I'm getting consistently 60 FPS on my system!

I'm currently running these settings on an AMD x6 1090T w/ GTX570:

[Display]
RenderQuality=1.410000

[Rendering]
GraphicsQuality=3
TextureQuality=0
ShadowQuality=0
RenderDistance=2000.000000
Gamma=0.200000
MaximumFPS=120
UseLod0a=0
VSync=0
OverallQuality=-1
LightingQuality=2
FogShadowsEnable=1
EffectsQuality=3
TerrainQuality=3
FloraQuality=3
ModelQuality=3
ParticleLOD=2
MotionBlur=0
AO=1
VerticalFOV=55

[Terrain]
RenderFlora=Off


If your having really bad fps on amerish.. chances are its all the flora:
No more plants, amerish at 50 instead of 30.

Turning off Shadows and Flora are the biggest FPS gains I have found.

Intel CPU = High FPS at any settings.

AMD CPU = Low FPS at any settings.

Has anyone experienced otherwise?

Be careful with auto overclock. Not saying all systems are the same, but, some of the time your vcore voltage is either way high or way low after an overclock. I've even seen some bclk (typo?) settings that were astronomical after auto oc. Best bet is to get a good cpu stress test program. And with every thing at default voltage and default speed, run the test. If its stable bump up your clock speed slowly. You'll eventually get a BSOD when running the test. (or even at windows boot) At this point, your vcore voltage is too low. Adjust that up in small intervals until you get stability back under load (using CPU stress test program). Do some research and find out what the max safe voltage is for your CPU and STAY BELOW IT. Not all chips oc as good as others, so, you have to find your own limits.

You should have your vcore voltage set manually, not on auto. Also, use offset mode cautiously. It is helpful for small ocs though as it still lets your voltage float around some to save power.

In my humble experience, a moderate over clock gained me some notable performance in PS2.
your results may vary.

Shadow out.

Oddly enough my fps got worse after upgrading my gtx 570 to a gtx 680.

i run a phenom black something at 4ghz and average in the 40s @ 1920x1080 most things set low w/ a 560ti GPU. if i ever stop being lazy and swap to a sandy or ivy CPU/mobo i imagine I can hit a steady 60fps like the OP as I will also be running that at 4.5ghz.

i am leaning to Ivy since pci-e 3.0 has lower latency than the pci-e 2.0 of sandy bridge. it likely won't make much if any difference in game, but, yeah w/e.

This game is CPU bound in almost every way. A 660ti with anything less then 4Ghz is going to run like dog ****.

I know because I upgraded to a 660ti and I can not get more then 25-35 fps in any real battle, everything set to lowest settings, ultra does nothing. I have a 3GHz AMD so I'm **** out of luck for the duration of this game. For months I have heard about how optimization is the largest focus of the design team, and the miracle patch is no where in sight.

Having people claim they get solid frame rates with 400 and 500 series cards is insane. Proof that this game is built on garbage code.

Strangely, this game seems to not use much graphics power. Don't see much of a difference when in SLI. cards sit around 45% Same for CPU. Never gets heavy usage, but game performance improves with an overclock... Weird

The speed of your graphics card has nothing to do with how your PS2 runs!

The actual rendering and calculating of all the in-game player-model data is done solely by the CPU, in your entire local in-game area.
The GPU only begins handling the models that come on screen, and then only the aesthetic attributes!
Particles, Models, Projectiles, and others are all being rendered by your CPU!

I can only assume this is a necessity of client-side hit-detection, combined with Forced Rendering of all sorts of effects meant to obscure vision??? (we already know that editing the files to remove 'bloom' is grounds for banning)

Given the OP's specs, likely 40-45 fps during the intense battles. Its not bad at all, but 60 fps all the time just isn't happening. Unless there's some settings the OP's using that I'm not that's different since I have the same CPU OCed and the same board even. A 660 Ti does allow for more graphics goodies though.

GPU matters, just not enough. When going from ultra to low settings, I can see the memory and core usage change.

I do believe you hit the nail on the head though. I just wish it ran on all CPU cores that were physical. I think someone from SOE said that using more cores was "tricky" or something to that point.

I really feel bad for the vast majority that cannot run this game as is meant to be played. Well have to wait for more optimizations. I must say, it seems to get better with every patch.

I doubt that, the game is cpu based anyway. When did you upgrade?

It seems over clocking an i5 or i7 CPU to 4.5ghz is the magic number. I run consistently between 60-80fps after over clocking my CPU to 4.5

Last week.

Just wanted to make sure that people understand when folks say Liquid Cooled, they don't necessarily mean some crazy water setup. They just mean the simple radiator ones like below (uses a synthetic liquid to transfer heat to radiator). I have one too. Really easy, no maintenance, other than blowing dust off the grill and inexpensive. I'm also a fanatic about airflow in my case (4 fans though, nothing over the top) . ;D

Disabling shadows should be a net gain in FPS for anyone who is CPU bound, which is pretty much everybody in a large battle.

That's how many I used to get, I swear its 55-60 in large battles. Set the Maximum FPS to 60 and it really stabilizes things

I already have it set for maximum FPS, but I am running the mostly Ultra useroptions.ini settings. I think the only thing that's down a bit is Shadows, everything else is at the custom. Not that I mind though the FPS is still plenty fine.