Are you satisfied with your performance?

pendelum5 · January 2013

I run a pretty old Core 2 Quad @ 3Ghz, so I have to play at 1024x768 minimum settings and stay away from 18+ player servers. When is UWE going to optimize this game so people without bleeding edge gaming rigs can enjoy a constant 60 fps? To be honest, I wouldn't mind NS1 graphics if it meant I could play without worrying about FPS drop killing me in a heated battle.

Edit: Oops, forgot my other specs
GPU: GTX 460
RAM: 4GB DDR2
OS: Windows 7 x64

Mavick · January 2013

Well, they just set themselves back with the build they released tonight. Many players who've *never* had huge performance issues, including myself, are experiencing drastically decreased performance in this build. Server performance in general has also radically declined. My 24 player server that's hosted by ns2servers usually ran solid max 30 tickrate with occasional drops in the 20's late games. Now the graph is all over the place bottoming out regularly around 10-15. Completely unacceptable. Just since 238.

Canucck · January 2013

Server performance is a way bigger problem atm. Pretty much every NA east server right now no matter what size drop to at least 80% perf after ~20min. A lot go down <50% in even less time. Even at a tickrate of 25 the hit detection becomes really brutal

Minimum · January 2013

pendelum5 wrote: »

I run a pretty old Core 2 Quad @ 3Ghz, so I have to play at 1024x768 minimum settings and stay away from 18+ player servers. When is UWE going to optimize this game so people without bleeding edge gaming rigs can enjoy a constant 60 fps? To be honest, I wouldn't mind NS1 graphics if it meant I could play without worrying about FPS drop killing me in a heated battle.

What GPU do you have? Before the latest update (238) I was running it on my Q6600 @ 3.15Ghz and ATI 7850 @ 1050/1350 at 2048x1152 maximum settings. I usually play on 18 or 20 player servers and only noticed lag during bigger or massive battles.

Since this update I can't even play in minor battles without experiencing lag. Even in a room by myself I'm lagging a bit. The game is borderline unplayable now. I'm going to stay away until they fix this issue because I can't even enjoy the game anymore. This is such a shame because this is my favorite game right now.

Pyromaniac · January 2013

Months after release I still get < 30 fps not even late game on an overclocked e8400 and overclocked 8800gts 512. 45 fps was promised for release on an e8400 and 8800gt.

I made threads before release asking the devs to offer lower effects and graphics to decrease cpu load, and everyone said it wouldn't matter, yet i get over 100fps on bare geometry single texture maps in development.

Savant · January 2013

While I am still playable, I can tell performance has taken a hit by my GPU monitor. For some reason, the main menu is NS2 is *massively* demanding. Not just demanding, but needs more GPU power than an active game.

Prior to this build I was running at about ~65% load on that menu, now it's 95% and my temps are going right up - along with my fan speed. This is just the MENU. The game actually performs better than the main menu, but the fact that my main menu GPU load increased, certainly doesn't bode well for performance in-game.

sotanaht · January 2013

I stay at very close to 30FPS most of the time, which is fine for me since that's more or less what I expect from my system. That's with 1920x1200 resolution but most of the effects turned off or down. I think server performance is a much bigger issue. I'd really like to see servers able to maintain an actual good tickrate in the future, higher than the current maximum at any rate, but of course fixing the rubberbanding I get on some of the worse ones is quite a bit more important than even that.

Canucck · January 2013

Pyromaniac wrote: »

Months after release I still get < 30 fps not even late game on an overclocked e8400 and overclocked 8800gts 512. 45 fps was promised for release on an e8400 and 8800gt.

That's like 5 year old hardware... it's actually pretty close to the minimum requirements

YMICrazy · January 2013

I'm just gonna go ahead and repost this here

I am not sure if people keep track of their performance but I figure it's the people with higher specs can easily notice compared to players who already have low frames since they start with higher frames and can easily notice any dips. I will not say 236 was a terrible mess since the performance loss was minimal but the dips were irritating but I could deal with it. But it's when the first few problems started since launch where things were going well with every patch.

And savant is right about performance in places where it should not be taxing. Another example can be the ready room. Previously in 235 empty ready rooms I use to get 199-200 now it's around 120. In explore mode I use to stand in the same spot every build to see if anything changed and I even kept the same settings and drivers but nothing really changed until 236 where it went from 101 frames to 91. I thought it was minor at the time and just reported it. Then this patch and I'm getting 75 in the same spot even if I turn everything from high to low. It's a crappy test but it's how I tend to gauge performance.

Then the actual gameplay with 20+ people where it get down to 40 mid game when it use to be 60+. So yea those large decreases have transferred to actual gameplay.

Xao · January 2013

Averages 90 fps, feels like 40-50 during action tho, I don't trust those FRAPS results since they combine the high FPS of inactivity/holding spawn with the lower FPS of actual gameplay.

Satisfied...mostly, mostly. Feels weird to know that only people OCing their CPU past 4k are getting reliable 50+ fps all the time.

Lofung · January 2013

was a server host and a owner of a i7 monster.

NO

-WildCat- · January 2013

I had to send my 4-month-old beast PC back to the manufacturer due to a chassis fan issue so I've been playing on my 3-year-old PC for the last few weeks. With 1920x1080 resolution and all the settings on Low or Off (except for Shadows, which I honestly don't think players should be allowed to disable), I get decent playable FPS most of the time.

The most significant performance destroyer that I have found are MACs and/or Exosuits. When a few MACs are welding an Exosuit, I cannot approach them without my frame-rate plummeting to a slideshow. It becomes almost impossible to attack anything that has welders around it.

Old PC spec:
i7 920 @ 2.66GHz
6 GB RAM
2x Radeon HD5870 in Crossfire

_Necro_ · January 2013

Thats probably because your GPU has problems with the particle effects. Most old GPUs are lacking special technologies to better calculate these.

oMe · January 2013

Im ok with performance. But i got a potent rig so...

Mige · January 2013

My fps dropped in empty map like 20-70fps (compared to 237, while 235 was better than 236/237).. pretty much my GPU usage went down. Could be win8 problem..

EiZON · January 2013

My performance is pretty good, I have a GTX 660 but the rest of my system is 5 years old.

I run full everything at 1680x1050 (except that one setting that they added recently and advised to keep low).

I get the odd slowdown when it gets busy but nothing that bothers me.

SquishpokePOOPFACE · January 2013

I'm fine with my current performance. GTX 460 and an i5.

IronHorse · January 2013

Mige wrote: »

My fps dropped in empty map like 20-70fps (compared to 237, while 235 was better than 236/237).. pretty much my GPU usage went down. Could be win8 problem..

This is s bug that made it into the patch. And has already been fixed for the next patch which will go out asap.

|strofix| · January 2013

I have found something amazing and quite ground breaking, that I think will surely help UWE to fix the performance issues.

Laptop CPUs don't do so great.

Jalaman · January 2013

I play at 1280x720 in most games for competitive reasons. Doing this in NS2 allows me to push everything else up except for ambient occlusion and still remain very playable, so I'd say I'm pretty satisfied right now.

Though I know if I bumped my res up to 1920x1080 that my performance would probably become unplayable. Resolution seems to have the biggest impact for me.

Specs for the curious:
i5-2500k @ 3.8Ghz
GTX 560
8gb DDR3 1600mhz

Apreche2 · January 2013

I have an i7 and a GTX680 with 32G RAM so... sorry guys.

Davil · January 2013

Savant wrote: »

While I am still playable, I can tell performance has taken a hit by my GPU monitor. For some reason, the main menu is NS2 is *massively* demanding. Not just demanding, but needs more GPU power than an active game.

Prior to this build I was running at about ~65% load on that menu, now it's 95% and my temps are going right up - along with my fan speed. This is just the MENU. The game actually performs better than the main menu, but the fact that my main menu GPU load increased, certainly doesn't bode well for performance in-game.

This is most likely due to the fact that your card is rendering 120+ fps. When your card is rendering a ton of frames per second it's going to heat up even if they aren't hard to render. It's kind of like an engine that's spinning at 5000 rpm's with no gears attached, it's still going really fast but there's really no need for it. My advice is to either turn on vsync or use the maxframes command to reduce this.

IronHorse · January 2013

Being a multiple gaming laptop owner myself, I can vouch that laptops are usually sub par performance wise for gaming in general , compared to desktops.
Even if the cooling and clocks are addressed, you're typically still stuck with some crap proprietary display driver with compatibility issues.
Things have gotten better over time.. But really after spending thousands on building, repairing, swapping out parts, and endless driver headaches, I've ceased recommending laptops for gaming to anyone who isn't very tech savvy with a lot of time and money on their hands.
My 2 cents.

Vitdom · January 2013

I am actually very satisfied with my performance using my laptop to play NS2. My mobile Intel i7 with physical 4 cores @ 3.1 GHz TurboBoosted handles the game really well. The issues is my GPU though, it sucks. I didn't know it was this bad, because I forgot to look at benchmarks BEFORE I bought my laptop. As I understand it, many med-high GFX setups handle the game well so the overall performance in my experience is very optimized.

|strofix| · January 2013

Vitdom wrote: »

I am actually very satisfied with my performance using my laptop to play NS2. My mobile Intel i7 with physical 4 cores @ 3.1 GHz TurboBoosted handles the game really well. The issues is my GPU though, it sucks. I didn't know it was this bad, because I forgot to look at benchmarks BEFORE I bought my laptop. As I understand it, many med-high GFX setups handle the game well so the overall performance in my experience is very optimized.

3.1 in a laptop? How much do you blow on liquid nitrogen a month?

Vitdom · January 2013

|strofix| wrote: »

Vitdom wrote: »

I am actually very satisfied with my performance using my laptop to play NS2. My mobile Intel i7 with physical 4 cores @ 3.1 GHz TurboBoosted handles the game really well. The issues is my GPU though, it sucks. I didn't know it was this bad, because I forgot to look at benchmarks BEFORE I bought my laptop. As I understand it, many med-high GFX setups handle the game well so the overall performance in my experience is very optimized.

3.1 in a laptop? How much do you blow on liquid nitrogen a month?

I have this CPU: http://ark.intel.com/products/53469/intel-core-i7-2670qm-processor-6m-cache-up-to-3_10-ghz

Looking at the stats, it drops down to 2.8 GHz after 6 min at full capacity, and stays there. Apparently it handles 100 C maximum.

ChitownFreeze · February 2013

I have never been satisfied with performance in NS2. I'm biding my time until I can afford to purchase a new rig. Been playing on a 5yo box (3.0 GHz E8400 core 2 duo, 4 GB RAM) with a more recent GPU (Radeon HD 5870, 2 GB). r_profile suggests I'm always waiting on the CPU, so I've just assumed my PC is too old to run the game efficiently. Most of my gameplay just feels sluggish, like the mouse responsiveness is way off. During intense battles, the game can't keep up with what I'm attempting to do, so I die often as a marine. A lot. I see people decimate skulks in 1v1 battles and think to myself "they must be running a super-fast rig", and I curse the piece of crap I'm playing on.

This isn't unique to 238; performance has been sub-par for every build.

Frothybeverage · February 2013

I kinda suck, but I'm getting better.

Ghosthree3 · February 2013

I was happy with my performance in b235, onwards from that, not so much

ironhorse wrote: »

This is s bug that made it into the patch. And has already been fixed for the next patch which will go out asap.

Could you please tell us what the bug is? I'm curious as to what changed that everyone lost 20fps.

schkorpio · February 2013

intel core i5 3570k
gtx 670
8gb ram

runs perfect - 60-80fps most of the time.
drops down to about 50fps in huge battles

its a reasonably priced system too.

btw if anyone in australia or nz wants a gaming pc try ozpc.com.au

Seahunts · February 2013

Apart from when I am near firing exos I'm happy with performance.
1920x1200
i7 920 @ 3.6GHz
GTX 670 FTW
6GB RAM

I play with detail high, infest min, other effects off / minimal.

Are you satisfied with your performance?

Comments