Huh, what kind of FPS in big fights? that's where my Phenom II X6 1090T struggleds and lately 12-15fps, I have all settings at high but shadows turned off. But now I'm putting together an Intel i5 system. My home PC has an FX 8320 but I haven't been home since November so I only played PS2 on it through beta and the first week of release on it.
AMD chips run very well in some games like BF3 where it uses ALL 6 or 8 cores it has, the difference between AMD and Intel is the IPC speed (instructions per cycle) and Intel has a faster IPC which is why single threaded *cough*Planetside2*cough* run better on Intel than AMD, but when it comes to multi-threaded that's where AMD shines (such as 7zip or video editing/encoding). Planetside 2 and Guild Wars 2 performance are like day and night between AMD and Intel. PS- I've built a few of those A10 5800K systems, very neat CPU.
I get a steady 30 fps regardless of situation. I use the ultra settings to take the load off my cpu and put it on my gfx card.
I've read that Intel players have to overclock up to 4 Ghz on their CPU before they get constant 60FPS even in battles. I'm considering turning off two of the cores on my AMD Phenom X4 CPU before overclocking it, to keep the heat at reasonable tempuratures. Think it will work?
Above 30 fps is fine for most on any rig. No it wont work, as youll be running a dual core, effectively it maybe slower.
Biggest problem here is that people keep pointing out single threaded performance. Single threaded performance has nothing to so with PS2, and I dont know who started it and why. My best guess is that they have an i7 chip and like to gaze at benchmarks. You know what programs run on a single thread? Calculator. Sticky Notes. Wordpad. So if you like opening wordpad .0000037ms faster, by all means buy an i7. For anything else, its waayyyy overkill. Thats why it runs this game fine. Its overkill and really an enthusiast chip as opposed to a mainstream gaming chip. The engine is an Everquest engine shoehorned into a MMOFPS game. It runs like crap. CPUs that are absolutely fine running any other title slow to a crawl in PS2 with only 40% CPU usage. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous power (and price) of the Intel chips and it has nothing to do with the much greater price/performace ratio of AMD. Its just a poorly optimized and coded engine that only runs on I7s and i5s because they have a more efficient architecture. Hyperthread helps too, and Im also tired of hearing people say 'Oh PS2 doesnt use Hyperthread'. Every program and app you run on a Hyperthread CPU uses Hyperthread. Each program does not selectively decide to use it or not to use it. It is possible to optimize for such CPUs, but the OS is what controls the distribution of threads on a hyperthread PC, whether or not the program was optimized for it. The program doesnt have a choice in the matter. Benchmarks do not mean much at all as far as gaming goes. I can beat an i7 920 in several CPU benchmarks with a AMD Phenom II X4 overclocked, but the i7 920 is still a better choice for gaming. Most of the time this does not even make a difference as the game will give you 50fps on the Phenom and 60 on the 920. Big deal. Its still smooth and playable. Heck, in some benchmarks, the C2D E8400 beats the 920. But its not better for gaming! Benchmarks are only meaningful if you do a video encoding or compressing benchmark and intend to perform that task as you r main function. They're garbage when it comes to gaming. (unless you were to perform a game specific benchmark i.e. Crysis bench or FC2 bench or what have you) This game has finally given Intel phanbois what they want: a reason to justify a ridiculous CPU and a reason to bash AMD. A reason to tell AMD FX series users to scrap their relatively new builds, and go out and buy all the parts to build a new Intel rig. And theres a very good chance in a couple few months time those AMD chips will be performing just fine in PS2. Im not telling people not to go build a new rig. If thats what you want, by all means, do it. Buy Intel or AMD; I dont care because Im not a salesman for either company and I dont think everyone should go build a PC like mine. Im not that self absorbed. What Im doing here is debunking several myths Ive seen floating about these forums and quite franky have grown tired of seen repeated by people who dont seem to have a clue about the truth of the matter.
No, it will not. Ive tested a B55 and locked 2 of its cores, reverting it to a 555. Its performance at 4.1ghz is less than that of the same CPU with all 4 cores unlocked at stock speeds of 3.2ghz. In fact, there is little difference of that CPU at 3.2ghz as opposed to 4.1ghz. We are talking just a few FPS; less than 10. Personally, Im just going to wait a few months to see how the optimization pans out. If things dont get better, I still am not building a new rig for one F2P title. I'll either contine to deal with it or just quit playing.
Try 5.0+, aka not happening. 60fps consistent in the largest battles is not something that can be sustained at all. i5/i7 users at ~4.5 are happy to get 40-50fps.
Well I got a 960T@4ghz. I'm sure you can find some info on how to overclock. I browsed the internet for 10-15 hours and OCed mine pretty easily. With that and a 6870 I get 30-35 fps in huge battles and on ultra because yeah the game is garbage and you will have the same fps on ultra as you do on low. As for the AMD bashing let's see what will happen in the next year or two now that AMD has taken the laptop market with it's APUs as well as the console market. I'm sick and tired of Intel and their I3 double cores and how developers make game for them. The overpriced Intels have long forced laptops sellers to use cheap I3s then forcing devs to make games for them, now things are finally changing. I'm almost certain the AMD actually thought thing out pretty carefully. APUs often have 4 cores on laptops now and consoles will have 8 and the FX series offer CPUs from 4 to 8 cores. I'm expecting devs to create games for these CPUs as it will save them precious time and make the ports very easy thus opening a wider market for many games. The future will most likely be AMD for the next few years and maybe even in the GPU department.
I think you misunderstand what people mean when they say single thread performance. They aren't saying Planetside 2 can only use a single thread/core. What they are saying is it CAN'T utilize a 3rd/4th/5th/etc thread/core, so only the performance of 2 cores is actually relevent to PS2. This is why AMD in particular struggles with this game. Their approach to CPU design is to use more cores, but each core is slower. Intel's approach is to have less cores but each core is very fast. I have another one for you: World of Tanks, a videogame. And the list of games that can only use 2 cores is almost infinite. A game like PS2 that CAN'T utilize 4-8 cores is actually more common than a game that CAN, sadly. This doesn't have to be an AMD vs Intel thing either. We would ALL benefit from games being more multi-threaded (Intel users don't like to see half their cores sitting idle either).
This is the misinformation Im talking about. PS2 uses all 4 cores; it uses all cores on even an 8 core machine. Modern games that can only use two cores is pretty much a myth as well. (FYI 360 has 3 cores) Thing is, they just arent coded to efficiently use more than two cores. You'll almost never run modern games and see two dead cores on your machine when you open Speedfan, AMD OD, HWMonitor, or even Windows Performance monitor. Unless the affinity is set to only utilize two cores, or you have your cores parked, which can be changed. I cant believe you are sitting here telling me PS2 CANT use 4 or 8 cores. I happen to have done extensive testing with this game on 4 different PCs, let alone run dual monitors with several different performance tracking software windows open. You are either pulling this out of the clear blue sky or just repeating what you saw someone else post. Its a myth. All but the oldest titles run on multiple cores, with a few exceptions - intended to run on one or two cores to achieve the widest consumer base possible. Parked cores is a common thing, especially in less demanding titles that do not need 4 cores or more to run. However, this does not mean the game is incapable of using them - theres a very big difference in not needing them and simply not being able to use them.
i got AMD x6 6300 at 3,8ghz and i barely have 15-25 FPS in Bio Labs and big zergs .... nearly impossible to play
PS2 is a little better now, it utilizes 2 sometimes 3 cores even if it's spread across multiple cores. Here's a SS from beta using 1 core
Interesting, my 955 didn't give me that type of performance, using the X6 1090T and even with ultra heavy battles ignores the GPU settings and still chokes CPU. The Intel system is smooth as a baby's butt now.
You ARE playing in windowed mode, right? Fullscreen mode ruins any gains from useroptions.ini settings because it's bugged.
