DX9 applications on Windows XP will always run a single-process application faster with a single core processor of equivalent price than a dual core processor.
This is not supposition, this pure fact. Your hyperthreading can do a good job at using both cores, but at the end of the day, single core for gaming is still the way to go.
No amount of denial is going to change this 100% pure fact. Feel free to argue till your faces are blue. I'm not going to bother arguing things like this. It's like arguing that the ocean isn't wet.
I have posted facts, you are trolling with things you do not understand. Regarding directx9 yes, but this is not only directx9, it is a complete game which is more than "just" directx (other components, speedtree, etc...), you also need to take into account the type of CPU; current CPUs are the next generation, you are talking about CPUs that are 1 generation older (single core2 cpus are slower than your older generation cpu, I have posted FPS with 1 and 2 cores a few posts above), etc... etc... I don't have the time to make a course for you now, sorry. As I said search the web and educate yourself.
---
What I have posted above also goes for you:
I'm so sorry for you. Because you "think" something is true it does not necessarily mean it is reality.
Nice to hear you know better than the dozens of people with Logitech G15 keyboards that monitor CPU activity who have posted all over confirming the game is using both cores. AGAIN because the game is not optimized to use both cores does not mean it will not use them.
It's also nice to hear that you know better than the Vangard developers themselves, who have posted several times about this on the Vanguard beta forums.
Furthermore, instead of trolling around like you do, I have posted hard facts a few posts above, showing how the game is running FPS wise on 1 core and 2 cores, and how people are getting the hitching problems more with single core CPUs.
It is always so funny to hear how some Joe Forumdude knows it better than the developers who have worked on the game.
You guys are a real pain. If you don't know, don't post. When Windows XP is utilizing a dual core CPU, it will load certain things onto certain cores. Could it not be possible that the usage they are seeing with their G15's is just idk.. an Anti-virus program running on that core? I might be able to understand more if you would say they saw their cores both at like 25% or something...
E8400@ 4.0Ghz ~ Saphire HD 4870 ~ 6GB DDR2@ 860MhZ
When Windows XP is utilizing a dual core CPU, it will load certain things onto certain cores. Could it not be possible that the usage they are seeing with their G15's is just idk.. an Anti-virus program running on that core? I might be able to understand more if you would say they saw their cores both at like 25% or something...
No.
Furthermore, the game is not optimized for dual cores yet, so it will not use both cores at 100% all the time. It should once it is optimized for dual.
But I have already posted about this a few posts above, I have also posted hard facts with FPS on 1 and 2 cores.
I also have owned the following CPUs myself, all overclocked (some at more than 4 Ghz):
- P4 2,4
- P4 3.2
- P3 3.6 EE
- P4D 805 dual core
- core2duo 6400
Instead of trolling on forums like the Joe Forumdudes I have also tested the things myself.
Only an idiot could post in belief that a CPU 1 generation older will run a game better than a CPU 1 generation ahead. A single core2 CPU (yes they exist, the little brothers of the core2duo) runs better than the CPUs 1 generation older; does this surprise anyone ?
OH PLEASE. I run Vanguard on my TANDY 1000 with 80 FPS. The game is fine and runs great on any computer, which is obvious because they released it! You are clearly just trolling go back to WoW.
I would, but the folks over at WoW won't have me. They're keeping a blacklist of anyone who ever badmouthed WoW.
As an update, I did the tweaks in the sticky above and also did the dual core windows xp patch, and it really helped with the stuttering. The game still is not what I would call smooth, but the fps are better. In the wild, I'm getting 30-50ish on average. In town still sucks. The problem is that even when I'm getting 30 fps, the game still seems a little jerky.
At any rate, I really believe that I've done all I can do from my end. I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to fix a problem that is clearly on the devs end. In my own personal opinion, I really believe they need focus on clearing up the bugs and performance issues before they focus on nerfs or anything else. As for me and Vanguard, it's now a race to see if they can fix the problems before something better comes out.
This is really frustrating. I think that I'd love this game, but when I try to play, I get so frustrated I want to throw my computer through the window.
From what I'm hearing and from what I understand, it looks like the people at SOE have made a game that is too much ahead of it's time as far as graphics are concerned. It's understandable that SOE wants to make a state of the art game that's graphically impressive, but come on!
Right now, it's hard for me to justify upgrading my graphic card (again) and paying $350 - $450 when PS3 and Xbox360 may have MMORPG's in developement. Don't get me wrong, I love to play RPG's on my computer, but this Vanguard stuff is getting ridiculous. Please.... make a game that people can play, and then upgrade it graphically if they need to. Don't punish the consumer!!
As an update, I did the tweaks in the sticky above and also did the dual core windows xp patch, and it really helped with the stuttering. The game still is not what I would call smooth, but the fps are better. In the wild, I'm getting 30-50ish on average. In town still sucks. The problem is that even when I'm getting 30 fps, the game still seems a little jerky. At any rate, I really believe that I've done all I can do from my end. I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to fix a problem that is clearly on the devs end. In my own personal opinion, I really believe they need focus on clearing up the bugs and performance issues before they focus on nerfs or anything else. As for me and Vanguard, it's now a race to see if they can fix the problems before something better comes out.
Ow yes, the 2nd core will not be used properly in games on AMD without the dual core patch, I always forget this as I do not use AMD. Good catch.
EDIT: Wait, didn't you say your new setup was a core2duo ? In this case the dc patch is of no use for you.
This is really frustrating. I think that I'd love this game, but when I try to play, I get so frustrated I want to throw my computer through the window. From what I'm hearing and from what I understand, it looks like the people at SOE have made a game that is too much ahead of it's time as far as graphics are concerned. It's understandable that SOE wants to make a state of the art game that's graphically impressive, but come on! Right now, it's hard for me to justify upgrading my graphic card (again) and paying $350 - $450 when PS3 and Xbox360 may have MMORPG's in developement. Don't get me wrong, I love to play RPG's on my computer, but this Vanguard stuff is getting ridiculous. Please.... make a game that people can play, and then upgrade it graphically if they need to. Don't punish the consumer!!
I understand your frustration.
The thing is that the game is running fine on some hardware configurations, but it seems to run badly with some different setups. I hope the devs will find out what the problem is.
As an update, I did the tweaks in the sticky above and also did the dual core windows xp patch, and it really helped with the stuttering. The game still is not what I would call smooth, but the fps are better. In the wild, I'm getting 30-50ish on average. In town still sucks. The problem is that even when I'm getting 30 fps, the game still seems a little jerky. At any rate, I really believe that I've done all I can do from my end. I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to fix a problem that is clearly on the devs end. In my own personal opinion, I really believe they need focus on clearing up the bugs and performance issues before they focus on nerfs or anything else. As for me and Vanguard, it's now a race to see if they can fix the problems before something better comes out.
Ow yes, the 2nd core will not be used properly in games on AMD without the dual core patch, I always forget this as I do not use AMD. Good catch.
EDIT: Wait, didn't you say your new setup was a core2duo ? In this case the dc patch is of no use for you.
Yes, I have the intel chip, but the tweak I'm referring to was for Intel. Apparently, the hotfix from Microsoft is not downloaded automatically via Windows Update, so I followed the instructions on the hotfix webpage and installed the fix myself. It did seem to help -- not only with Vanguard, but with all my programs. Maybe it's just me, but they all seem to respond quicker now.
Now that I think about it, there were also instructions for AMD chips, but I followed the intel chip instructions.
Regarding the above posts, as one poster said that directx9 games cannot use 2 cores:
A short non technical and to the point article regarding dual core and games (the article talks about older games, but it is even more so valid for the newer games; almost all the games coming out are now multi-threaded):
VG is not am MMO, its trick by Nvidia and ATI to fool people into upgrading ther video cards.
I wouldn't be surprised hahaha
But now seriously, I'm so glad I waited for people's reviews and all that stuff. And finally didn't even try to buy the game.
I'm sure everyone who went through the Dark and Light episode (which includes me), tries to prevent such thing to happen again, and it's working fine for me.
Just to note, I upgraded my own rig to a 8800gts. I saw a boost, not the omfg, I am giddy type but some.
i went from an X800xl 256mg, P950, 2gig, to just the better video.
Now I got booted from the desktop by the wife and whipped out the trusty i9400 Dell gaming laptop with a 7800, Core Duo (not a 2), 2gigs and everything on a single drive. The game plays "smoother" with lower settings on the laptop than on the desktop!
I would bet my professional opinion to belive the better, newer Core cpu is the factor.
Now I have to wait to upgrade my CPU, so I cant fully test my idea.
Once better drivers for the 8800, better client code, etc.... we should see way better performance. IE: we have seen these same exact issues with SWG and EQ2. I have faith in due time SOE/Sigil will get it right. They have in the past to a point.
I was in Vanguard from Beta 3 till release, bugs and performance were so bad that I gave up after awhile. I was only running 2x BFG 7600 OCGT’s in SLI in WinXP at the time.
I purchased a BFG 8800 GTX when they first came out and installed Vista Ultimate when it went live. I have a MSDN account so I had Vista for some time but wanted to wait until I had a driver for Vista from Nvidia.
So current system is:
AMD 4200+ Dual Core
Motherboard: GA-K8N-SLI which I had to update the BIOS when Vista went live.
2 gig ram
BFG 8800 GTX, Nvidia Drivers - 100.59
Dell 24” widescreen LCD, res. At 1920x1200
Vista Ultimate fully updated
So I set max quality settings and went in with a Goblin Necro, FPS were pretty darn good 35-40+, and it looked really sweet. Game changes were for the positive and I actually had a good time in Vanguard. Everything went well till I made it to Matrox *sp when FPS fell to 10ish or below and game lagged big time. I had several strange graphic anomalies when I turned my torch on in town, things turned white etc., /flush was no help and only relogging would seem to fix this. I stopped playing for awhile and figured that I would have to drop graphic setting a notch and see how that effected things. Names above NPCs had the old problem of like being covered up and would become unreadable, turns out turning off AA and making it Application controlled in the Nvidia control panel fixed that.
In the short time I played today I enjoyed it a great deal, many changes to the game were positive, though much more polish is needed. My pet would do strange things at times, like run off behind me when I sent it in to attack. Several times I had to abandon it and recall a new one, I figured I was on a chunk line and simply moved to a new spot and things went well again.
Game performance is still somewhat iffy, but I think that the state of Nvidia drivers for Vista has a lot to do with it, plus the game itself. I have only tried the Necro so far and only to lvl 6 and just a short time ingame. This was basicly a shake out run with a buddy key to see how the game performs on my system. I found it to be much better than in Beta, but around towns needs a lot of work. Over all the game was very responsive at max graphic settings and looked pretty darn good. I can see tho that in groups(I haven’t been in one yet) or around towns settings will have to be lowered to be playable, but soloing out in the country max seems fine.
Comments
---
What I have posted above also goes for you:
I'm so sorry for you. Because you "think" something is true it does not necessarily mean it is reality.
Nice to hear you know better than the dozens of people with Logitech G15 keyboards that monitor CPU activity who have posted all over confirming the game is using both cores. AGAIN because the game is not optimized to use both cores does not mean it will not use them.
It's also nice to hear that you know better than the Vangard developers themselves, who have posted several times about this on the Vanguard beta forums.
Furthermore, instead of trolling around like you do, I have posted hard facts a few posts above, showing how the game is running FPS wise on 1 core and 2 cores, and how people are getting the hitching problems more with single core CPUs.
It is always so funny to hear how some Joe Forumdude knows it better than the developers who have worked on the game.
You guys are a real pain. If you don't know, don't post. When Windows XP is utilizing a dual core CPU, it will load certain things onto certain cores. Could it not be possible that the usage they are seeing with their G15's is just idk.. an Anti-virus program running on that core? I might be able to understand more if you would say they saw their cores both at like 25% or something...
E8400@ 4.0Ghz ~ Saphire HD 4870 ~ 6GB DDR2@ 860MhZ
Furthermore, the game is not optimized for dual cores yet, so it will not use both cores at 100% all the time. It should once it is optimized for dual.
But I have already posted about this a few posts above, I have also posted hard facts with FPS on 1 and 2 cores.
I also have owned the following CPUs myself, all overclocked (some at more than 4 Ghz):
- P4 2,4
- P4 3.2
- P3 3.6 EE
- P4D 805 dual core
- core2duo 6400
Instead of trolling on forums like the Joe Forumdudes I have also tested the things myself.
Only an idiot could post in belief that a CPU 1 generation older will run a game better than a CPU 1 generation ahead. A single core2 CPU (yes they exist, the little brothers of the core2duo) runs better than the CPUs 1 generation older; does this surprise anyone ?
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
And I have posted facts and numbers. You have posted nothing.
Cheers.
I would, but the folks over at WoW won't have me. They're keeping a blacklist of anyone who ever badmouthed WoW.
As an update, I did the tweaks in the sticky above and also did the dual core windows xp patch, and it really helped with the stuttering. The game still is not what I would call smooth, but the fps are better. In the wild, I'm getting 30-50ish on average. In town still sucks. The problem is that even when I'm getting 30 fps, the game still seems a little jerky.
At any rate, I really believe that I've done all I can do from my end. I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to fix a problem that is clearly on the devs end. In my own personal opinion, I really believe they need focus on clearing up the bugs and performance issues before they focus on nerfs or anything else. As for me and Vanguard, it's now a race to see if they can fix the problems before something better comes out.
This is really frustrating. I think that I'd love this game, but when I try to play, I get so frustrated I want to throw my computer through the window.
From what I'm hearing and from what I understand, it looks like the people at SOE have made a game that is too much ahead of it's time as far as graphics are concerned. It's understandable that SOE wants to make a state of the art game that's graphically impressive, but come on!
Right now, it's hard for me to justify upgrading my graphic card (again) and paying $350 - $450 when PS3 and Xbox360 may have MMORPG's in developement. Don't get me wrong, I love to play RPG's on my computer, but this Vanguard stuff is getting ridiculous. Please.... make a game that people can play, and then upgrade it graphically if they need to. Don't punish the consumer!!
EDIT: Wait, didn't you say your new setup was a core2duo ? In this case the dc patch is of no use for you.
The thing is that the game is running fine on some hardware configurations, but it seems to run badly with some different setups. I hope the devs will find out what the problem is.
EDIT: Wait, didn't you say your new setup was a core2duo ? In this case the dc patch is of no use for you.
Yes, I have the intel chip, but the tweak I'm referring to was for Intel. Apparently, the hotfix from Microsoft is not downloaded automatically via Windows Update, so I followed the instructions on the hotfix webpage and installed the fix myself. It did seem to help -- not only with Vanguard, but with all my programs. Maybe it's just me, but they all seem to respond quicker now.
Now that I think about it, there were also instructions for AMD chips, but I followed the intel chip instructions.
Regarding the above posts, as one poster said that directx9 games cannot use 2 cores:
A short non technical and to the point article regarding dual core and games (the article talks about older games, but it is even more so valid for the newer games; almost all the games coming out are now multi-threaded):
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2064309,00.asp
As I said on my system I gain from 5 to 10 average FPS thx to the 2nd core, and the hitching goes away.
But now seriously, I'm so glad I waited for people's reviews and all that stuff. And finally didn't even try to buy the game.
I'm sure everyone who went through the Dark and Light episode (which includes me), tries to prevent such thing to happen again, and it's working fine for me.
Take a look at this thread :
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/thread/115946/page/1
----
add this:
bUseShaderCaching=1
To your vgclient.ini file, right beneath:
[General]
---
One user confirmed this with "That cache tweak did wonders to me".
Just to note, I upgraded my own rig to a 8800gts. I saw a boost, not the omfg, I am giddy type but some.
i went from an X800xl 256mg, P950, 2gig, to just the better video.
Now I got booted from the desktop by the wife and whipped out the trusty i9400 Dell gaming laptop with a 7800, Core Duo (not a 2), 2gigs and everything on a single drive. The game plays "smoother" with lower settings on the laptop than on the desktop!
I would bet my professional opinion to belive the better, newer Core cpu is the factor.
Now I have to wait to upgrade my CPU, so I cant fully test my idea.
Once better drivers for the 8800, better client code, etc.... we should see way better performance. IE: we have seen these same exact issues with SWG and EQ2. I have faith in due time SOE/Sigil will get it right. They have in the past to a point.
Oh noes!! I put faith in SOE! Flame on!