Wiggum15 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Holy crap...what is your problem. I just mentioned a conversation that took place a few years ago. Are you always that aggressive in real world conversations too. You act like I am somehow defending some philisophical point. I just mentioned that a discussion happened a few years ago....see I can use bold too.Im no native speaker, im a german typing English text as good as possible...maybe thats why it sounds aggressive to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Dont talk about "low end" systems all the time as if someone with a "high end" system will not have any problems with the performance of CMx2 games. well actually it does, we ran internal FPS tets during Black Sea testing and the CPU is the biggest limiting factor. Whether you have a NVIDIA or ATI card has little impact on FPS. I have a i5-4670K and do not have any issues with performance drop in heavy winds. If your system is not able to run at Best/Best, you could drop down to a lower level, even Balanced/Balanced, both use the same LODs, the only difference is how far it draws them out. That is why the "Fastest" to "Best" setttings are there, so players can find the sweet spot between performance and visual quality. Even on my system, I run with Excellent/Best, there is no difference in visual quality, except how far the high quality tree LODs get drawn and even that is only noticeable in 4-5 level view, but it gives me a 5-10+ bump in FPS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) ...isnt CMx2 the game that still does only support a single core ?I have a AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 955, overclocked to 4x 3.60GHz.ArmA3, a very very very CPU heavy game runs perfectly smooth in Full HD and max/high settings with 4xAA.Fact, the engine is old and awkward.Fact, if your PC is not 5 years old (or even older) there is probably very little a hardware upgrade will do to your CMx2 performance.If you have graphic/performance problems...better blame the engine first, your drivers second and only then think about the hardware... Edited February 16, 2015 by Wiggum15 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleader Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) GTX 680 has 50% more cores than the 960. I just sold my 4GB GTX 680 on eBay for 130 GBP - less than I would have liked, someone has got a bargain. Hardware specs don't mean much. I go by game benchmarks, which the 960 wins for the most part, and the card's a little more future-proof. Again, $200 for a USED card that gets lower FPS is crazy IMO. Now for $100, I would be tempted. Edited February 16, 2015 by aleader 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Hardware specs don't mean much. I go by game benchmarks, which the 960 wins for the most part, and the card's a little more future-proof. Again, $200 for a USED card that gets lower FPS is crazy IMO. Now for $100, I would be tempted. Think you need to double check your sources, according to Nvidia the 680 has better performance. Which you would expect, because it is better hardware. Additionally, at the moment the 960 isn't available with more than 2GB of RAM, so you have less capacity to anti alias, run at higher than 1080p, or downsample to 1080p from a high res (on my 680 I used to downsample from 4k to 1080p with no degredation in performance) than you would on a 4GB 680. If the V8 is quicker than the 4 cylinder, do the hardware specs also not mean much? Don't think so. http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/graphics_cards_buy_now_uk.html Edited February 16, 2015 by Jock Tamson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Well, I'm afraid my AMD 6300FX CPU ain't really suitable for this game - I suppose it's my real bottleneck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Well, I'm afraid my AMD 6300FX CPU ain't really suitable for this game - I suppose it's my real bottleneck. depends, the 6300 FX is in the third tier, so it is still decent: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html up until last summer when I rebuilt my system, I was using a Core 2 Quad Q9550 which is in tier 4. It was perfectly fine, but I played mostly with Balanced/Balanced settings to have fluid FPS. You only really need a tier 1 CPU if you want to play CM at Best/Best with decent FPS on a large map. In addition, BFC is always tweaking the engine, performance increased from CMSF to CMBN, there was another boost with CMRT and CMBS is even better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) depends, the 6300 FX is in the third tier, so it is still decent: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html up until last summer when I rebuilt my system, I was using a Core 2 Quad Q9550 which is in tier 4. It was perfectly fine, but I played mostly with Balanced/Balanced settings to have fluid FPS. You only really need a tier 1 CPU if you want to play CM at Best/Best with decent FPS on a large map. In addition, BFC is always tweaking the engine, performance increased from CMSF to CMBN, there was another boost with CMRT and CMBS is even better. Yeah I would thought so but my hardware combo FPS output doesn't agree with me. I always thought it is my GTX 550 Ti giving me low FPS and stuttering but I read here this game is a CPU bottleneck so I thought it's either my CPU or a combo of CPU and 550Ti not working together fine. I'm in the long process of getting myself a new GPU (that haven't really finalized due to my finances) but knowing low FPS count I get in the game might not be solely connected to GPU frightens me. It's a very valuable info that you need tier 1 CPU in order to be able to play this game at best/best settings! It's easier to understand what expectations one should have when he only upgrades his aged GPU. Haven't really noticed any real FPS boost from CMBN through CMRT to CMBS with my rig. So what tier/s should GPU be in (according to that list) if you have a tier 3 CPU and want to squeeze the most out of the game and what in-game settings should be optimum for such combo? Would tier 6 GTX960 do? Edited February 16, 2015 by Hister 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Again, as far as i know CMx2 only uses one CPU core !The AMD FX 6300 has six cores with 3,5 GHz which is good enough for most games and should be good enough for CMx2 (although single thread performance is bad).If you only care about CM, then get a Intel CPU with very high single thread performance.Your GTX 550 Ti is good enough for best quality settings in CM, if you have problems update you drivers or blame the engine. Edited February 17, 2015 by Wiggum15 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 ...isnt CMx2 the game that still does only support a single core ? Yes. ArmA3, a very very very CPU heavy game runs perfectly smooth in Full HD and max/high settings with 4xAA. I've played the game, and while it reads to me as poorly optimized (i.e. it hits the CPU more heavily than it ought to), there's not a chance it's nearly as "CPU heavy" as CM is. Unless you've profiled Arma's and CM's binaries, or know enough about game engine design to make a judgement call, and have information to the contrary. In which case please share. Fact, the engine is old and awkward. Fact, if your PC is not 5 years old (or even older) there is probably very little a hardware upgrade will do to your CMx2 performance. Opinions are not "facts". I rebuilt the graphics pipeline for CMx2 2.0, and upgraded it again in CMx2 3.0. The graphics part of the engine is entirely different from what existed in, say, CMSF or CMBN 1.x. Newer hardware will absolutely play the game better than older. Unfortunately AMD especially has had OpenGL driver issues for a long while, and with the coming of Mantle they've gotten worse. If you have graphic/performance problems...better blame the engine first, your drivers second and only then think about the hardware... The vast majority of graphics issues that I fix / work around are driver issues. Other drivers, other cards, just fine. One particular card, or family of cards, have issues when a particular set of drivers are installed. When the drivers are rolled back, or eventually fixed, problem goes away. Game's fault, or drivers' fault? Hmm, gosh, let me see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chek Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 R9 270X running 14.4 drivers and dual core intel i650. Had similar issues with shaders in RT with latest drivers, 14.4 solved them. No problems in BS running great. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleader Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Think you need to double check your sources, according to Nvidia the 680 has better performance. Which you would expect, because it is better hardware. Additionally, at the moment the 960 isn't available with more than 2GB of RAM, so you have less capacity to anti alias, run at higher than 1080p, or downsample to 1080p from a high res (on my 680 I used to downsample from 4k to 1080p with no degredation in performance) than you would on a 4GB 680. If the V8 is quicker than the 4 cylinder, do the hardware specs also not mean much? Don't think so. http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/graphics_cards_buy_now_uk.html I think your beef is with TechPowerUp then, which has run several game benchmarks on them (link below). Granted they are 2GB cards, but as you see the bigger 3GB cards don't perform any better even though they are faster cards. They also don't perform any better in 4K. I don't have a preference either way, I go by performance per dollar, which would lead me to the R9 280x if I were buying today. I don't buy used anything at new price, nor do I believe what Nvidia says on their site. Show me real-world performance. In any event, I have no interest in getting into one of these video card brawls as it's pointless. You've obviously already made your mind up http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_960_Gaming/1.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleader Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 R9 270X running 14.4 drivers and dual core intel i650. Had similar issues with shaders in RT with latest drivers, 14.4 solved them. No problems in BS running great. Yes, this fixed my issue too. I actually only had a problem with the new 14.12 drivers. The old ones I had in (13.1) worked fine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleader Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) The vast majority of graphics issues that I fix / work around are driver issues. Other drivers, other cards, just fine. One particular card, or family of cards, have issues when a particular set of drivers are installed. When the drivers are rolled back, or eventually fixed, problem goes away. Game's fault, or drivers' fault? Hmm, gosh, let me see. I think the problem that's been stated before is that CM still uses OpenGL while most other games don't? I'm quoting, I don't really know, but it would explain the issues with this game in particular as, like you said, AMD is slow to fix the driver issues with OpenGL. I have run Nvidia and AMD cards and only really run into issues with CM games, all the way back to the original CM in 2000. Having said that, the issues have been very few and are mostly related to performance. Edited February 17, 2015 by aleader 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 "Wolfenstein: the New Order" is also Open gl. I am getting 60+ FPS on maximum graphics in that one on my R9 290, but then it is a first person shooter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I used to run Il2 Forgotten Battles in OpenGL on my old laptop with an ATI and it started having a lot of glitches and performance issues about 3 years ago and I had to switch to DirectX. Il2 gave you the option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 You've obviously already made your mind up My opinions are based on owning at least one of the cards under discussion. That, and an understanding of the technologies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) The AMD FX 6300 has six cores with 3,5 GHz which is good enough for most games and should be good enough for CMx2 (although single thread performance is bad). If you only care about CM, then get a Intel CPU with very high single thread performance. Your GTX 550 Ti is good enough for best quality settings in CM, if you have problems update you drivers or blame the engine. If I would know that AMD FX 6300 sucked fro this game (if that proved to be true and not GPU giving me the issues) I wouldn't have purchased it - my rig was budget oriented so I went with that. I don't have any issues with other games I play with it but given I play CM titles the most I would in retrospect rather buy a good single thread performance CPU. I can't get myself a new CPU 'cos it would mean having to buy a lot of new components. For now I'm "stuck" with what I have but what I can do is get myself a new GPU - current one was ported over from my last rig. Are you sure my GTX 550Ti would enable me to play the game in best settings if CPU would be first tier Intel CPU? My drivers are always updated. Question for "million $": What average FPS's would I be getting if I play the game at best/best settings on huge maps with a lot of props and units on it with AMD FX 6300 and Nvidia GTX 960? Edited February 18, 2015 by Hister 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Just for reference, I am running an i7-4710 at 2.5GHz on a laptop with an nvidia card and win8.1. I am getting 20-30 fps on best/best with AA of 8 and no vert synch. That is on a large map for First Clash. I also have shadows on, shaders on, and high trees. I should also point out that I have never seen the CPU below 3.3GHz even on the most demanding apps. That is because the cooling system in my MSI is awesome. Based on cpu benchmarking my i7 is about 8000 on the benchmark. It puts it about 1/3 from the top of CPUs. Your CPU gets a 6363 (still pretty good in raw multi-core power) on the list and it falls about half-way down the list. I am not sure what your clock speed is for the 6300. I would say that you would see anywhere from 15-20 in heavy scenarios to 30 in medium scenarios. I personally see map size and complexity a bigger issue in CPU impact than anything else. The big caveat is the interaction between the GPU and CPU, as well as bus speed and HD speed. btw, I still think there are issues with the AMD and ATI chipsets that inhibit OpenGL performance in games...but that is uneducated observation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davek555 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 If I remember correctly, when BFC first started developing the CMx2 engine for Shock Force, they stated that it was designed for company size engagements. I know they have optimized the engine since then to allow for larger maps and forces but some of the scenario designers are really pushing the limits with highly detailed maps and battalion size forces. Sometimes you just have to drop some of detail settings or turn shadows and shaders off to get high frame rates on the very large scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I've played the game, and while it reads to me as poorly optimized (i.e. it hits the CPU more heavily than it ought to), there's not a chance it's nearly as "CPU heavy" as CM is. Unless you've profiled Arma's and CM's binaries, or know enough about game engine design to make a judgement call, and have information to the contrary. In which case please share.Ok then why is the CMx2 engine still unable to use more then one CPU core ?Dual and Quad core CPU's are Standard since 10 years now... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Not many games use multi core assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Most games support 2 or even 3 cores. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Most some games support 2 or even 3 cores. ..and even then, often the elements that are running on the "other" cores are fairly trivial processes by comparison to the main thread. An example is Arma 2/3, where file operations are shifted to the other cores but the impact on the overall performance is fairly trivial. Edited February 19, 2015 by Jock Tamson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Multicore games would be great. Multicore CM would be better. There was talk of AMD's Mantle being a big change. Apparently, it was used to influence the design of DX12. Cost of licensing for DX has been prohibitively high for BFC. Hopefully there will be improvements in both processing and graphics rendering with CM. Meantime, the gameplay is still phenomenal. FWIW, it seems like intel cpu's, at the same GHz, seem to run "faster" than AMD cpu's. Similarly, Nvidia cards seem to have fewer issues with CM than AMD gpu's. However, frequently AMD cpu's and gpu's cost significantly less than intel/nvidia. Competition is good. An article on DX12 gives a good intro and brief description of the various API's, here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8962/the-directx-12-performance-preview-amd-nvidia-star-swarm Edited February 19, 2015 by c3k 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.