I've been reading through this thread and the *** hattery some people have posted. fyi i'm sitting with a i7 3930k , 16gb ddr3 2400mhz ( quad channel none the less ) and CF 6990's , and my game runs like **** if compared to lets say bf3 where i can run with ultra settings on @ 200 fps and about 100-120fps in somewhat large battles with explosions and what not, here in a large battle ive even seen my fps drop down to 10 fps, i was stunned at how **** a job they have done with this game.
Interesting, you are the first person I have seen who has been having issues with FPS despite having a new i7. It might be your crossfire, there were a few people who posted problems with their CF rigs running this game. And one of my friends has CF 6870s and he has issues with it aswell. I know that Nvidia just had an update last week for a CF issue with this game, check to see if you can get new drivers.
Unlike your ancient Phenom, my first generation core i3 supports both SSE4.1 and SSE4.2 If you are happy with your frame rate then be happy and dont complain. Multi-core support (beyond 2 to 3 cores) is very unlikely to happen MMO's are notorious for poor multi-core support. The developers are not going to re-write most of the game engine.
I suggest we make a meme on this. The template is: "I have <insert your hardware>, and my game runs like **** if compared to lets say <insert the game here> where I can run with ultra settings on @ 200 fps and what not". For example: "I have 486 DX, and my game runs like **** if compared to lets say Wolfenstein where I can run with ultra settings on @ 200 fps and what not" Or: "I have ZX Spectrum, and my game runs like **** if compared to lets say Elite where I can run with ultra settings on @ 200 fps and what not"
Except that you experience the same slowdowns. When I am driving in the mountains I can get 60+FPS. In small battles I can have 25-30 FPS. And in large battles it doesnt fall that much more and goes to 18-25. And I dont have an overclocked CPU im just sitting at a 2.7GHZ speed. So Your overclocked rig gets slightly better FPS on a newer architecture and a higher clock speed? Sounds like you are running unoptimized as my room mate gets 60FPS in big battles and upto 120 when hes oding nothing and 85-90 in small battles.
One of my other buddies has a Phenom II and a 590GTX and he gets 30FPS aswell. But there have been people here on the forums who have Bulldozer and 6850's and they are getting more FPS than us.
Oh no. I am definately running a tweaked UserOptions.ini Since you did not mention which cpu you or your roommmate have, I will assume you know little or nothing about cpu's. I still think they should drop support for older cpu's. I run an online business and many of problems were solved by getting rid of poor customers who love to complain. Your fps is nothing like mine. I get 25-30 fps in massively massive huge battles and 30-40fps in medium to large battles.
Yea i know, its the optimizations for the game that aint in place, sadly i would think when you make a bran new game now a days that you make sure peoples rigs can run it, i don't know what they test their **** on, but obviously it aint expensive enough. Its not because i don't know how to build computers , been doing that for over a decade, and im what i'd call nearly a ASUS bios expert, i only buy Asus motherboards , so its setup to perfection in BIOS in every way, im running with 1 Samsung 830 series 128gb for OS only and programs, one Kingston HyperX 480Gb SSD for my installed games only and a couple of 2tb's in raid for storage, windows optimizations i know what to do there as well, so clearly its not my machine, but the game. And i did test PS2 on my old righ which was a P8Z68 with my i7 2600k and 2133Mhz memory, same gfx setup, ran alot better there, should never have bought new ****
Do you realize that your expert CMOS settings mean absolutely nothing for a modern OS, since it can control all of them at runtime?
My FPS is nothing like yours but yet you have 5FPS more than me? I know a great deal about hardware, I own an online software business, make the worlds most popular counter strike hacks, have administrated servers for many years and do desktop support on the side and sometimes as a job. I have always been a hardware guy. I wrote what CPU I had earlier, I dont need to write it in every post. I have a Phenom II X6 1045T and my room mate has a i5 2500k OC to 4.2, and his older brother has a i7 940 OC to 3.7 I believe. My room mate also has a spare PC which runs a Q6600 and it runs at about 30FPS in warpgate, we didn't even take it into a fight. His laptop has a i7 Quad w/ a GTX 540M and he gets ~35FPS max. You also must run a pretty bad business if your business drops everyone who doesn't go out and buy new hardware every 2 years. I have not even had my Phenom 2 years, the 6 cores didn't even exist 3 years ago so this is basically a newer PC and it still does not run planetside. i3's are slow, its only your high clockspeed which is giving you the FPS you have.
i know nothing of coding, but what i see is bigdick say its the processors fault that planetside2 doesnt use resources to the fullest, jimster say that it is planetside2's fault that the processor resources arent being used to the fullest? bigdick, tell me why then other games can and do use most all processors to the full potential? if its a problem that the "older" processors arn't good enough wouldnt they be taxed at %100 usage at all times trying to keep up? jimster if it is the planetside2 "code" that is the problem why does overclocking seem to help so much? if my cpu is already not being utilized(having so much more cpu to be used) why does speeding it up help to make game run faster? is the code limiting the amount of tjhings the processor can think about at one time? so speeding up makes them computate faster? help a guy out. make me understand.
I'm sorry but do you understand what we are aruging in this thread. Indeed your in part disproving the OP's hypothesis. Namely that the games poor fps showing is due to the codes focus exclusively being on SSE4.1 and/or 4.2. Which you supposedly have. Indeed OP is not this an argument against if true? As a final note, my 'ancient' phenom, is about (well it imagine it was made well after this) is like 4-10 months older than your chip. So define ancient, It being a relative term and all. So I suggest you re-read the OP and leave the fanboidom at the door before it completely destroys your sense of logic. This whole 'I HAZ INTEL, MAKE GAME BETTAR FOR MEES DEVS. SCREW AMD THEY SUCKS' (almost if I and every other poor soul who made the mistake of getting a phenom II is to blame for your fps being comparable). Misses the point i've raised several times now (and has been ignored). this is an MMO with a shop they need the biggest player base possible. A lot of people in gaming community out there with Phenom 2's.
You have obviously never seen an ASUS BIOS then it has alot of low level options which are not controllable via runtime and are not available on most other brands motherboards.
I wonder where people would draw the line at "minimum hardware requirement" if they had a choice? i guess would be just below where thier 10 year old machine is. I feel bad for the Devs, they can't win this one, they will work very hard to get the game running, but when its done, there will still be a bunch of people on the forums wailing that thier PIII 450GHz with 512MB RAM won't play it. Good luck Devs, i know you'll get there in the end. Personaly i'll just sit tight, keep the faith, and keep on playing
The reason the higher clockspeed helps is because they are using only 2 threads. Meaning they can only utilize 2 cores of the processor at the same time. Thus a higher clockspeed and a faster architecture (meaning more data processed per Mhz) means better performance on 2 cores which are being used. Even with the crappy unoptimized setup they have now I would have no problems if I could use atleast 4 of the cores on my CPU. But I am stuck with using only 2 and not being able to run optimized code as I don't have the architecture extension set which they are using.
I'm leaning towards the opinion that they compiled with legacy support in mind if newer i7's occasionally have issues (along with AMD systems). I mean, DX 9 and the amazingly low memory footprint (yet to see it use >2GB of memory)! Yech.
He also forgets on the expensive motherboards like Asus, you can tell it to only work via the BIOS setting, and not let your OS configure ****, since windows is a piece of garbage in the end, f.x i bought windows 8 pro 64bit, i OC'd my 3930k to 4ghz on its stock vcore from 3.2 which is stock speed, yet windows wants to keep changing my multiplier and what not, so in the end i set my bios up differently so it can't do that, else it would mess around with my multiplier automaticly without me telling it to do so. And letting your "modern OS" mess around with your CMOS settings aint the best idea, not at all
SoE keep deleting the FPS issues threads (I appreciate a lot of people are being childish SoE and trolls abound, but even the ini file tweak thread.. common, some of us are trying to be productive and help by reasoning through this.). But I've seen a few people (3-4, not many that's the important bit) complain along the lines of "WTF I HAVE A 3rd gen i7, 20fps!!!" I've seen quite a few 2nd gen i7 guys complain though, don't they have the same SSE4.1 and 4.2 compliance?
