion in Medium, and I have Intel C2Q 3400mhz, 4gb ram and GTX470 with OC, and i Have the last Drivers with my graphic card, obviously, my PC is not the problem.
<!--quoteo(post=2014782:date=Nov 7 2012, 06:27 PM:name=Sendai)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sendai @ Nov 7 2012, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2014782"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I play with the most fps sapping settings on and I get low fps!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Feel lucky that you can run the game at all. Plenty of people here including me can barely run the game at 15-30fps at 800x600 with all settings off/minimal, and we have better machines than you do.
Comments
I am sorry, doesn't matter if its an overclocked version, that card was not even entry level at the time. It's extremely slow. I'm not sure how you even play those other games.
A second-hand ati 5770 will pump out double or even triple the frames, cost 40 quid second-hand and easily run on a 300 watt PSU (mine ran no probs with a cheapy non 80+ PSU)
The game does need optimisation, but its a bit much expecting it to run on a 3 year old entry-level card.
A second-hand ati 5770 will pump out double or even triple the frames, cost 40 quid second-hand and easily run on a 300 watt PSU (mine ran no probs with a cheapy non 80+ PSU)
The game does need optimisation, but its a bit much expecting it to run on a 3 year old entry-level card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the advice. But i'm afraid you're wrong (by which I mean, it does most games. and its not the same as the Zotac card your referencing, the memory specifications are quite different. Its also only 2 years old having first been released around october 2010, also now discontinued 410 and 420 were the 'entry level' offers of that 4' iteration of cards).
Nonetheless, take it as a fact that my card, does just fine with other games. By which i mean 1000x800 generally a mix of medium and high.
Remember again, playing NS2 on 800x600 very low settings.
IF its all the same to you i'd rather not get dragged into a massive ATI vs. nvidia fight. I'm not trying to be combative here, just empirical. This is not the first dx11 game i've played it with, and If knew it ran like ###### on modern games (not that theres been that much process tech or software wise in graphics in the last 2-3 years) why would I be here?
<!--QuoteBegin-'BigImp'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ('BigImp')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not sure if you tried or not, but these settings are better on than off for me, so try:
Vertical Sync: Triple Buffered
Texture Streaming: On
Multi-core Render: On
and of course, if you're not already, make sure you have no background programs (except Steam) running when you play the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That actually (not the steam thing, that was already done) seems to have made a slightly noticeable difference. Slightly slower overall frame rate. On the tram map i'd go as far to say a 50-60 improvement. None noticeable on Refinery however (in both cases around the map, not in any specific area).
N.B this does not correspond to a FPS increase, it simply alleviates (not entirely fixes, though now they appear to mostly (not entirely) be happening in heavily infested areas) the random lag spikes that basically ruin combat.
I'd be interested to see how others with this problem got on in tests of Mutlicore + streaming off and on (perhaps all else off for testing purposes)
N.B this does not correspond to a FPS increase, it simply alleviates (not entirely fixes, though now they appear to mostly (not entirely) be happening in heavily infested areas) the random lag spikes that basically ruin combat.
I'd be interested to see how others with this problem got on in tests of Mutlicore + streaming off and on (perhaps all else off for testing purposes)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hooray! Glad that helped!
Sweet jesus in heaven above, I advise people on graphics cards, if you want to game on it, go for it. It's a low profile HTPC card from 2010. Running a game is subjective, my friend plays BF3 on a 8800GT (about twice as fast as a 430 GT) and to me it looks like a slideshow.
Helped but unfortunately not fixed.
Fps stutter is not subjective. I'm sorry, but theres a lot of loose and fast talk that seems to do little but try to diminish there is a legitimate problem here. My gt430 is not deep blue, cool. I opened with that. It is however proven capable of providing smooth gameplay in dx11 games of comparable graphical niceties.
Nor I am doing what should not be achievable with a computer well above minimum and only a hair's breadth below recommended specs. Not trying to render 'UP' in real time. Just trying to get smooth gameplay (again I don't know how many times I have to stress, this is an issue i'm getting on 800x600. Specifically apparently random bits of framerate stutter. I'm not ###### i'm not pulling 80 fps on 1200x1000 all medium). If it can handle other games with far shinier dx11 graphics fine, why not this?
As long as you stay above 60 fps, v-sync is more about making it smoother, rather than faster. There are two types of gamers out there: people that don't mind screen tearing and people that do.
And, yes, I was specifically referring to the bug I have, in that v-sync and multicore interfere with each other, so in that case, enabling v-sync actually does make it "faster" for me because with it off, it stutters like a mo fo because of the bug. This has only been since build 225.
I have to have v-sync ON and multicore OFF to make the game playable on an i5 3.4Ghz Ivy Bridge paired with a 1GB 6850 and 8Gb of DDR3 1600
When engaging the enemy it drops to 30 FPS + also on infestation
you feel a huge drops.
High settings or low settings same drops.
Q9400
560GTX
4GIG RAM
WIN 7 32 BIT
Res 1024 1280
I'm having issues with the performance also.
Altough I play on a laptop, it has some decent spec:
<ul><li>i7-2820QM (similar results compared to a desktop i5-2500K as seen <a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html" target="_blank">here</a></li><li>16gb ram at 1600mhz</li><li>500 hdd at 7200rpm</li><li>Amd hd6990m 2gb ram (wich according to the same site has the cpu benchmark is similar to a desktop 6870 <a href="http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html" target="_blank">here</a> )</li></ul>
(ps- My system only has 1 graphic card. The dedicated one, nothing like those new laptops with 2 graphics where one is crappy to save battery)
My game doens't preform well at all. Playing at 1920x1080 is not a good idea, even with almost everything off.
Reducing to 1600x900 makes it a bit ugly, but i've got used to it, however the framerates continue to drop a lot, usually to ~30
Now the really cool thing. Yesterday I decided to test the different option impact on frames. This is what astounished me:
Playing at 1920x1080 with everything on/high I got ~35 fps near some infestation and there was some ambience light around.
Changing to 1280x720 (the 720p resolution) and keeping the same details I got the same framerate (around 35)
On my machine this is what I found out (according to my memory:
<ul><li>Texture Quality: I belive texture quality shouldn't have any impact on framerate. I have more then enough vram to hold it, however I notice around 2-4 fps drops when changing from medium to high (could be from some effects around)</li><li>Anti aliasing: Turning it on caused around 3-4 fps drop</li><li>Bloom: Turning it on caused another 3-4 fps drop</li><li>Atmospherics: Turning it on didnt cause any performance issues. However I belive the reason was because i was on a spot where there were no Atmospheric intese efects</li><li>Anisotropic Filtering: No fps changes (as expected)</li><li>Ambient occlusion: Around 5-10 fps drops when on (medium to high didnt cause any diference)</li><li>Infestation: Changing to rich caused 1-3 fps drops</li><li>Shadows: Around 10-15 fps drops when they were on</li><li>Texture streaming: no change</li><li>Multicore Rendering: around 10 fps drop when it was off</li></ul>
I'm not sure how to improve my fps. Even with everything off, it drops to 30 fps on some intese scenes. Having 5 macs reparing a exo player caused it to drop to 10 fps :(
Also changing settings to low have almost no impact on fps drops. I tried turning EVERYTHING to LOW or OFF (Infestation and Ambient Occlusion hits the fps the most), and it still drops in certain parts of maps. or in fight.
Core i5 2500k 3,3
GF 560ti
12gb of ram.
Running around in the Ready Room I'm getting 100-200 fps depending on where I'm looking/map, but as soon as I join the game and actually start playing it becomes almost unplayable.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/PwrqQ.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/PxhVC.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Seriously? 21 FPS? It usually drops down to around ~30 though in heavy combat. I'm running <i>everything</i> on low/off. Vsync off.
Specs: i5 2500k, 8 GB RAM, GFX 660.
Here's something i noticed.
Perfectly fine FPS about 5-10 minutes to begin each round. Even in high combat situation it'll be perfectly fine. But after about 5-10 minutes, regardless of video settings, fps starts to go downhill (often to borderline unplayable) till the map changes then it's fine for 5-10 minutes again, then repeat, downhill. I would speculate it's something , like, take for instance with the infestation, even if we cant see it or we're not looking at it, maybe it's still being rendered and taxing the system even if it's not visible? Or something similar to a glitch that was popular in TF2 when you could continuously shoot flares into a specific spot on specific maps, and it would build over time and give everybody massive FPS drop till the server shut down? Maybe that would seem to fit in with the whole +time on map =lessfps problem?
Does anyone else notice the more time spent on the map the less fps?
Running around in the Ready Room I'm getting 100-200 fps depending on where I'm looking/map, but as soon as I join the game and actually start playing it becomes almost unplayable.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/PwrqQ.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/PxhVC.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Seriously? 21 FPS? It usually drops down to around ~30 though in heavy combat. I'm running <i>everything</i> on low/off. Vsync off.
Specs: i5 2500k, 8 GB RAM, GFX 660.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same Situation bro.. i hear ya.. i have a friend who had very similar spec to mine (not identical but similar, just different manufactor) and run the game smooth like butter.
WHY
WHY
SPEC:
Intel i5-2500k 3.30GHz
8 gig ram
MSI GTX 560 Ti 1gig
Now it's 227, performance is gone again, and it wasn't even good before.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2010856:date=Nov 5 2012, 03:16 AM:name=Apocalipsus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Apocalipsus @ Nov 5 2012, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010856"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm having issues with the performance also.
Altough I play on a laptop, it has some decent spec:
<ul><li>i7-2820QM (similar results compared to a desktop i5-2500K as seen <a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html" target="_blank">here</a></li><li>16gb ram at 1600mhz</li><li>500 hdd at 7200rpm</li><li>Amd hd6990m 2gb ram (wich according to the same site has the cpu benchmark is similar to a desktop 6870 <a href="http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html" target="_blank">here</a> )</li></ul>
(ps- My system only has 1 graphic card. The dedicated one, nothing like those new laptops with 2 graphics where one is crappy to save battery)
My game doens't preform well at all. Playing at 1920x1080 is not a good idea, even with almost everything off.
Reducing to 1600x900 makes it a bit ugly, but i've got used to it, however the framerates continue to drop a lot, usually to ~30<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can only join these 2 gentlemen with the same issues:
Used to run smoother during last beta.
Multi switch doesn't seem to do anything.
Menu at times starts with either 30 or 70 FPS. (some kind of processor turbo boost recognition bug?!)
CPU: i7 2630QM
Ram: 6GB
GPU: Radeon HD 6850M
I was messing around with the catalysts driver options, and testing, and found out almost no catalyst options mess with the fps.
After changing everything on the game option to low/off at 1600x900 I got 200fps on the menu (yee) game now runs 95% of the time over 50 fps (yee)
The strange thing is that I closed the game to do something else, and when I came back the fps on the menu droped to 150. Thats 50 fps less without changing anything.
The game still performes over 50fps nicely. It's just strange that 50 fps disapeared....
PS: I'm mesuring with fraps.
PPS: Gonna record a demo and try diferent options and do a benchmark with fraps. After that I'll do a clean driver install (last time I just upgraded from 12.8 to 12.10)
I got performance issues as well, as I wrote in another topic, but I'm replying here for a little OT question. How did you set your afterburner to display CPU usage?
edit: added appdata link --Zaggy
The game still performes over 50fps nicely. It's just strange that 50 fps disapeared....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same issue here in the menu. Sometimes I get 70 FPS in the menu and at times I get 30.
Hopped into a random server and played a full game. Heres the log of it, hope it helps somehow.
<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?m53w7dnbpr9ewwn" target="_blank">http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?m53w7dnbpr9ewwn</a>
I tried to attach it directly but I'm apparently not permitted to upload .rar files.
I realise I don't exactly have the best of rigs but yeah 30fps max on lowest possible settings
AMD A8-3500 APU with Radeon HD Graphics, 1500 Mhz, 4 Cores, 4 Logical Processors
AMD Radeon HD 6620G, 6GB RAM DDR 3
Windows 7 64-bit
I've been told APU is what's causing alot of my problems, but this is the first game i've ever come across that's next to unplayable and i've played the elitest of graphic consuming games (i.e.Crysis,GTA4,Arma2) and still managed to get a comfortable fps on medium let alone lowest possible.
I'd like to let you all know after reading here and there I can confirm that one trick has worked for me as a "band-aid" regarding this issue. I was able to get the game back to playable framerates after 2 things:
First I rolled back to catalyst 12.8 (was supposed to do a clean install with 12.10 but windows ended up doing a rollback with the previous drivers).
Then After I have started the game I promote the NS2 process priority to "high" in task manager.
I suggest you try the latter trick before touching your drivers, it seemed to have a larger impact on the performance. This is not a fix though, it only increases the median fps so that you are able to play fast action somewhat tolerably, the frame drops still exist.
PS. I would like to see an acknowledgement from the devs that this is a known issue and that it's being worked on. It's pretty freaky how turning all the settings to minimun has no affect on the frame drops at all.
additionally laptop processors are notorious for underclocking themselves when they get too hot - don't ever expect it to reach its "turbo" speed because it wont. About those i7-2820QMs, they only run around 2.3 ghz and the only reason they are near the 2500k in the passmark benchmark is because it is highly threaded and responds well to hyperthreading. For gaming, 2.3 ghz doesn't cut it - games arn't nearly as multithreaded as other types of applications that can be made massively parallel.
additionally laptop processors are notorious for underclocking themselves when they get too hot - don't ever expect it to reach its "turbo" speed because it wont. About those i7-2820QMs, they only run around 2.3 ghz and the only reason they are near the 2500k in the passmark benchmark is because it is highly threaded and responds well to hyperthreading. For gaming, 2.3 ghz doesn't cut it - games arn't nearly as multithreaded as other types of applications that can be made massively parallel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CPU: i7 2630QM here. Runs at 2.9 like a champ
Does not underclock under pressure.
Can we cut the crap and bashing of 1 year old CPUs please when a real problem exists with 1.0?!
yes I have been playing since alpha. No ... some FPS issues are new to 1.0.
But are you saying a Intel 2500K @ 4.5GHZ is not enough processing power? The game doesn't use above two threads, so even if I moved to one of the latest, I wouldn't see a performance improvement really unless I went to over 5GHZ...and that's absurd! Most stock processors do at least 3.2GHZ these days, which is enough. Unless you're AMD.
But still, even if I had 3960K @ 4.8GHZ or so, my performance wouldn't improve much unless NS2 become better threaded.
They made it in lua, to make it very moddable, but lua is also single threaded by default...so poor performance. The engine, at it's core, is poorly designed. I'm sorry.
But are you saying a Intel 2500K @ 4.5GHZ is not enough processing power? The game doesn't use above two threads, so even if I moved to one of the latest, I wouldn't see a performance improvement really unless I went to over 5GHZ...and that's absurd! Most stock processors do at least 3.2GHZ these days, which is enough. Unless you're AMD.
But still, even if I had 3960K @ 4.8GHZ or so, my performance wouldn't improve much unless NS2 become better threaded.
They made it in lua, to make it very moddable, but lua is also single threaded by default...so poor performance. The engine, at it's core, is poorly designed. I'm sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
my 2500k is at 4.5 ghz as well
I don't have gamebreaking performance issues described in this thread. Sure my min fps drops down to the low 40's sometimes, but the game runs butter smooth and I wouldn't be able to tell if I didn't have the numbers on.
when i was at 3.3 ghz the game was fine as well.
However, I believe a significant portion of the people who are having -severe- framerate issues are limited by their processors. 3.0ghz is recommended for a reason and the majority of posts here having a problem doesn't meet that requirement. turbo doesn't count. nor does adding more cores.
I play with Oclussion in Medium, and I have Intel C2Q 3400mhz, 4gb ram and GTX470 with OC, and i Have the last Drivers with my graphic card, obviously, my PC is not the problem.
Feel lucky that you can run the game at all. Plenty of people here including me can barely run the game at 15-30fps at 800x600 with all settings off/minimal, and we have better machines than you do.