Can anyone post a PC that can run Planetside at acceptable FPS?

I was wondering what people could post that would provide at least 40 fps in large battles?

A friend of mine went from 30-35 fps during large battles to 50+ by overclocking his i7 to 4.00ghz.
GPU doesnt really matter, with a gtx550ti i play on ultra at 90% rendering quality with no problem, the bottleneck is always the CPU.

CPU: Intel Core i7 3970X
GPU: Nvidia GTX 690
RAM: 48Gigs DDR3
Motherboard: ASUS Rampage IV Extreme
OS: Windows 7 64Bit

Those things should get you about 40-60 in large Amp Station, Tech Planet, and BioLab battles, and 50-60 anywhere else. Its hellishly expensive though, and only worth it if you're hardcore into gaming.

I run a:
i7-950 @ 4.1 Ghz
12 GB of 1600 DDR3 RAM
OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB SSD
XFX HD 7970 3Gb

And I rarely dip below 20 FPS, and usually run about 50-60.

As Gisgo mentioned, as long as you have a upper-mid range or higher graphics card that isn't going to be the limiting factor. You need a strong CPU is the main thing.

I think you're still going to get a lot of different answers, at this point. The game's still being optimized, and will be for a long time, yet. Plus, with all the different combinations of brands and capabilities of all the different pieces of hardware out there, you're there are no real definitive sets of hardware that can run the game well.

My system runs it great for me on ultra settings all the way around, lowest FPS is the bigger battles and in the dome or lab whichever you prefer to call it and this would be 50-60fps most of the time it's 90 fps and up.

Thanks for the answers. I definitely understand your point that the game will be changed and optimized over and over again. However, I am just trying to get a ball park figure on hardware.

This is very true. ALthough the first three people to respond all said i7 processors

Nice to see an amd system having good success.

FPS hasn't been so much of an issue for me this week as rubber-banding/warping. Playing with all graphics set to full.

In the last half-decade, there's been a very real shift in CPU development from the clock speed race to the "More and better cores" race. This means that most stock gaming-capable machines now have a CPU with anywhere from four to eight threads arrayed on four cores, and a clock speed somewhere between 2 Ghz and 3 Ghz. At the moment though, PS2 doesn't really make great use of those extra cores and threads, so it ignores them. Instead, it seems to presently benefit form faster clock speed. Since this diverges from the direction that CPUs (and most AAA games/game engines) have taken in recent years, most gaming machines don't handle the game too well. This is why you see people with 4+ Ghz OC'd CPUs handling it just fine, and seemingly everyone else making barely passable framerates.

This is really it in a nutshell. The vast majority of games recently are very GPU heavy and depend very little on CPU power. Hell, games like Farcry 3 only put me at about 50% CPU usage on average but 100% GPU usage.

PS2 kind of switches that around and puts a lot of strain on the CPUs.

All depends on what you believe is decent. Before the patch I would get my FPS around 25-30 stedy during the largest fights that were happening in the game at High settings and 100% rendering at 1920x1200 resolution. When my FPS dropped lower It was also smoth so I really didn't notice the drop between an empty area and a large scale fight.

My specs are in my Signiture.

i7 2700k @ 4.5Ghz
16 GB DDR 1666
ATI HD6990

Am playing with everything on high and 100% rendering.
120 FPS on warpgate and low populated areas (Vsync on or it'd go higher I guess)
On extremely large battles where you don't render enemies 20 feet in front of you I normally mantain a 40ish FPS through it.
The only thing I can't turn "on" is Fog Shadows - it eats up 20 FPS and I just don't want to play at 20 and lower FPS.

Just built this one about a month ago, strictly for gaming and let me say that is handles PS2, BF3, and anything else max settings with no issues. I didn't want to break the bank so I went back to AMD just to see what kind of performance I could get and I am not disappointed.

PS2 doesn't use crossfire though? I had heard that amd closed the gap on intel with the pile driver series.

I'm running:

i7-2700k @ stock 3.5GHz
2GB GTX 660 @ stock speed
Asus P8Z77-M
8GB Dual-DDR3 Generic Samsung RAM
Coolit ECO II A.L.C (Not really needed)
Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
AOC e2250wd @ 1920x1080


Solid 70+ at WG and small scale fights. Haven't dipped below 40 pre-GU2 and after the stutter fix.
I was running high/ ultra fine before GU2, but I've had to turn down the fancy shadows and what not down to low to keep these rates. Its fine though, not missing anything. ^^

Would all that RAM really affect FPS? It sounds unlikely but I'm no expert.

Personally I'm running this game on a year-old MSI gaming laptop (I think its called GT5-series) its on par with most mid-range desktops still - Yeah I know.. laptop right? It's not as bad as it sounds.Steelseries keyboard, very good screen and virtually no fan noise and the speakers are actually really good for when you don't want to use a headset. There's even a built in sub.

I've optimized with Nvidia Experience and the game looks good and runs smoothly enough all the time not to affect my personal performance.

Don't get too caught up in the whole FPS thing, you need stable FPS, not high FPS to play properly. With a steady 30 in huge battles you shouldn't have a problem and the game should appear reasonably smooth.

Anyhow, I average out on around 40 FPS in large battles with mid-high settings and around 55 otherwise.

A decent gaming laptop costs a fortune if it should have similiar perfomance as a decent gaming desktop. While a decent gaming desktop isn't very expensive.

AMD Phenom II X6 @ 4ghz
ASUS 7870 @ 1.2ghz + mem @ 5.5ghz
ASUS Crosshair Forumula IV Mobo
Antec HCG 900W
G.Skill 8GB DDR3 1600
Corsair SSD

I've got everything set on Ultra and render quality at 1.4.. lowest FPS I'll get is ~25 in packed Bio Labs but even then it's still smooth like butter. ~50 fps in normal sized battles.

The CPU clock is definitely more important than anything else. My CPU was 3.2ghz stock. Running it at 4ghz doubled my FPS.

I have an i7 3630qm that can clock up to 3.4 if it needs to. However, PS2 only uses it to about 40 percent of it's total use. I can only assume that the developers have not worked out the kinks for mobile processors. I am still getting about the same performance as my old rig that I just sold. No other games on the market would give me any problems. My graphics card is a 7970m, which is basically a 7870 clocked a bit lower. Unfortunately, I do not have the ability to overlock at will because the processor is locked.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-3630QM-Notebook-Processor.80051.0.html