real world use cases - FPS boost 48 to 77 - is this a joke?

I'm playing with a 560 and somehow managing 30+ FPS in big battles.
Medium settings, some higher.

going from 48 to 77 fps is an increase of roughly 60% so far. and the optimization process isnt even done yet. that means they may be able to get out even more fps. i dont understand how you consider this 'a joke'

i for one get 25 fps on average ingame. inside large bases with lots of people it may even dip down to 18-19 fps. thats why i would love to see a 60% increase from 25 to 40 fps on average! that would be awesome for me to be honest

The FPS itself isn't much of a problem, it's the way aiming and moving is affected at below 40fps.
When my FPS drops below 40 I find it a lot harder to aim and movement is slower and laggy.

I have a 2500k and a 7950, most of the time I get ~50-60 FPS. In big battles and certain areas I get between 30 and below - 40 FPS.

I get 40 with shadows on medium, the daxtron is stronk.

V-sync?

AMD Phenom II X4 955 overclocked to 3,8ghz gives me 25 fps in huge zerg battles and 40-60 otherwise. It's an old and relatively cheap CPU.

Shadows and lights off, V-sync ON

phenom II x4 965 here. ya old cheap cpu but it does well i suppose i play on hgih settings get 30 fps or lower( very rarely) and 40-60 otherwise also. hope amd gets some love

well this thread backfired hard.

Well if they fixed something they screwed at begining of september, yeah, it would go back to that, I lost 30 fps and a computer due to that.

That's the problem, this game doesn't like AMD CPUs right now.

Same here, only that I have a GTX670 instead of a 7950 (pretty much the same performance)

The problem with this claim of 48 to 77 is it has no context to it. What kind of system? What settings? What were you doing and how much was going on in game?

Otherwise its just meaningless numbers, it could be on a super pc running low settings in the warpgate with nobody else around for all we know. (extreme example).

You whiny people can all kiss my nanite laden byutocks...

I run an old 920 2.66 GHz chip with an nvidia 260 and get 60 fps in the WG and 25-30 in decent sized battles...

(mind you, this falls off to 1 or 2 fps for some unknown reason when looking in certain directions...)

BUT I LIKE IT!!!!

So, keep cryin' and go ask momma to raise yer allowance...

Meh 100fps here. Learn to overclock

That said, how bad is it for Smedders to be tweeting stuff like that? People are gonna QQ ridiculously when the patch comes out and only AMD users see ANY kind of improvement... SOE need to remember that most of their changes will help out AMD users (because PS4), but that makes up a minority of their PC gamers :/

A system that already gets 48 fps? Any i5 or i7 sandy/ivy/haswell can get that.

probably should reserve judgment until the patch actually releases, but in a sense, OP seems right. it's pretty absurd to imagine a flat 48 -> 77 fps jump from one "miracle patch" (which would be a 62% increase in "real world" situations, as Smed is claiming). the truth is Smed is a marketing expert, and he has to build hype to try and reverse the damage that BF4 and COD are going to be doing to this game's population over the next two months.

I wasn't saying the numbers themselves were impossible, far from it. I was pointing out that context is needed to give people an idea what this means for their system rather than creating the assumption that you'll get this kind of boost no matter what you're using or doing.

What, 30 FPS in an empty WG? My mid-high end PC from about the same period can maintain at least 30-40 FPS in huge battles but that's still far too low in my eyes. A stable 60 would be ideal.

(5850 1GB, 4GB RAM, i7 860 @ 3GHz)

I'm just giving you a probable system for which the above applies, I'd bet they're talking about intel CPUs, idk about AMD.

Loads of people.

I get 60 fps during small fights (v-sync enabled), 40-60 during medium-large fights, 30-40 during huge fights. I have an i7 3770 processor and a GTX 560 (1.28GB) graphics card, most of my settings are high/ultra (with the exception of lightning, shadows). If I can get better results with lower specs, you're either doing something wrong, or AMD just sucks (or both).

Also, the improvements (48 fps -> 77 fps) are very much possible, though I'm not sure if they're that realistic. Guess we'll have to wait and see

If i play on Very Low i can hit 70-90 so idk why you're sad

Im on a laptop which gets 30-40 FPS on high/ultra so i can imagine a lot of people have 48