Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
I QUIT fps is junk so is the game
sloth9669
Member Posts: 2
OK here it goes.. i waited 5 months for the game was so ready for this thing to get released bout the pre order box and everything. Game play is the same nothing new from what ive seen or heard. I know its beta and not done the crashes i dont mind the bugs are expected but in 3 weeks they can never fix it to the point i would be interested in paying the other 40 bucks.
MY COMPUTER ISSUES
ok waiting for this game i upgraded my rig. As is stands i got
p4 3.2 gig
1 gig ram
150 gig HD
nvidia 7800 gs 512 video card
with that and settings at 1000x800...whatever the exact number is tree detail on low no shadows no reflective no long distance sight grass off and everything else i could tweak iam getting......get ready.........8fps.....god forbid i get in a group and go in a cave iam at a .5 fps and die...waste of my time and money...i more then meet the specs
This game will never fly witht eh general public....few die hards will last a few months and by june everyone will be back on another game....now the long wait and see if war hammer lets me down. Q4 07 here i come.
MY COMPUTER ISSUES
ok waiting for this game i upgraded my rig. As is stands i got
p4 3.2 gig
1 gig ram
150 gig HD
nvidia 7800 gs 512 video card
with that and settings at 1000x800...whatever the exact number is tree detail on low no shadows no reflective no long distance sight grass off and everything else i could tweak iam getting......get ready.........8fps.....god forbid i get in a group and go in a cave iam at a .5 fps and die...waste of my time and money...i more then meet the specs
This game will never fly witht eh general public....few die hards will last a few months and by june everyone will be back on another game....now the long wait and see if war hammer lets me down. Q4 07 here i come.
Comments
1 gig of ram isn't enough to play anything that's coming out from this point on. Also your CPU is pretty weak. I'd put it in the bottom 25% of what's available today. Your Video card is more than enough to play the game.
Make a difference!
gameplay is the truth...
vanguard is very computer intensive game, get another gig.....
and mmo's are never really completed
With all regards, but thats just plain rubbish to say. He has a really good machine, anything coming should run with that.
Oblivion was a graphic killer and my computer could run it in nearly max setting perfectly smooth, even though I have a little lower machine. I still can run all new games on high settings and I am not going to buy a new computer for merely ONE game, no matter how good it maybe is. (since I still haven't seen, I dunno that) It is a question of programming. Good programs work good, it's thats simple. Don't blindly support the "more Gig" hype!
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
yeah, I'd probably try putting an extra gig of ram in before giving up... plan to do so for my laptop in the next month or so.
But like was mentioned...MMO devs who want to reach a large mass market should be coding for the average gamer's PC...and not the high end rigs... WoW actually runs quite well on my work laptop, (Dell 600) with only a 32 mb onboard video card and a slow processor.. (but 2 GB of ram though). Of course, I can't do a 40 man BWL raid with it...but for most of the game its actually quite adequate.
But not quite fair to state that the game is junk because you're having performance issues...
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So only people with high end machines will be able to play VG?
That doesnt bide well for the game population.
Games that require low/mid end PCs are much more succesful. And that is a plain fact
"Before this battle is over all the world will know that few...stood against many." - King Leonidas
I remember these exact same threads with the release of EQ2... Now, looking at the 'success' of EQ2 I'm not sure if this should be a warning or not, but I'll leave that determination to SOE.
'Futureproofing' a game is dumb... In my opinion anyways.
Let's look at the current 800 pound gorilla - World of Warcraft - nearly 8 million subscribers now, and about 6.5 of those are in other countries where a 2.0Ghz P4 with 512Meg and a 5000 series ATI are "bleeding edge". I mean, WoW has more "Mac" users than EQ2 has "total" users, because it'll run on the sub-par video in a Mac.
Which leads into a whole tirade about macs, crap video cards, and Steve Jobs not liking fans - but I'll save that for later.
Obviously the secret is getting a lot of users "now", not some day in the future when an 8800GT is basic equipment...
Now, don't take this as another gripe from a user with six month old hardware. My laptop has a go7800 in it and a core 2 duo 2.4 - and runs VSoH at 'balanced' just fine. But if you take the number of machines out there with the stats of my laptop versus the number of basic gaming rigs, well, you see my point.
Oh well. It's the PS3 vs. Wii thing all over again... Humans are very into their 'immediate gratification', and if you give them something they can enjoy now - even if it's not 'teh ubar' - it'll have a far better return on investment.
With all regards, but thats just plain rubbish to say. He has a really good machine, anything coming should run with that.
Oblivion was a graphic killer and my computer could run it in nearly max setting perfectly smooth, even though I have a little lower machine. I still can run all new games on high settings and I am not going to buy a new computer for merely ONE game, no matter how good it maybe is. (since I still haven't seen, I dunno that) It is a question of programming. Good programs work good, it's thats simple. Don't blindly support the "more Gig" hype!
No, it isn't. His Vcard is good, but his processor is not and 2 gigs is the standard for games as of this year. If you're not prepared to buy a new machine that's fine, but the REALITY is that a PC is a sum of it's parts and for next gen gaming you need a decent PC. The argument "I'm not buying a new PC for one game" is idiotic. There are PLENTY of games coming this year that wont run well/at all on old systems. I can't say it enough, PCs are NOT consoles. They don't last 4 years. If you want to game on PCs you are looking at upgrading once every 1.5 - 2 years at a minimum. Otherwise, get off the bus and stop whinging!
I have a similar machine with the same G-Card, but 512m more ram, and it runs great at balanced on 1280x1024.
If this is going to be your attitude to test a BETA, then good ridence. I bet you never even upgraded your DX....
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
Don't know why you're having so much trouble.
Hey sloth,
I'm running a pent 4 3.2 ghz and an Nvidia 7800 GTX with 2 gigs of ram and I get an average of about 20 FPS. My wife has same setup with SLI cards and is getting about 32 FPS so I'm anxiously awating my 2nd card to return.
Remember though they have lots of debugging tools active now so it's going to affect your FPS to some extent.
Hey sloth,
I'm running a pent 4 3.2 ghz and an Nvidia 7800 GTX with 2 gigs of ram and I get an average of about 20 FPS. My wife has same setup with SLI cards and is getting about 32 FPS so I'm anxiously awating my 2nd card to return.
Remember though they have lots of debugging tools active now so it's going to affect your FPS to some extent.
They've stated that without the debugging tools running, you will see about a 10% performance increase. And last I knew they were not supporting SLI yet.
A 3.2ghz cpu & 1g of ram is NOT in the bottom 25%.
The average pc coming out right now that is running intel is running a core 2 duo which runs at ~2ghz. Most games AREN'T taking advantage of multiple processors at this point so they're effectively running at 2ghz. The dead top end extreme edition C2D is running at just under 3ghz. Even assuming the game takes advantage of multiple processors, you don't get performance equal to the # of processors x mhz. Its fairly significantly less than that.
1g of ram is the standard amount on most systems today. It should be more than adequate to run any game out there... in fact of all the games I've tried, Vanguard is the *ONLY* game that doesn't run at greater than 40fps *EXCEPTIONAL* on 1g. You shouldn't need to max the ram your motherboard can utilize to run a game with so-so graphics.
Vanguard performs like a dog even on the highest end hardware available. Worse than Galaxies, worse than EQ2, and both of those games perform like ass compared to the graphics level they achieve. Just like vanguard.
He would have -0- problem running oblivion with decent frame rates on his rig and that game looks considerably better than vanguard will ever hope to look.
The game is probably one of the worst performing games for the level of graphics achieved I've EVER played, that's not to say that it's an ugly game, but it requires a stupid amount of hardware to achieve it's graphical level... more than required several times over. It's just like eq2 all over again.
Shadus
A 3.2ghz cpu & 1g of ram is NOT in the bottom 25%.
The average pc coming out right now that is running intel is running a core 2 duo which runs at ~2ghz. Most games AREN'T taking advantage of multiple processors at this point so they're effectively running at 2ghz. The dead top end extreme edition C2D is running at just under 3ghz. Even assuming the game takes advantage of multiple processors, you don't get performance equal to the # of processors x mhz. Its fairly significantly less than that.
1g of ram is the standard amount on most systems today. It should be more than adequate to run any game out there... in fact of all the games I've tried, Vanguard is the *ONLY* game that doesn't run at greater than 40fps *EXCEPTIONAL* on 1g. You shouldn't need to max the ram your motherboard can utilize to run a game with so-so graphics.
Vanguard performs like a dog even on the highest end hardware available. Worse than Galaxies, worse than EQ2, and both of those games perform like ass compared to the graphics level they achieve. Just like vanguard.
He would have -0- problem running oblivion with decent frame rates on his rig and that game looks considerably better than vanguard will ever hope to look.
The game is probably one of the worst performing games for the level of graphics achieved I've EVER played, that's not to say that it's an ugly game, but it requires a stupid amount of hardware to achieve it's graphical level... more than required several times over. It's just like eq2 all over again.
His computer is crap. Sure his processor runs at a high clock rate, but that DOES NOT equate to performance. He's using an old Single Core cpu with old architecture that can barely handle PCI-E 8X, that isn't even 64 bit compatible to boot, and only ONLY 1gig of ram. An Athlon 64 4000+ Dual Core would be an upgrade from the crap he has.
Most decent computers these days come with 2-Gig of DDR 400 or DDR2 800 with upgrade capability to 8-Gigs. (Especially with the AM2 and LGA socket motherboards). As far as not utilizing Dual Cores, both oblivion and this game utilize dual cores, this game also benefeits from 64-bit OSs. It's based around the Unreal 2.5 engine which is a system hog I agree, but I play this game just fine with settings on high, only problem I have is with occlusion(opening new doors), which they have stated needs to be optimized still. Aside from this I get well over 30 FPS.
System:
Athlon 64 X2 4200+, Radeon X1900XTX, 2-Gig DDR 400, 2x 500GB Hitachi Drives, XP-PRO 64-bit
A 3.2ghz cpu & 1g of ram is NOT in the bottom 25%.
The average pc coming out right now that is running intel is running a core 2 duo which runs at ~2ghz. Most games AREN'T taking advantage of multiple processors at this point so they're effectively running at 2ghz. The dead top end extreme edition C2D is running at just under 3ghz. Even assuming the game takes advantage of multiple processors, you don't get performance equal to the # of processors x mhz. Its fairly significantly less than that.
1g of ram is the standard amount on most systems today. It should be more than adequate to run any game out there... in fact of all the games I've tried, Vanguard is the *ONLY* game that doesn't run at greater than 40fps *EXCEPTIONAL* on 1g. You shouldn't need to max the ram your motherboard can utilize to run a game with so-so graphics.
Vanguard performs like a dog even on the highest end hardware available. Worse than Galaxies, worse than EQ2, and both of those games perform like ass compared to the graphics level they achieve. Just like vanguard.
He would have -0- problem running oblivion with decent frame rates on his rig and that game looks considerably better than vanguard will ever hope to look.
The game is probably one of the worst performing games for the level of graphics achieved I've EVER played, that's not to say that it's an ugly game, but it requires a stupid amount of hardware to achieve it's graphical level... more than required several times over. It's just like eq2 all over again.
Please don't try to talk about things you CLEARLY have no clue about. Clock speed is becoming more and more irrelevant these days and the Core 2 Duo lays waste to anything else whether it be in single or multi threaded apps. It is far more efficient than the older Intel chips.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15
Look at the Rise of Nations benchmarks that are extremely CPU bound, C2Ds are up to 300 % faster than the older Intels and almost 100% faster than AMD.
System: P4 3.0HT, 1 gig Dual Channel Ram, X800 ATI, Raid 0, blah blah
I know my system is outdated, but I just wanted to really try the game. If i could just get past all the fps issues and reboots. I can't, Ill be back when I upgrade at some point in the future to try it out again. Sorry Sigil.
A 3.2ghz cpu & 1g of ram is NOT in the bottom 25%.
The average pc coming out right now that is running intel is running a core 2 duo which runs at ~2ghz. Most games AREN'T taking advantage of multiple processors at this point so they're effectively running at 2ghz. The dead top end extreme edition C2D is running at just under 3ghz. Even assuming the game takes advantage of multiple processors, you don't get performance equal to the # of processors x mhz. Its fairly significantly less than that.
1g of ram is the standard amount on most systems today. It should be more than adequate to run any game out there... in fact of all the games I've tried, Vanguard is the *ONLY* game that doesn't run at greater than 40fps *EXCEPTIONAL* on 1g. You shouldn't need to max the ram your motherboard can utilize to run a game with so-so graphics.
Vanguard performs like a dog even on the highest end hardware available. Worse than Galaxies, worse than EQ2, and both of those games perform like ass compared to the graphics level they achieve. Just like vanguard.
He would have -0- problem running oblivion with decent frame rates on his rig and that game looks considerably better than vanguard will ever hope to look.
The game is probably one of the worst performing games for the level of graphics achieved I've EVER played, that's not to say that it's an ugly game, but it requires a stupid amount of hardware to achieve it's graphical level... more than required several times over. It's just like eq2 all over again.
Please don't try to talk about things you CLEARLY have no clue about. Clock speed is becoming more and more irrelevant these days and the Core 2 Duo lays waste to anything else whether it be in single or multi threaded apps. It is far more efficient than the older Intel chips.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15
Look at the Rise of Nations benchmarks that are extremely CPU bound, C2Ds are up to 300 % faster than the older Intels and almost 100% faster than AMD.
Just to reiterate, the OPs Processor can't and doesn't even make that list.
Hey sloth,
I'm running a pent 4 3.2 ghz and an Nvidia 7800 GTX with 2 gigs of ram and I get an average of about 20 FPS. My wife has same setup with SLI cards and is getting about 32 FPS so I'm anxiously awating my 2nd card to return.
Remember though they have lots of debugging tools active now so it's going to affect your FPS to some extent.
They've stated that without the debugging tools running, you will see about a 10% performance increase. And last I knew they were not supporting SLI yet.
SLI is supported. Also the latest drivers from Nvidia have a Vanguard profile in it already. Either way the FPS increase between my system and my wife's system is proof enough that it has to be working.
Just got done drooling over the new quad core CPUs released yesterday by Intel.
I have an old system. Just over 4 years in fact. It was very good for when I bought it. But of course now its a dinosaur.
P4 3.06, 1gb rdram, ati 9700 pro 128, agp 4x. (i had a ati 9800 pro 256, which died recently, so I just put the card it had replaced back in). Vanguard doesn't look very good on my computer and I get a good bit of graphical lag. I wouldn't play it on my current system as it is. I had considered spending about $100 on newer a 256mb card, AGP of course since my mb doesn't support PCI Express, but listening to you guys it doesn't sound like it would make the game playable. Since I have RDRAM, and its either impossible to find or very expensive, upgrading ram isnt' really a viable option.
So is such a new card likely to make it playable? I have considered building a new system, but I just can spare that kind of cash right now.
On a side note, the thought of shelling out a grand for a CPU is clocked slower than my four year old processor, even if it gives blazingly faster performace, just seems inherently wrong. I would really prefer to wait until they produce a core duo or quad core that is clocked significantly faster than 3.06 before i buy/build a new system. Of course I may be waiting forever since more cores and not higher clock cycles seems to be the trend.
Look the jist of it is if you're running a single core your computer is outdated.
No, games aren't fully optimized for dual core yet. That's not to say that the 2nd core is going unused. It's just not optimized. Example. Watch your 2nd core while in EQ2. It's doing plenty.
My secondary system is better than the OP's system. It's nice for surfing the net and playing EQ but games like EQ2, Vanguard and most of the games coming out this years are going to be CPU hogs. It will be even worse if you try with Vista/dx10. You can expect a 10-15% slow down running Vista.
My new system has 3.5 gigs of Ram and i only expect that to get me through this year. My bottleneck right now is with my SLI video cards. I only have 6600gt's. I'll be upgrading to 8800's once i get my income tax return. Hell i might even get 2
)))
Make a difference!