Anyway to the OP. Shadows to low, flora to low render to 1000. If that doesn't do it, give me a shout.
You post one video that cites one man who contradicts everyone else about the performance of the FX series lineup...yet, you call me infallible? Might as well come out of the closet and shout "I'M AN AMD FANBOY!"
due to the fact that amd sucks when it comes to single thread performace, the amd cpu can't utilize their full potential and will be crushed even by some i3 cpus when it comes to 99% of availiable games atm.... of course you can play with them, but it's like using a tractor to drive to vacation then a normal car, will work but lacking most of the fun
The hilariously idiotic thing here is that people act like AMD chips perform at like 10% of the level of Intel chips. Something can be "better" (Intel) even if it's only somewhat so, people. The difference isn't insane. (Protip: the margin between equivalent AMD and Intel chips in PS2 is like 30% maximum. I get 45 fps, he gets 5. That's not 30%.) Yeah AMD performs worse than Intel in PS2, but that doesn't explain 5 fps. Get past the stupidity, or at least try to. If he was complaining about 30fps, the Intel vs AMD argument would be valid and I would be fighting for the Intel side. That is not the problem here, so stop talking about it. Instead come up with reasons as to why his 30fps system is doing five.
Throttling Faulty northbridge Faulty PSU Faulty ram Bad GPU Bad drivers Bad bios (mobo or GPU) Poor affinity allocation OS compatibility Temprature Background processes ...AMD
Phenom 2 805 @ 3.4GHZ + 4GB RAM + 5850 OC'd gets 30-120 FPS, @ Medium settings. You must be doing something wrong.
I have two 6970s in crossfire and I can tell you that turning crossfire off gains me roughly 20-30% better FPS. This game is not crossfire optimized at all.
I checked last night when the servers were up. My wife's machine - Intel Q9400 @ 2.66Ghz , 9800GTX+ with a slight OC, 8GB ram @ 1333 6-7-7-20 was able to pull no less than 35fps in fights. On top of that it was always GPU limited. Everything on medium, GPU Physx enabled, 100% render quality, 3000 render distance. So yes, this 5-6 year old machine is enough proof to me that AMD was not your best choice.
I got an FX-8350, 16GB of RAM and a 560Ti. The games runs fine on 1920x1200 high, shadows and flora low, draw distance 1500. Still, badly optimized for multiple threads. On Crysis 3, which is heavily multithreaded, the FX-8350 gets only beaten by the 999$ i7-39x0X when there is no GPU limit. AMD can be good at gaming, but it takes a lot of coding effort.
PEOPLE, IT'S VERY SIMPLE this game is ALL about single core performance, not multicores since it does very bad on multi core optimization department The AMD Fx-8350\s PER CORE performance, that means how fast a single core is. Is FAR less than a Quadcore Sandy or Ivy. Hence AMD get's smacked in this game... Nothing to do with benchmarks of battlefield 3 or fanboyism. 1 core vs 1 core, Intel is way faster. Not bottlenecking vs Not bottlenecking they are equal as shown in the benchmark a FX can feed a GPU enough data just like the i5 3570k Multitasking vs Multitasking, in applications that use 4+ treads, AMD beats the i5. Because it has more cores. It's not so hard, what are you guys making such fuss about. Piledriver was never designed for single core performance, so it simply doesn't well in that department.
@ the OP, SOE is most likely going to port Planetside2 to the Playstation4. The Ps4 is an 8 core Amd processor so chances are Ps2 is going to be optimized for a 8 core Amd processor. I wouldn't get my hopes up thinking it'll be perfect considering how the game is optimized now but the future just might bring cheers to people with Amd processors and tears to these Intel fanboys I have always ended up alternating between Amd and Intel and i never had a problem with either. The problem is software programmers are too lazy to code for multi-cores. This will change but it takes time for the software industry to catch up to the manufacturers. So the word of the day is patience.
And in less then a year we have the next generation consoles here, all running on 8 cores and they use AMD. Todays games you are even with 3570k but next year you will be happy you got a AMD when the Intel fan boys have to upgrade (On Intel myself, so no AMD fan boy)
With games nowadays having still having relatively poor per-core performance and lackluster multithreading support, I truly wonder how a weak 8-core processor is going to do the job better. I'm an old school AMD fan and let's face it: they lost the crown in 2006 and are still too far behind to retake it from Intel. These post-2010 processors by Intel are going to be good for another 5 years, because newer architectures will most likely focus more on energy efficiency rather than performance, until they find something new to exploit that will impact performance drastically. And MORE CORES!!!!111 is not going to do it anymore.
Wont he get some performance gains with a good overclock on the chip? I think LordMondando runs one like that and does ok. Sorry Lord I saw bits of posts on page 2 and skipped the sh*t show haha. The game performance got good for me once I hit 4ghz on my old CPU. My 1100 falls just short of my I7 tower from work while in game. No I dont play games at work haha, but I took my work tower home for the weekend back in december or so...I was contemplating an I7 upgrade for my home PC. After running the game on both, I stuck with the 1100. I couldn't bring myself to blow another $400 on a mobo and $370 on the I7 for a 5 FPS gain (well maybe 10FPS gain on a med fight but 2 pr 3 FPS gain in huge battles).
Yeap, **** show is what it is. He OC's that baby to about 4.5 (which given the 8320 is just the 8350 with a stock downclock, is fairly doable even on the stock cooler) and it'll run the game in the 'never blow 30fps' bracket with all high bar shadows given his GPU. Maybe even ultra, though I'll not put my name to that. But hey, lets get back to proclaiming all these magical advancements in the last 4 years and how amd is ****. And how like the per core performance is like over 500% better. Or whatever noise people are on now.
lol Lord...nah thanks I'll pass on the drama, Haha. Apophys, you have liquid on that CPU!! Easy fix man, don't mess about with anything other than your CPU. Get in there and overclock that b*tch then see how the game does for you.
Probably because this game doesn't run well on AMD for some reason. Also have issues on my phenom II, despite having 8 GB RAM and a GTX 580.
