Bad performance? What are you on about?

For the last few days I have been playing with a GT 220 and a 1st gen i3 at 3.2GHz with 6GB RAM since my main PC's CPU water cooler decided to spring a leak (never again) pouring water all over my 580 and PSU eventually causing the latter to explode

While I chance my arm with RMAs I have been playing on the lowest specs available in the menu and although it looks like I have taken a drive in a Delorean I was surprised at how playable it was. From the moaning in these forums I had expected a slideshow, but it was fairly smooth outside big battles and while there was a FPS drop in big battles it was still playable.

It's great that this game scales so well.

And your personnal experience is more valuable than that of others because?

Just an observation that much of the criticism of this game's scalability is overblown. If it were that bad I shouldn't have even been able to play with a GT 220 (which isn't even a gaming card really).

The graphics card is not the issue, it's the CPU...

I'm using an i3 540 (dual core) which is over three and a half years old and it is perfectly playable (around 25-30 FPS I would say).

And I'm using an i7 and it's often the bottleneck when it comes to FPS. PS2 doesn't properly use multithreading and I can actually run computations on the other cores without it affecting my FPS in any way.

25-30 FPS is not what I call acceptable...in a FPS game

2600k and a GTX 690...100+ fps on Ultra@1920x1080 no problem even in large combat area, will drop quite a bit if I actually enable surround (5760x1080) but I don't right now because it's also broken as ****.

Yeah, get better computers.

Performance is relative to the user.

A guy who likes to drive his ammo sundy around then hop out to repair or play a medic or some other crucial non cqc role like running gal drops or tank zerging can literally get away with 10~20 fps and not have their ability to provide support unduly effected so to them the game is just dandy.

The ones who come in to howl about the terrible performance tend to be the 'pro' fps gamers who blame not having a steady over9000 fps as the reason they can't pwn like they do in cod or counterstrike where low ping and a high framerate are paramount to getting in that crucial headshot before the other over caffeinated kiddies.

Now not saying that they don't have a reason to be upset but don't look at the forums and think that they are the only representation on performance.

For most players the game runs great and the lag in large fights whilst annoying isn't game breaking and there have been great strides in upping performance across the board since launch.

I have an AMD 965 OC'd to 3.8GHZ to 4.0GHZ depending on room temp, and a 560 TI. I get about 45-60 in small battles, 30 in most large-ish battles, and 20-30 in Zergageddon battles. I play on lowest settings possible, including 50% rendering. and 1000m render distance And yet, I still play. I'm not complaining, but the "LOLOLOL get a better computer" argument is pretty silly.

With that said, people do need to be realistic about what kind of performance they're going to get. I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice the looks of the game for a better framerate. However, if I could somehow get an extra 5-10 fps, I would really love it and would urge SOE to keep making optimizations, if it's possible.

I used to get 100-120fps on my 3930k@ 4.2 and 670 ftw edition before gu4 now after my performance has been dropping with each patch i get an amazing 35fps on high

Physx off

PERFECTLY playable = 60 fps.
Playable = 40 fps.
Anything below 40 is BARELY playable.

Unless you're in a Tank or Max then 25-30 FPS becomes perfectly playable

Tried to do a game client cleanup? I don't recall the exact name of it, but it's under Advanced options in the Launcher.

I literally get a slideshow at times. A frame per second, or less. Besides, that's a 3.2 GHz CPU, that's not nothing.

This is not an e-p33n thread. Your tone is not necessary. The OP was just offering some commentary on the scalability for ultra-low end hardware.

If you want to play the "I've got a bigger computer" game, lets go to another thread. In it, I'll ask you why you're gaming at such a wimpy resolution instead of the 2560x1600 that all the cool kids have been running since 2006 or so.

Plus he implied that's what he gets outside of big battles.

Judging by his limited views, I'm not sure "big battles" can be trusted either.
For instance, 1 platoon VS 1 platoon is not actually a Big Battle.

Considering the 2600k is already old as ****, it stands to reason that my higher performance is "uncharacteristic" considering people with 3xxx cpu's are supposedly having more problems. Or...there is a real issue with individual PC's and their "performance woes" are uncharacteristic as a result of a problem on their end.

Also lol..."not about epeen, but let me make an epeen statement anyway"...if you must know I have 3x 24" 120hz monitors in surround. So why would I go down to a single display just for more vertical resolution? I only have to run at 1920x1080 in PS2 because surround doesn't work worth a damn.

LOL! I feel so pro, having a k/d higher than 1 with less than 40 FPS nearly everytime.

What is bottlenecking you? I use an OCd 9600GT and a i5 2300 (2.8Ghz) and get around 30 FPS in large battles on low with render quality at 100% and distance at 2000.