... why not just game on friggin' HD 4600? Ok here's the thing: I am currently using a laptop with i5 2430M and GT 540M and PS2 is barely working. I am planning on upgrading and already got i7 4790 (I needed it for CAD) and 16 GB of RAM (partially because of CAD and partially because... well cuz i can!) Now I am waiting for the GTX 980 to come hopefully in a few weeks time. My question now is simple: How will Intel's HD 4600 perform? How many FPS can I expect? I thought of using the HD 4600 not because I lost my sanity, but instead because I noticed that this game is not very GPU heavy but rather relies on a CPU with good single threaded performance. Since I was never GPU bottlenecked I thought it might work as the HD 4600 is performing around the same level as the GT 540M. I appreciate any answers to my question! Cheers, Shalalala
take a look at BlackDove's thread.. kind of the resident PC guru. here.. he suggested -exactly- what you're asking.. https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...i-run-it-upgrade-advice-threads.170564/page-3 I was running the game, (32bit fiasco killed my game play), on an old computer, intel, without graphics card. it's about 4 + years old. I could run on low 60% settings now getting i5 4590 with the HD 4600 that HD 4600 HAS TO BE 8 to 10 times better than what I have now... I don't need ultra graphics (I actually think they get in the way).. I just don't want to crash all the time If you already have the HD4600 in your current system.. tell me how it runs PS2 thx.
I do. Overclocked it to 1250Mhz and even at all lows I had to down render quality to 75% to get any kind of playable. I honestly can not recommend it. Planetside isn't super GPU intensive, but it needs more than a HD4600.
Well last few days I have been playing on a HD4000, not sure what the performance difference is between that and the HD4600 but I can say that the game is only just playable. Cannot compete in a 1v1 due to the low FPS and the game looks pretty bad. If you really want to play the game I think a dedicated GPU will give you a much better experience. I am looking at a GTX 970. I used to own a GTX 670 and that played the game at Ultra , 1080p and FPS never dropped below 30fps. I might try some supersampling with the 970 if the performance is good enough.
The 970 will likely be an equal to the current 780, and the 980 will just beat the current 780ti based on current leaked benchmarks. If you need a card now I would go for the 290/290x on AMD's side (Best for the money by far, challenges the 780) or the 770 on nVidia's side as it's ok for the price and plays ps2 well. (I owned one) Otherwise wait for the 9xx series to launch and get price drops on older cards like the 780.
Man, even my smartphone has a faster cpu, not overclocked You can't start to a race without a fast car dude ...
So my brother is running the game with an A10-7850 ( yea i know its no Intel CPU bla bla ) but the GPU in that cpu istn't that much better then the HD4600 if you not provide the ram it could use and OC it to its limits.... both are things he didn't do. So its pretty comparable and if not, we're talking about a 10 - 15% range of difference. He's running the game quite fine, because almost all of the work is done by the CPU. Hopefully that helps!
That's the iGPU. Many top smartphones today have an iGPU SoC graphics at 450Mhz. My CPU is at 4300Mhz. Sorry. Totally not true, I don't know where people get this information. The a10 has an integrated hd 7770 which is much much more powerful than an HD4600. As in, the hd 7770 got 30 fps in a game when the HD4600 didn't even get 5. Seriously. You also need to learn how GPUs and CPUs share load, no offence. They work on different things. ps2 needs a good CPU and GPU because it is an MMOFPS.
If you have all the parts except for the GPU, build your machine now and use the integrated video for a short time. You can even play with light overclocking (assuming a good cooler) and compare your game gains without the better GPU. Though when I tried it on my 3570K (HD4000) before I put my 660ti in, the game was....... ugly and slow.
ok so just fyi for anyone planning on doing to same: it's actually not too bad. I'm averaging on 35+ fps in small fights and even in medium ones preconditioned there are not explosions. i dropped to 5-15 fps when fighting a zerg though... which was expected. DON'T GO FLYING THOUGH! that killed my framerates. Also try to stay from jump pads and spawn room shields. i used low settings on everything and resolution 1280x1024. i7 4790 was not overclocked (it's not even a k-series). temperature was at 61.6°C according to Fan Xpert 2 after two hours. so yea... it's not too bad. tbh this is better than what i had on my laptop. still the sooner nvidia brings out GTX 980 the better... thank you for all your replies!
Please let us know how it performs.. it has got to be better than any older intel integrated ... thx.
ok some more info on the HD 4600's performance for anyone that cares... the combination of the i7 4790 with the HD 4600 yields acceptable framerates as stated earlier. This only applies to Planetside 2 or any other game, which relies more on CPU than GPU. any "normal" game (games that rely more on a good GPU) will thus not perform as well. In such cases even a low end GPU seems to yield better results. For example, my old laptop's GT 540M could smoothly run Skyrim on high with 30 mods, while with my unfinished desktop the game is not even playable at the same settings. Conclusion: 4th gen. Intel Core + HD 4600 + PS2 = as acceptable as beer at room temperature 4th gen. Intel Core + HD 4600 + "normal" games = ugh... (this was expected) I really hope the GTX 980 will be presented next week...
Thank you, I do care. Question: did your system crash, at all, or frequently? could you stick around big battles 48+ on each side without crashing or losing FPS ?
To be fair, it isn't because it relies more on CPU than on the GPU, it is because it doesn't rely on the GPU as much. You should be able to take a game that needs no CPU and uses as much GPU power as ps2 and run fine. I agree though, it's acceptable. With all lows and 1280x1024 I'm getting ~40fps with mediums I am seeing ~20.
I wasn't able to find any huge battles in time (I've got time restrictions going, got distracted. ) but I was in a ~24v24 battle and there was no crashing. Biolabs will halve your fps though if you have too many transparent objects going around. (Like heavy's shields or a turrent) I recommend giving your iGPU more RAM in your BIOS if you can figure out how. Also, RAM overclocking will help if you're into that.
No crashes at all so far. Only tested for 8 hours in total until now though. My CPU is air cooled and highest temperature recorded was 61.6°C after a three hour round (so no danger to CPU). Thus, I don't expect it to crash unless cooled improperly or due to a bug. FPS did decrease significantly in bigger battles but that should have been expected. It forms a acceptable platform to play PS2 until Nvidia's next-gen GPUs are released as long as you set your expectations accordingly. 1v1's become harder due to lower FPS and so does flying, but in general you should be able to play without huge issues.
