So the game will still be cpu bound?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Gambles, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. Flarestar

    The game only comes as a 32-bit process. That should've told people the level of future proofing SOE did.
  2. ShokkWave

    Hmm, I'm running an almost 4 year old Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.4 and 2 4770's in Crossfire. I've made a few tweaks and definitely not playing on Ultra or high settings, but getting 30+ FPS in large battles. Might dip into the 20s if things get really intense. No reason this game shouldn't be more than playable for you. Have you looked at or tweaked any settings?
  3. Assist

    I run an i7 and a 680gtx, I get about 100 fps when I log in and after about an hour I'm capping around 35 in large battles. It's not a hardware issue.
  4. B0bzor

    I feel good knowing my <$600 system plays on high/ultra at 40fps minimum.

    Also, this game uses nearly as much of my cores as BF3.

    BF3 ~ 85% 2 cores, and 20% for the other 2.

    PS2 ~ 70% 2 cores, and 30% for the other 2.

    550ti is always running at 99% and I'm GPU limited virtually at all times.
  5. Gambles

    system specs? also a 550ti should be running at max. I certainly didn't buy a 7870 to play ps2, lesser gpu's do fine, which also makes the future proof statement hilarious.
  6. Hatamoto

    I agree, most patches have had that line ... and like you said, usually did nothing noticeable
  7. B0bzor

    My point was just that with my budget system I'm getting good frames on higher level graphic settings, and it's my GPU, not CPU, that's holding me back. I'm glad this is the case, because with what I have it's much cheaper for me to upgrade my video card and OC to 4Ghz than to get a new mobo/CPU.

    i5 760 @ 3.8Ghz
    P55-GD55 mobo
    EVGA GTX 550ti
    8GB 1333mhz RAM

    The only settings I could really turn up is my resolution (currently 1680x1050) and shadows which are low. Otherwise it's a mix of high/ultra. I was shooting for a 4Ghz OC originally, but since it's my 550ti capping me off in PS2, there's no point until I upgrade.

    It'd be interesting to see what I get with a higher end GPU, since that's whats holding me back.

    Still, I've put less than $600 into my computer, including monitor, so I think it's working out pretty good.
  8. Gambles

    Problem is I've read on here of people with similar video cards to mine boasting 2500k i5's noticing that there performance is sub par, which explains why my game doesn't run well with the 955. Planetside 2 just seems to be headed in the opposite direction of almost every other similar game, requiring stupid amounts of raw power on 2 cores, when other games are future proofing by using 4 cores plus, it's just straight out stupid.
  9. B0bzor

    Well, I have read that AMD doesn't perform as well with Planetside as well as Intel, and some have said that it isn't just an optimization issue, but that AMD isn't as good in general. I don't know about that though, I've only ever used Intel myself.

    As for video cards, perhaps there's the same issue? Again, I'm not totally sure since my cards have always been Nvidia, just throwing it out there.

    In regards to other games using 4 cores, compared to Planetside's 2, I don't find that to always be the case in my system. Like I posted earlier:

    BF3 ~ 85% 2 cores, and 20% for the other 2.

    PS2 ~ 70% 2 cores, and 30% for the other 2.

    Battlefield barely uses more CPU on cores 1 and 2, and overall barely more than PS2 on my machine, while PS2 uses more of my 3rd and 4th cores. This was taken from about a 45 minute to 1 hour session of each, and looking at the results from performance monitor and lasso.

    I would also say my graphics settings for each of these games is roughly the same. A mix of high/ultra with shadows on low. BF3 does run at about 50-60 fps, while PS2 is 60-70 with drops as low as 45 in dense fights, ie: Bio labs and Tech plants.

    I might play Boarderlands 2 for a bit and see how that stacks up in comparison. I run that game on max graphics and never see less than the 60fps I have it capped at. It might be interesting to see it's CPU useage.

    For the most part with Planetside, I find altering my graphic settings down in general has a negligible effect on fps. Aside from render quality and resolution, turning the graphics down only lowered my GPU useage. So I turned them up, got the same fps, but way better graphics.

    What graphic settings do you run, and what frames do you get? Does you fps go down when you turn the graphics up? Have you done any tweaking with the useroptions file?
  10. Spiritualised

    I upgraded from an AMD phenom II 965 BE to intel 3570k and doubled my frames. Ive used AMD for years mainly due to price but should have payed the extra, and moved back to intel years ago. The difference is night and day. The last intel processor I owned before this one was a DX2 66, back in the day,This is from quite an old article , I dont know how or if its relevant to PS2 but it is something to consider, or am I still living the in old days :). After a Quick search it appears intel do still do this. "Intel has designed its compiler purposely to degrade performance when a program is run on an AMD platform. To achieve this, Intel designed the compiler to compile code along several alternate code paths. Some paths are executed when the program runs on an Intel platform and others are executed when the program is operated on a computer with an AMD microprocessor. (The choice of code path is determined when the program is started, using a feature known as “CPUID” which identifies the computer’s microprocessor.) By design, the code paths were not created equally. If the program detects a “Genuine Intel” microprocessor, it executes a fully optimized code path and operates with the maximum efficiency. However, if the program detects an “Authentic AMD” microprocessor, it executes a different code path that will degrade the program’s performance or cause it to crash."
    [IMG]Silicon Valley Watcher (http://s.tt/15gcF)