I have a Phenom 965 BE OC'd to 4ghz and I used to get max 30fps many months ago. Now with all the patches which have made the framerate worse, I sit at around 19fps sometimes. Completely unplayable. 30-25 is tolerable at best, 19 is unplayable. This game has zero AMD optimization. None. Not even a tiny bit. They went cheap and completely ignored a chunk of the market and just went for the majority.
The issue isn't the processor people are using, it's the settings they're playing at. They think that they can max out the game and have it run at 100+ fps just because they can play Battlefield 3 maxed. People need to learn to look at guides and tweak their game accordingly. Just to prove the point, here's a thread where the OP with an Intel CPU is complaining about low FPS https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/will-it-ever-run-smoothly.140507/
Yes we do. Nevertheless 20% of all worlds pcs are fitted with AMD cpu and it's a freaking shame that even those AMD series designed for gaming completely s**k at running PS2. AMD FX series has some quite good processors capable of running very well most of videogames out on the market.... but Planetside 2. 20% of users got very little chance to be ever able to play Planetisde 2 decentely. This game seems to be the only one that can't get enough of AMD speed per core. It drives me mad: I can run everything at very good detail, but not PS2. During beta Smedley tweeted they were working together with AMD to improve performance and they got no result at all. This is just a great mass of bu***hit, the truth is that AMD users just run PS2 very bad if they don't overclock their machines. Honestly I want to see how it's going to run on PS4, since it's going to be an AMD Jaguar 8 cores probably running @ 1.8 - 2.0 ghz with a Radeon graphic chip.
Don't get your hopes up It might be AMD hardware, but it's still a bespoke system. Also the graphics chip they are using is an older model afaik so any optimizations (if they are even comparable to PC) aren't going to effect current PC cards. AMD cards have always been the same though. The hardware is (usually) ok, but the drivers are dire. Nvidia are a LOT more pro-active at optimizing their drivers to fit the games, while AMD users end up waiting on the games developers to fix it from their end, which is a lot harder. I'm running a geforce 670gtx at the moment and my fps go no lower than about 50 in any situation. But a more powerful and expensive AMD card will struggle purely because of drivers, it's ridiculous.
Running a amd 6700 as my 7950 was blown up also. Graphics settings are all the way down. Having another problem at this point with vertical bars shortly before the machine dies. Van dax was correct though. Overclocking the cpu to 4.2 ghz helped a lot.
your entire post shows me that you really don't know what your talking about here. This game is CPU bound. Not GPU. Graphics cards have nothing to do with it, and amd cards dont need to be optimized for this game, amd CPUs do. You can get no less then 50 fps(not likely) not because you have a 670, but because you have a VERY high clocked intel CPU. If you dont, then theres no way your never going below 50 fps.What is your CPU? A 7950 with your CPU will perform EXACTLY the same as your current PC does in this game. Drivers play 0 part in this. Its your CPU thats helping you. Not the Nvidia card. The developers have to fix the CPU optimization, not AMD. That said, you havent seen the recent switch in roles? Nvidias recent set of drivers have been....Less then acceptable for alot of people, while amd has improved by quite a bit in quality. Recent drivers have brought nothing but improvements for nearly everyone, but this is beside the point of this thread. Now..... Onto the other part of your post, now that we have established that drivers play no part in you not dropping below 50 fps. the PS4 is using a new 8 core jaguar CPU clocked at 1.6 Ghz. This architecture of CPU is being put in new amd laptop APUs. The consoles are also running the same architecture as current PCs. This means that porting is much easier, and infact, the Exact model of PS4 CPUs(+/- cores and/or clock speed) are being used, and the same architecture, it will certainly help PCs when they optimize it for PS4. The fact that this game currently relies on pounding a single core, and the PS4 is both extremely low clocked and very weak, means that they need to heavily multithread this game. that will definitly improve PC performance for people. The PS4s graphics is roughly the same power as a 7870 and is most similar to a 7970m. Its hardly an old GPU. Its not like last gen that was using custom propriatary PC hardware. Cell in the PS3 and Xenos/Xenon in the Xbox 360.
By hardware, I think they're more referencing the processor than the graphic chipset. Especially people with 4 or more cores. I get acceptable performance with my FX 8350 BE but I'm looking forward to seeing SOE (hopefully) hold up on their promise that in the coming days closer the PS4's release, we'll see dramatic improvements in optimizations for multicore processors, seeing as that's the only way in hell this game has any chance of running acceptably on a console.
1) Distinction between intel and AMD optimization is largely nonsense. The issue is tracking player entities, important in large fights and at the moment run on a single core (there are a lot of very good software engineering reasons for this being the case, its not just lazyness, and its HUGELY complex as a computational task). 2) Intel has a lead on individual core performance by about 15-30% in the latest generation of chips 2,3,4's and FX's. 3) this is reflected in the FPS if you have your settings correct (if you have shadows on, and your complaining about FPS - facepalm) my FX 8350 might get 28-32 in a massive zergfest, my buddies i5 3570k 30-35. Gulf not as big as people make out. 4) AMD has the edge in having well, often 2x the number of cores in their high end gamzoring chips. PS2 needs to make far, far more use of said cores in situations like 1) if its to run on PS4. As thats where most of the computing power in the PS4 resides. the reason why stuff is not mutlithreaded that much atm, is largely things are drastically more complicated at times to have running on mutliple threads than just a single thread on a single core. Issues largely surround coherence. In the games industry as a whole it comes down to difficulty, lack of need and time and resources needed to be invested to make sure of 4 as opposed to 8 cores effectively. Most people have not bothered. PS2 its more to do with the complexity of maintaining a coherent game world over mutliple threads. Would have been nice if it had been done from get go, but market economics are what they are. C) Within 4-10 months, and launch of PS2 on PS4, can expect PS2 to run better on most CPU's due to increased mutlithreading, likely far better on AMD 8 cores (which covers several chips)
Because you were obviously using them both at the same exact time and made very specific and intricate comparisons between the two processors in the same exact class. Seriously, this kind of nonsense needs to stop. No one is trying to convince you that AMD processors are amazing and beat Intel. However to try and choke out the silly notion that Intel processors are somehow vastly superior, is doing injustice to what you might actually know about computers. For the respect of this thread and everyone else here, unless you can contribute to the topic instead of bash AMD over Intel, I'm not going to be responding to you (specifically) anymore. Being you're three posts deep now, I hope this isn't how you're normally going to act on this forum because I'd like to think we've got a somewhat decent community here.
The reason that AMD CPUs struggle so much with PS2 is (primarily) because they have godawful single core performance. Look at this chart: AMD CPUs will probably get a massive boost when PS2 becomes truly multithreaded with the launch of the PS4, but there are a few other downsides to AMD's CPUs. Because of their architecture, every 2 cores is really more like 1.5, or closer to 1 core for gaming. This is because for every 2 cores, there are 2 Integer processors but only 1 floating point processor. A game like PS2 relies heavily on floating point arithmetic. Because of this, I generally just view AMD processors as half the advertised cores but have something similar to Hyper Threading.
This is easily the most sense I've ever seen someone make on a forum post about AMD processors and Planetside 2. Especially since I can see it with my FX-8350. Someone get this guy person a gold star.
I'm not sure what issues people have with AMD and this game. I'm running AMD and have not see or had any problems. AMD Phenom II Black Edition x4 955 3.20 GHZ (all 4 cores unlocked) 8 gigs of RAM Windows 7 Nvidia GeForce GTX460 (yeah I could use a better card) This is my first AMD build however. I've built only Intel in the past but so far no issues with AMD.
nope. a faster clocked amd is slower than a slower clocked intel. the intel does much more in each clock cycle than an amd. im sorry you bought a cheap cpu.
Honestly it's not that terrible having to go from AMD to Intel. I ended up biting the bullet last week and called the Geek Squad to do it for me. They put my cpu under a scanning tunnel microscope and manually changed the architecture, atom by atom. They ended up doing too good of a job, however, and clocked my cpu into the high exahertz range. It was nice having it clocked that high for a little, but it was making my computer emit high-energy EM radiation, particularly gamma rays. So I went into the BIOS and clocked it a little lower. So now I can play at maximum settings, but I also now have leukemia. ******* geek squad.
