AMD Phenom II X4 955, OCed at 3.72 GHZ Radeon HD 5870 6GO RAM Running everything as low as possible except for graphics quality that I keep on medium. Now let's talk performance: (I'm always CPU limited except sometimes in completely empty places) Pre PU01: 40-50 fps in 12-24s, 30+ in 24-48s, 23-28 in 48+s Post Pu02: 50-60+ in 12-24, 35-40+ in 24-48s, 30+ in 48+s Now: 40+ in 12-24, 22-30 in 24-48s, 20-25 in 48+s It's also awful while flying ESFs, no matter where. Conclusion: The game has never ran so bad for me, even before OMFG, I was always able to get an enjoyable experience during 25-48s. Now, most 25-48s go sub 24 fps and are unblayable. If can't even fight during off-hours, what's the point? "That's because AMD sucks": Not this much, a lot of people with i5 equivalents (or even worse i5s) are getting 40+ fps in 48+s, the difference between AMD/Intel equivalents is far too marginal to explain a 20 fps difference. "Try setting your graphics to ultra (or any other useroptions.ini advice)": I spent a lot of time messing with the .ini and I tried everything already, including ultra, maxvoices, renderdistance, ParticleDistanceScale, tweaking the flip queue size setting on RadeonPro. The settings I'm using right now are the best I could find performance wise. The only way I could improve it even more would be to switch from medium to low graphics quality, but I often fly ESFs and not seeing my tracers would be a death sentence, and I won't sacrifice even more stuff for a marginal 3 fps increase. "Your GPU is too old": Not that much, it's actually pretty good and I run most recent games on high/ultra. On PS2, I'm running almost everything on low and I'm always CPU bound anyway. Are there any other AMD users around? What specs and what are you getting? Mantle support would be the dream, too bad it won't happen.
Don't you get it, it's your CPU, same as the rest of us, 5870 is fine. Game runs really bad on AMD CPU's and there is nothing you can do about it, even overclock wont help that much. Intel is another story but still knows to have performance issues. When PS2 get better multithreaded performance it should be great but intill then intel is just the way to go, atleast with this game.
He said not to mention that AMDs CPU and GPU architectures suck compared to the competetion despite the fact that they do. There is no i5 equivalent from AMD because AMD uses a two core per module architecture for CPUs like the 8350 and 9590(which is easily outperformed by an i5 that uses 1/3 the power). If you insist its not the hardware, or the configuration of your software, check for malware. http://www.malwarebytes.org/antirootkit/
All right, the CPU isn't top notch indeed, but the fact that I'm seeing old Q9450 and i7 920 run the game so much better is pretty frustrating. The most infuriating thing is: it used to work fine but it just keeps getting more and more awful, I simply don't understand why I'm getting worse results than pre-OMFG. (No malware by the way)
Quite simply, Planetside 2 doesn't like AMD processors... As I was told by SoE Customer Service: Quote: Thank you for providing me with your updated system information. First, let me apologize for the inconvenience that you have experienced with this issue. I can tell you, based on the issue you have described so far, that I already know this is a dsync issue that is related to your CPU. The symptoms of the issue can seem like a latency problem, which is most likely why you were given so many steps to address this, but from what you have described (not to mention the connection information you have provided, which I see no real issue with) I can assure you that's not the problem here. This has been a known problem since PlanetSide 2 was released, and it effects certain kind of processors. Unquote. Guess they failed to mention this "known problem" in the specs to run this game... https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/planetside-2-system-specs.46998/ If you go AMD, you are sort of hosed...poor performance, lousy hit detection, etc...at least in this game...I run BF4 and FarCry3 just fine...looking really hard at Wolfenstein: The New Order... Oddly enough, http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/planetside-2/11448/?p=a insists that I should have no problems with this game, as I exceed/meet all the recommended requirements... Planetside 2 System Requirements Lab Analysis Congratulations, your system passes the Recommended requirements! You should have a great experience running this product.
I'm running an fx6350 six core cpu at its stock speed of 3.9Ghz. My graphics card is an an R7 260. My fps averages out to around 70fps. It'll easily top 100 fps if it's quiet and in the biggest of battles the lowest I've seen it dip is into the mid 50's. So I'm a happy AMD PS2 player. I would suggest if you were getting good fps and now your not but only in one particular game. Then the issue lies with a change that's been made to the game not with the hardware running it.
How on earth have you been getting 25-30 in 48+'s with that even pre PU01? When I played with my Phenom II X6 1090T, FX 8320 and 4350 before the "jesus " patch this past fall, I couldn't get higher than 18fps in 48+'s meanwhile with my Intel i5 3550 and i7 3770K I was getting 40+ in 48+'s. Everyone is CPU bound in most fights, it's the game being CPU heavy, the only time I'm GPU bound is at the warpgate or riding out and about in open terrain, when I get to a base and a moderately sized fight it's 100% CPU bound no matter how maxed out my settings are. And with the past patch (May 22) most of us has been getting dips as low as 30fps even on high end systems, it's a pain in the butt.
The old i7s are still better than new AMD stuff from an architectural standpoint. High single core performance is what this game needs. Though it could be drivers. I have to use old drivers with my 660ti. Do you use driver level or game engine level vsync? Could also be failing or overheating power components like capacitors, VRM or PSU. This game has a lot of TDP issues because of the Scaleform UI menus and HUD.
I upgraded my older syetm about a year ago to a Phenom II X4 965 Black. Am still running a GTX 550ti w/4GB dram. At that time, I was pleased with my in game performance, only having trouble-if at all-in extremely large battles. Over the last few updates (especially the implementation of the 64bit) things have changed dramatically. Stuttering is now an integral part of the game. Lag type freezes and long waits just to get in game are commonplace. People can talk all the anti AMD smack that they want, but MY AMD used to operate quite well and now, after all the 'performance enhancements', it don't. As I said, I get stuttering, massive FPS fluctuations, lag like freezes for up to 15-20 seconds, CTD, and even the occasional BSOD-only the occasional CTD being something I had any experience with last year.
AMD FX-6300 six-core, 3.66 GHz Evga GTX 650 SSC Ti 2gb 16 gb RAM 16-25 fps on "true ultra," 40-60 fps on medium... this is in combat, of course.
The CPU was not bad... 5 years ago. Its an old architecture, thats all. You will not get better performance with a 5 years old i5-750 either. The old i7-920 had even worse single thread performance than his processor. Well, these benchmarks are not the best, but its about the same then: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html The FX series CPU's are really much worse than the current Intel ones... but that has nothing to do with this thread, because we talking about the Phenom II series.
it could be that the cpu is burnt out thermal paste and is getting hot now and slowing its self to stop burning out but like other have said amd is cheap yes but its also slower for gaming programing its great but not playing
Did you try overclocking CPU Northbrigde? Second generation Phenoms gained a lot of performance with overclocking NB. I run my Phenom 1090T at 3.9 Ghz with CPU-NB clocked at 2.6 and my frames are 40+ in the biggest battles. FPS in WG jump from 130-180. And your problem probably lies in RAM. I was rocking 6gb just until recently. My frames would drop to 25 in bigger battles and my RAM usage was around 2.5gb. After upgrading to 8 gigs, my minimum fps went up a lot. Also, ram usage went up to 3.5 GB. I think performance of the game generally degraded for you because they added more and more stuff which consumes more RAM than it used to. I would suggest you try to add another stick of RAM and try it out. Hope you resolve your issue.
God these threads make me sad, obligatory hurdur it are bad nonsense straight out of the gate, despite him providing data to thee contrary. He's asking for tech support, for ***** sake, don't say anything if you don't know what your talking about.. Christ, someone pays 100's on a CPU and suddenly they are computer scientist eh? If he had descent performance before and has an issue now and the CPU has remained as a constant. THEN ITS NOT THE CPU IS IT. Learn to science people, ****.... Anyway, lots of bugs have been running around the last 3-4 months nipping at performance, i've been having a bad time as well. If you'd like to know i've got a fx8350 running at 4.56 and I have shadows and flora basically off, but everything else high and the game, when its behaving runs fine in a 40-60fps window with smoothing on. to wit, AMD can run the ******* game. And its not 'some bug' thats plagued PS2 since launch (infact a common peice of software architeture in more games is a central thread running a while loop waiting for user input PS2 is no different, but said code becuase PS2 has so much **** to keep track of, much bigger than any other game - why so few MMOFPS's exist), its that originally the game was not particularly heavily threaded (it is now). But no matter what, Amdahl's law reers its ugly head, and given its a game, and thus user I/O plays a huge part B is allways going to be fairly substantial, AMD's edge these days is in programs with a lower value for B, like say, a compiler. Thus, single 'main threads' will be important, and the IPC of sandy/ivy/haswell cores is about 40-50%~ better than Vishera and about 60-70~ more than Deneb. That's before clock speeds come into play, which despite the megahertz myth are not irrelevant. So realistically we are talking a gulf of in real terms 30-40% in performance in favour a given intel chip. Sigificant, but not the night and day ******** people make out as. Last massive jump in CPU development was branch prediction back in the 80'ies, ok. Ok? So yes, should it preform better. No. But this 'lololo your problem is the CPU nonsense', just don't. as an actual Computer scientist, i'm tell you if you think that your a tribal idoit. Anyway.. to move to actually helping the guy. One thing that a lot of people are not aware of that happens now to be the case, that is in order to avoid desyncing errors. Your latency and packet loss now have a direct effect on FPS. So even with a descent latency, because the backbone of the games communication is UDP, have enough packet loss and your FPS will tank regularly. Especially if, in a plane your moving around the map at a descent speed. My guess is that is where the problem is and i'd start looking into running a tracert on your server during prime time. Briggs: 69.174.220.23 Ceres: 195.33.132.167 Cobalt: 195.33.132.169 Miller: 69.174.194.166 Woodman: 195.33.132.169 Connery: 64.37.174.140 Mattherson: 199.108.194.38 Waterson: 199.108.194.41 And how to do it. windows key + r enter: "cmd" in the console window enter "tracert x" where x is the ip of your server. Paste that back up, if nothing jumps out, then we move onto things that could possibly have changed on your computer since to cause issues.
I'm also rocking with a Phenom 1090T and it seems fine to me even on stock clocks. As what others have said I was trying throwing more memory into. If the board can handle it I would go with an extra 6 gigs of memory. That will give the game plenty of room along with the OS and the other stuff running in the background. Currently I have 8 gigs of memory and plan on going to 16 to see if it helps. If you have vsync or smoothing on I would turn it off and see if that helps.
LordMondando no need to be mad, people are just stating their opinions. More information is always good and I was just telling about my personal experience. Adding another stick of RAM really helped me out a lot. Even though I keep my computer clean with very low number of processes running, 6 gigs of RAM didn't cut it. Game runs much smoother now with higher minimums. OP if you have a friend or anyone that would be willing to lend you 1 stick of RAM for testing purposes you should try it out. It doesn't cost you a thing.
Incorrect opinions. It's annoying as hell frankly, when you come into a tech support section of a website and get tribal ******** thrown at you as opposed to anything actually useful because people support CPU makers like football teams despite not having any relevant expertise on CPU architecture or its impact on throughput on a given piece of software. I'm going to shout it down, because its ********. When its information actually relating to the problem at hand. This is not necessarily bad advice and I was not focusing on you. However, given the problem he appears to be experiecing it similar to one myself and others experience on 8 gigs+ and it appears to largely be related to packet loss and latency these days (something was changed in a relatively recent patch, forcing the clients and servers to sync no matter what causing FPS and stuttering issues. My money is still on that. Still if it is possible to get another stick, ruling that out at least would be good, not much can be done if its my problem unfortunately.
Re-rail the thread. OP, the low and stuttery FPS is not an AMD specific problem, i have: Graphics card: GTX 760 CPU: i5 4670k @ 4GHz RAM:G.skill ripjaws 16GB 1600MHz MoBo:Gigabyte Z87-D3HP-CF HDD:1TB Barracuda 7200RPM SSD:Samsung 840 128GB And it still run 40fps ultra(This system runs metro last light maxed 60-50 fps as same with crysis 2), nothing happening, even when running from the SSD. I have checked all drives for viruses with 3 programs(MSE ,AVAST, Malware bytes.) my drivers are 332.21 And on top of that it looks no where near as good as it's supposed. They need to desperately start use DX11 and optimize the renderer with DirectCompute 2 like with Frostbite 2 and up, they use it for lighting and it can have about 1000 point lights without shadows just fine(http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/directx-11-rendering-in-battlefield-3 pages 11-19). Well.. this is.. Disappointing.
You need to chill man or you will lose your mind here on these forums. It well could be the problem with latency and packet loss I won't deny that. I hope OP responds fast so we can start eliminating different possibilites.
Well im not sure if that was directed at me Mondando. Branch prediction is important but thats far from the last big jump in cpu architecture. The fact that you have an overclocked 8350 with things turned off while my i5-2320 has shadows and flora maxed out at 3GHz and the game runs stutter free on all ultra(this week) indicates something. I also play Briggs from Florida with a 280-500 ping. The way this game handles player positions etc does cause stutter when theres a lot of people in one place. It also seems to cause crashing. The 2 core per module architecture that AMD cpus use basically does the opposite of hyperthreading(wraps two cores in an interconnect rather than having each on a bi-directional ring bus) and the poor intra-core bandwidth and cache latency that AMDs cpus have is the result. Since this game doesnt even benefit from hyperthreading and it needs high single core performance you cant expect AMDs architecture to play it well. Each of their two core modules performs worse than a single Intel core in most applications. Ill be happy to argue cpu and gpu architecture all day. AMDs memory controllers also suck and thats kind of important for this game. The fact is that AMDs highest end desktop 220W CPU the 9590 is easily outperformed by an i5. Their low end CPUs with 6 cores perform about as well as a Pentium in games. This game also requires high single core performance and hed be better off with a high clock two core $80 Pentium than what hes got now. The guy comes in and basically says "i dont want to hear the real reasons my performance sucks". There could be other factors that he can attempt to rule out. Power components failing that could affect voltages. Improperly comfigured drivers or in game settings. Heat. Malware. Changes to the game made over the past few GB of weekly updates causing an issue. Thats a lot of stuff to rule out and it requires effort on the part of the OP.
