Even though you said not to I whent ahead and got the Cooler Master GX 450W... hehe.
*facepalm*
I wouldn't run a Radeon HD 7870 on that power supply. Of course, I wouldn't run a 7850 or a 4850 on it, either. It should be fine on integrated graphics.
But you know what you could upgrade? Your power supply:
Well I read hardware secrets review about it and they said it was pretty good. Anyways it has a 5 year warranty, so not too worried about it.
Hardware Secrets gave it a silver award. Hard OCP graded it as a fail. The key thing to understand is that those don't contradict each other, as it's a difference in editorial standards.
Hard OCP is targeted toward enthusiasts, such as people who might consider buying a Radeon HD 7850. Hardware Secrets is targeted more toward people trying to assemble a cheap computer that won't explode, and probably gives an award to a substantial majority of the power supplies that they review--and they review some really bad ones, too.
What motherboard do you have? You could probably overclock your current processor a little, especially since you're not using the integrated graphics. I wouldn't want to overclock on the loose voltage regulation of your current power supply, but with the Antec Neo Eco, overclocking something that is low power to begin with should be fine.
Overclocking doesn't seem to be an option unless I get a new heatsink/fan seeing as how my CPU sets off the heat warning running prime 95 for less than 5 minutes at stock speeds with the stock cooler.
I've seen people on the official forums even with the i5-2500 at stock speeds complaining about fps issues also.
It would be pretty dumb if anyone that wants to play at a nice frame rate in WvW has to OC.
I get lower end frames in WoW when there are a lot of people around but with that I just drop my graphics settings and it's an instant +10-20 frames.
I really have to wonder what ANet is doing with all this CPU power.
No matter how fast your hardware is, sufficiently badly coded software can still manage to run poorly. I'm starting to wonder if GW2 has a case of that, which would be a shame after how well GW1 ran.
Originally posted by Quizzical No matter how fast your hardware is, sufficiently badly coded software can still manage to run poorly. I'm starting to wonder if GW2 has a case of that, which would be a shame after how well GW1 ran.
Too early to tell.
The game hasn't released yet. Yes, it's releasing ~soon~, but that still isn't Release.
Most people are judging their performance based on Stress Test performances. True - most of the stress tests involve server-side stresses, but even so, you can't make valid local-side performance comparisons based on Stress Test data.
A lot of it is just trumped up expectations. Once the game has shipped next week, and we see the first couple of big patches out, then we can tell how GW2 really runs. No different than every other MMO out there that has shipped - you have to give it the actual release, and then an incubation period of a couple-three weeks, before you can really what's what.
Also keep in mind, it's a 2012 release. Of course it's going to stress computers more than say, a 2004 release. It shouldn't be a surprise that a ~typical~ computer can't run with everything on MAX MAX RETARDED settings. They should, however, be able to run on moderate settings and still look acceptable. Some people aren't willing to accept moderate settings (usually "Because I can max it out in WoW, and I can't in GameXXX, so GameXXX obviously sucks").
In my limited experience on the betas and stress tests - the game ran very well. I don't think we'll see a huge issue with local-side performance-related problems out the gate (aside from a bit of mumbling until the first patch or two). Launch may not be flawless, but I think it will go over relatively well.
I think this was posted on these forums previously but just in case those who are interested missed it this link will give you an idea of what to expect on most graphical settings.
Which APU would you suggest I purchase to run this system. I have an Antec 500W APU now and suspect I need more power. I play games without problems but every 15 hours or so the game that has been perfectly smooth will start playing badly. This poor performance will come out of nowhere and after prolonged gameplay.
MSI NF750-G55 AMD Phenom™ II X4 965 Processor nvidia 460 GTX SE
lol after 15 hours of playing you are simply running out of memory. There is nothing you can do about that. Not even increase your memory since most games have a cap on the total memory they can allocate. What happens is your game loads info into free memory space, and continues to use it. Other things like players start playing, so to make it faster it loads the characters info into your memory and doesn't remove it. After 15 hours it adds up and the game starts removing unnecessary data.
Originally posted by Cleffy lol after 15 hours of playing you are simply running out of memory. There is nothing you can do about that. Not even increase your memory since most games have a cap on the total memory they can allocate. What happens is your game loads info into free memory space, and continues to use it. Other things like players start playing, so to make it faster it loads the characters info into your memory and doesn't remove it. After 15 hours it adds up and the game starts removing unnecessary data.
Ciefy,
Thank you I had no idea what the heck was going on. I forgot to mention that I would restart my machine and I could play for another 15 hours straight without problems. So, I for sure don't need a new APU? If my machine plays perfectly on this APU does it mean that if it turns on its ok or is there another way to figure out if my computer needs more power?
If it reliably takes 15 hours to cause problems, then it's probably memory leaks that lead to you running out of memory, as Cleffy said. If the amount of time it takes is random, and sometimes it will start causing problems after half an hour, then it's probably overheating.
But I'd advise against 15 hour gaming sessions, regardless.
Originally posted by Quizzical No matter how fast your hardware is, sufficiently badly coded software can still manage to run poorly. I'm starting to wonder if GW2 has a case of that, which would be a shame after how well GW1 ran.
Too early to tell.
The game hasn't released yet. Yes, it's releasing ~soon~, but that still isn't Release.
Most people are judging their performance based on Stress Test performances. True - most of the stress tests involve server-side stresses, but even so, you can't make valid local-side performance comparisons based on Stress Test data.
There's a good argument for that, which is why I'm only wondering, and not ready to conclusively say that the game engine is badly coded, as I would for, say, EverQuest II or Vanguard.
But if a game runs very smoothly on moderate hardware during the beta, you don't have to wonder. You know that the game engine doesn't suffer from serious performance problems.
Originally posted by QuizzicalNo matter how fast your hardware is, sufficiently badly coded software can still manage to run poorly. I'm starting to wonder if GW2 has a case of that, which would be a shame after how well GW1 ran.
Too early to tell.The game hasn't released yet. Yes, it's releasing ~soon~, but that still isn't Release.Most people are judging their performance based on Stress Test performances. True - most of the stress tests involve server-side stresses, but even so, you can't make valid local-side performance comparisons based on Stress Test data.
There's a good argument for that, which is why I'm only wondering, and not ready to conclusively say that the game engine is badly coded, as I would for, say, EverQuest II or Vanguard.
But if a game runs very smoothly on moderate hardware during the beta, you don't have to wonder. You know that the game engine doesn't suffer from serious performance problems.
Prepurchase access last night, on my i7 920 at stock speeds, and 6970, also at stock. 1920x1200 resolution in Windowed Fullscreen.
Every option on high (well I had Render Sampling set to native vice super-sample, I guess you could say that isn't on MAX MAX, but the game uses FXAA anyway)
In the super-crowded beginning areas (50+ people on screen) 50FPS pretty steady, occasional dips to 40. Definitely manageable framerates as far as I'm concerned, with a lot of room to adjust graphic options if I absolutely needed 60+. In remote areas by myself, upwards of 110+FPS
Now there was some server lag last night, it seems to be much improved this morning, but it didn't impact framerates.
I'll have to try it out on my older Mac Mini (C2D, nVidia 320) and see how it scales down.
Looking at Resource Monitor - game seems to scale across 4 cores. HT cores parked, windows shows 3 cores each loaded about 30%, and one core loaded to about 80%, for a total average of 25% give or take. That is with Google Chrome running as well, although Resource Monitor only reports all other processes using about 2-3%.
The game seems to favor Intel CPU's then. Pretty much everyone I see complaining about fps issues has an AMD. The problems don't seem to be fixed and you can pretty much call this release.
There are people complaining about FPS with the best non-server AMD processors you can get.
Wonder what their recommended AMD CPU is gonna be... I know "i5 or equivalent AMD" too bad there is no AMD equivalent LOL.
If it reliably takes 15 hours to cause problems, then it's probably memory leaks that lead to you running out of memory, as Cleffy said. If the amount of time it takes is random, and sometimes it will start causing problems after half an hour, then it's probably overheating.
But I'd advise against 15 hour gaming sessions, regardless.
It only happens after 15 hours + straight. Thanks for the help.
Originally posted by jusomdude The game seems to favor Intel CPU's then. Pretty much everyone I see complaining about fps issues has an AMD. The problems don't seem to be fixed and you can pretty much call this release.
There are people complaining about FPS with the best non-server AMD processors you can get.
Wonder what their recommended AMD CPU is gonna be... I know "i5 or equivalent AMD" too bad there is no AMD equivalent LOL.
Someone in game was saying that on their FX4100 the game only runs on a single core. That would definitely impact performance.
Comments
Even though you said not to I whent ahead and got the Cooler Master GX 450W... hehe.
I checked the psu extreme calculator site and according to that my system with would need 353 watts with the 7870.
I know the amperage matters too, but not sure what I should have.
Also, just thought I'd mention this... was just playing skyrim and looked at core temp and it showed my cores clocked at 5.8GHz... I was like O.O
Not sure if that's a bug or what.
If GW2 needs faster speeds than that, IDK what to say.
*facepalm*
I wouldn't run a Radeon HD 7870 on that power supply. Of course, I wouldn't run a 7850 or a 4850 on it, either. It should be fine on integrated graphics.
But you know what you could upgrade? Your power supply:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371030
Not great, but it's a lot better than what you have, and it only costs $50 with the promo code. And it will handle a 7870 just fine.
Well I read hardware secrets review about it and they said it was pretty good. Anyways it has a 5 year warranty, so not too worried about it.
Although I can still return it for a refund, but that would leave me without a gaming PC for a couple weeks.
Actually I could probably order the one you posted and then return the one I have after I get the new one.
You think I should?
Hardware Secrets gave it a silver award. Hard OCP graded it as a fail. The key thing to understand is that those don't contradict each other, as it's a difference in editorial standards.
Hard OCP is targeted toward enthusiasts, such as people who might consider buying a Radeon HD 7850. Hardware Secrets is targeted more toward people trying to assemble a cheap computer that won't explode, and probably gives an award to a substantial majority of the power supplies that they review--and they review some really bad ones, too.
Do it. New Egg is pretty quick with shipping, too.
Cool, just ordered it... Also I read that there is a bug with core temp so my CPU isn't clocking at 5800 >.<.
The multiplyer is bugged at double.
I tried the test you suggested with AA and I didn't lose a single frame... Also tried no shadows and medium shadows, and also no fps difference.
Tried high res character textures too, no difference again.
The only thing that seemed to have a moderate impact on my fps was supersampling. Which only dropped fps by 5.
Also not even subsampling raised my fps by 1.
I think it's pretty safe to say I'm CPU bound with GW2.
One thing I though was kinda odd is that I disabled one of my cores there was no loss in FPS but when I disabled 2 I lost about 20fps.
I'm not sure how good of the AA test is with this game though because they use FXAA.
I have a Gigabyte GA-A55M-DS2.
Is there a guide or something I could follow? Never really done much overclocking.
Overclocking doesn't seem to be an option unless I get a new heatsink/fan seeing as how my CPU sets off the heat warning running prime 95 for less than 5 minutes at stock speeds with the stock cooler.
I've seen people on the official forums even with the i5-2500 at stock speeds complaining about fps issues also.
It would be pretty dumb if anyone that wants to play at a nice frame rate in WvW has to OC.
I get lower end frames in WoW when there are a lot of people around but with that I just drop my graphics settings and it's an instant +10-20 frames.
I really have to wonder what ANet is doing with all this CPU power.
Too early to tell.
The game hasn't released yet. Yes, it's releasing ~soon~, but that still isn't Release.
Most people are judging their performance based on Stress Test performances. True - most of the stress tests involve server-side stresses, but even so, you can't make valid local-side performance comparisons based on Stress Test data.
A lot of it is just trumped up expectations. Once the game has shipped next week, and we see the first couple of big patches out, then we can tell how GW2 really runs. No different than every other MMO out there that has shipped - you have to give it the actual release, and then an incubation period of a couple-three weeks, before you can really what's what.
Also keep in mind, it's a 2012 release. Of course it's going to stress computers more than say, a 2004 release. It shouldn't be a surprise that a ~typical~ computer can't run with everything on MAX MAX RETARDED settings. They should, however, be able to run on moderate settings and still look acceptable. Some people aren't willing to accept moderate settings (usually "Because I can max it out in WoW, and I can't in GameXXX, so GameXXX obviously sucks").
In my limited experience on the betas and stress tests - the game ran very well. I don't think we'll see a huge issue with local-side performance-related problems out the gate (aside from a bit of mumbling until the first patch or two). Launch may not be flawless, but I think it will go over relatively well.
I think this was posted on these forums previously but just in case those who are interested missed it this link will give you an idea of what to expect on most graphical settings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT3-keOJkWk
Hi Mr Quizzical,
Which APU would you suggest I purchase to run this system. I have an Antec 500W APU now and suspect I need more power. I play games without problems but every 15 hours or so the game that has been perfectly smooth will start playing badly. This poor performance will come out of nowhere and after prolonged gameplay.
MSI NF750-G55
AMD Phenom™ II X4 965 Processor
nvidia 460 GTX SE
Well I just got a refund for the game while I could... Not gonna bother with it until they make more optimizations. After that I may buy it again.
It's one thing when there are many games my cpu has problems with, and a whole other thing when it's a single game.
Ciefy,
Thank you I had no idea what the heck was going on. I forgot to mention that I would restart my machine and I could play for another 15 hours straight without problems. So, I for sure don't need a new APU? If my machine plays perfectly on this APU does it mean that if it turns on its ok or is there another way to figure out if my computer needs more power?
If it reliably takes 15 hours to cause problems, then it's probably memory leaks that lead to you running out of memory, as Cleffy said. If the amount of time it takes is random, and sometimes it will start causing problems after half an hour, then it's probably overheating.
But I'd advise against 15 hour gaming sessions, regardless.
There's a good argument for that, which is why I'm only wondering, and not ready to conclusively say that the game engine is badly coded, as I would for, say, EverQuest II or Vanguard.
But if a game runs very smoothly on moderate hardware during the beta, you don't have to wonder. You know that the game engine doesn't suffer from serious performance problems.
Prepurchase access last night, on my i7 920 at stock speeds, and 6970, also at stock. 1920x1200 resolution in Windowed Fullscreen.
Every option on high (well I had Render Sampling set to native vice super-sample, I guess you could say that isn't on MAX MAX, but the game uses FXAA anyway)
In the super-crowded beginning areas (50+ people on screen) 50FPS pretty steady, occasional dips to 40. Definitely manageable framerates as far as I'm concerned, with a lot of room to adjust graphic options if I absolutely needed 60+. In remote areas by myself, upwards of 110+FPS
Now there was some server lag last night, it seems to be much improved this morning, but it didn't impact framerates.
I'll have to try it out on my older Mac Mini (C2D, nVidia 320) and see how it scales down.
Looking at Resource Monitor - game seems to scale across 4 cores. HT cores parked, windows shows 3 cores each loaded about 30%, and one core loaded to about 80%, for a total average of 25% give or take. That is with Google Chrome running as well, although Resource Monitor only reports all other processes using about 2-3%.
The game seems to favor Intel CPU's then. Pretty much everyone I see complaining about fps issues has an AMD. The problems don't seem to be fixed and you can pretty much call this release.
There are people complaining about FPS with the best non-server AMD processors you can get.
Wonder what their recommended AMD CPU is gonna be... I know "i5 or equivalent AMD" too bad there is no AMD equivalent LOL.
It only happens after 15 hours + straight. Thanks for the help.
Someone in game was saying that on their FX4100 the game only runs on a single core. That would definitely impact performance.