Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
poor fps?
kazson
Member Posts: 224
a couple days ago people were all worried about how many frames per second Age of Conan was getting in the previews....me i could really cares less because i keep my computer maxed out pretty much all the time...expensive hobby but oh well 
..but it looks like everyone doing the previews forgot to mention one thing....
yes the game was running at around 20-25 frames per second but this is what they left out
- 800+ NPCs loaded, every NPC in the zone loaded
- 1920 by 1200 res
- not every preview was shown using the cheetah 2 upgrade
most people dont even own a 24+ monitor to even run at that resolution so if you are running at a typical umm lets say 1280x768 the performance should be MUCH higher if i had to guess based off current games id say that same computer would break 55-60 fps easy
and hell if you are like me and u run at high res getting close to 30 fps at that res is great
im not saying the game is gonna be the best ever...but from a coding stand point it looks solid....(not talking about bugs
Comments
I thought I would post the exact quote just in case some people didnt believe you,
"Yesterday in our Cheetah 2 build we were able to fly over this valley with 800+ NPCs loaded, every NPC in the zone loaded, and I never dropped below about 25 frames per second. Without loading all those NPCs, I was going over 64/84 frames per second. Now, the Cheetah build we brought to show, a lot of people have been asking "Can I run the game on my computer?" and "What's it going to look like on DX9?". We've made sure we focused on what we brought here as far as Cheetah 2, is all DX9/Windows XP. We're talking about 1920 by 1200, and getting upwards of 30 to 60 frames per second – very solid Windows XP graphics. Massive, massive increase in performance, and we're really proud to be able to show that to people. We want people to know we're not going for a repeat of our Anarchy Online launch."
This was from Conan designer Jason Stone.
What kind of computers are they running this on? specs?
I haven't seen any hard numbers but in a Gamespy writeup (It was a DX9 demo - probably the same one), they mentioned a machine with 2GB ram and a "high end video card" getting at least 30fps. I'm taking that to mean an 8800 series card, maybe the 2900 or 3800 Radeons too. But not SLI or crossfire. The real question is how well does it scale.
They were dual core Dell's with 8800 gpu's. Not super high end, but not junk either.
Guild Video|Forums|Guild Website+New Video|AoC official FAQ|E3'07 Official Trailer
Saweet! Learning from past mistakes is a huge bonus.
yeah. wierd how people are concerned about the xp/dx9 performance. just shows people in general know nothing, its the vista/dx10 performance that is terrible for all games. the dx10 performance will be a way way worse, with a little more eye candy.
I think its prolly the best achievement in AoC that they can get such good graphics at good frame rates, seriosuly optimised.
PS: I remeber them saying dx9 on XP with 8800 wid 512mb , so i'm guessing a 8800gts 512mb, dual core processor and 2 gb ram (which is what I got!
).
My blog:
I have a dual boot system...all games (that I play) run better on Vista64 than they do on my XP. Simply put...those who complain about Vista being worse for games than XP have little truth to back them up. I use both...have tested both on my gaming machine and, while the increase in FPS is not huge, it is always more on Vista.
And of course DX10 is going to have lower framerates than DX9...DX10 has more features. Saying DX9 is better than DX10 because it gets more FPS is like saying running a game in low settings is better than running it in high settings because you get better FPS. High FPS is good...but a game looking good is also important.
How much FPS is enough...at 1920x1200 I'm getting over 60 fps in new games with settings maxed. They talk about AoC getting 25-30 FPS in these demos they have at shows...for reference a movie in a theatre is 24 FPS. Of course you want higher in games (and the higher the better) to help when you get more on your screen but 30 is great number to start with.
I have a dual boot system...all games (that I play) run better on Vista64 than they do on my XP. Simply put...those who complain about Vista being worse for games than XP have little truth to back them up. I use both...have tested both on my gaming machine and, while the increase in FPS is not huge, it is always more on Vista.
And of course DX10 is going to have lower framerates than DX9...DX10 has more features. Saying DX9 is better than DX10 because it gets more FPS is like saying running a game in low settings is better than running it in high settings because you get better FPS. High FPS is good...but a game looking good is also important.
How much FPS is enough...at 1920x1200 I'm getting over 60 fps in new games with settings maxed. They talk about AoC getting 25-30 FPS in these demos they have at shows...for reference a movie in a theatre is 24 FPS. Of course you want higher in games (and the higher the better) to help when you get more on your screen but 30 is great number to start with.
My BS senses are tingling.
1)First you are saying your Vista runs games faster than XP. Than you admit DX10 will be slower.
2)It is almost impossible to see any difference between dx9 and 10.
3)FPS will dip lower in fights and raids.
1) You can use Vista and not use DX10, you obviously do not know that. In fact...not all games even have. DX10 is not "slower" (wrong term to use...the graphics are not drawn slower) just that it would have less FPS due to having more intensive graphics if set at the same settings as DX9.
2)You have no clue or idea what you are talking about. Please look at the first post (the ones with the screenshots) in this link and tell me you do not see a difference...even some AoC screens in there.
www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php
Oh..and here's some more comparison shots...
www.incrysis.com/index.php
3) No kidding. What's your point?
You're BS senses should no longer be tingling...research, read, learn.
Aslong as there are DX9 render options for vista users its oke for me i really dont wanna give in on fps for a little bit more crap here and there.
1) You can use Vista and not use DX10, you obviously do not know that. In fact...not all games even have. DX10 is not "slower" (wrong term to use...the graphics are not drawn slower) just that it would have less FPS due to having more intensive graphics if set at the same settings as DX9.
2)You have no clue or idea what you are talking about. Please look at the first post (the ones with the screenshots) in this link and tell me you do not see a difference...even some AoC screens in there.
www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php
Oh..and here's some more comparison shots...
www.incrysis.com/index.php
3) No kidding. What's your point?
You're BS senses should no longer be tingling...research, read, learn.
1) fact is, more fps with xp. it looks like AoC dx10 is not a viable option with mid to high end cards@1920x1200.2)hahahaha Those screens from flight simulator are fake. The game is out and the quality is no where near it. And in crysis, you can edit file with options to have "DX10 quality" ie very high quality with DX9. Have you been living under the rock "researching"?
And AoC screen are most likely fake too, or can be achieved with dx9.
3)my point is you need atleast 35-50 fps to play a game smoothly. With 25-30, you will see low 10s or 20s very often.
Looks like my BS senses are right again.
1. Fact is not more FPS with XP...plain and simple. More FPS with DX9 yes...not with XP. I run both XP and Vista...ALL GAMES GET MORE FPS IN DX9 ON VISTA! With equal computers (as far as hardware) I'm sure some get more FPS in DX9 with XP...truth, I do not. I've tweaked both Operating Systems for gaming...and ALWAYS get better performance (and the option for better graphics on games with DX10) with VISTA.
2. The screens are not fake. I play the game...the quality is like the picture. Yes you can push Crysis to very high settings...but you DO NOT get the DX10 effects. Look at the two Crysis screens again...you are seeing DX9 and DX10 at max settings...THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE or there is something wrong with your eyes.
3. 35-50 FPS is great...but not needed. If you are AVERAGING (not topping out at) 30 or more FPS you will be fine. Every game is going to dip in FPS...keep the AVERAGE FPS up and you will be fine. Getting over 60 FPS while walking along a path in the woods and doing nothing else means nothing. Keeping a steady FPS is what matters. Will people take a performance hit by enabling DX10? Of course they will...the game is pushing more graphics thus making the game look better. Will people who are playing with VISTA and sticking with DX9 have less FPS than XP people? NO!
You may want to get a better computer man...I know I will be playing AoC all settings maxed and in DX10 and AVERAGING 35 fps no problem...if you're playing DX9 in XP with all setting maxed and AVERAGING 50 FPS...great...but you know what, there will be no difference in our game play svae the fact that my game will look better than yours. You hate Vista and know little about DX10 because you probably have not used it. I would love to see your credentials on the subject...or have you over and show exactly what I'm getting for FPS in games...during battle and during still scenes. Guess we have to agree to disagree...too bad I'm the only one in the arguement that has actually played and tested games on both Operating Systems.
1. Fact is not more FPS with XP...plain and simple. More FPS with DX9 yes...not with XP. I run both XP and Vista...ALL GAMES GET MORE FPS IN DX9 ON VISTA! With equal computers (as far as hardware) I'm sure some get more FPS in DX9 with XP...truth, I do not. I've tweaked both Operating Systems for gaming...and ALWAYS get better performance (and the option for better graphics on games with DX10) with VISTA.
2. The screens are not fake. I play the game...the quality is like the picture. Yes you can push Crysis to very high settings...but you DO NOT get the DX10 effects. Look at the two Crysis screens again...you are seeing DX9 and DX10 at max settings...THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE or there is something wrong with your eyes.
3. 35-50 FPS is great...but not needed. If you are AVERAGING (not topping out at) 30 or more FPS you will be fine. Every game is going to dip in FPS...keep the AVERAGE FPS up and you will be fine. Getting over 60 FPS while walking along a path in the woods and doing nothing else means nothing. Keeping a steady FPS is what matters. Will people take a performance hit by enabling DX10? Of course they will...the game is pushing more graphics thus making the game look better. Will people who are playing with VISTA and sticking with DX9 have less FPS than XP people? NO!
You may want to get a better computer man...I know I will be playing AoC all settings maxed and in DX10 and AVERAGING 35 fps no problem...if you're playing DX9 in XP with all setting maxed and AVERAGING 50 FPS...great...but you know what, there will be no difference in our game play svae the fact that my game will look better than yours. You hate Vista and know little about DX10 because you probably have not used it. I would love to see your credentials on the subject...or have you over and show exactly what I'm getting for FPS in games...during battle and during still scenes. Guess we have to agree to disagree...too bad I'm the only one in the arguement that has actually played and tested games on both Operating Systems.
1. I will back you in your observations. I dual boot both XP and Vista Ultimate and both are highly customized for gaming. My FPS are within 5% no matter what game or what operating system I am using. For me Vista is superior becuase of Dx10.
2. Why not try some games under Dx10 before you comment on something you obviously know nothing about. You will never get the Dx10 eye candy(effects) with max settings on a Dx9 card. Very high quality is not what Dx10 is.
3. 100% Agree
All I have to add is I will be averaging over 35 FPS in AoC with DX10. My game will play as good as yours. But I will be lauging inside since my game will look so much sexier. Have fun with your XP and DX9. LOL Ignorance is bliss. Thats the saying right?
OP sorry for helping with the hijacking of your thread. But I completly agree the coding looks solid at this time. Heres hoping for a great launch.
---------------
Tested over a 115+ games since 1997.
Currently Playing:
Played(Retired): AOL NWN(91-95), UO, EQ1/2, DAoC, CoX, Lineage1/2, SWG(Pre CU/NGE), Planetside, Anarchy Online, FFXI, AC, Vanguard, D&D, AoC, DCUO, Rift, Eve, others
Hi im also useing vista, and i will never go back to XP again it is like xp users going back to windows 98 lol, plus with vista i can format a 500GB HDD in just a new secs where with XP it will take 1 hr at least, plus you dont need to have motherboard drivers on disk as long you got a active internet connection vista will auto download them all and install without a problem.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/3845509852.png
Thanks for agreeing...good to see someone else who has actual experience with both operating systems. I got into the conversation with a friend at work and it came down to..."Hey...if I am getting 35 FPS in DX10 and 50 in DX9...I am playing with DX10 so I have better graphics and more eye candy". The difference between XP and Vista is that you cannot play DX10 on XP.
One question?
Who has advantage?
We have real time combat not point to click.
1.) high end comp with low video settings
2.) high end comp with high video settings.
3.) average comp with normal video seting.
All three comps have equal internet connection.(ping 70)
Who win PvP, base on tech?
I hope the guy with more skills!
Is having a high framerate going to help you in big battles? Of course, you are not going to be seeing a slideshow of screens. Does having a lot framerate slow down your abilities or you character? No. Even with a framerate of 5 FPS pushhing your attacking button is just like pushing it with 50 FPS save the fact that you may miss your toon swinging due to the low FPS.
If you take your above examples...as long as all are getting over 20 FPS (even 15 FPS) then it should be player skill (assuming equal gear of course).
I'm not that tech-savvy to explain why things work or don't work as well as other things, however...
From what I'm seeing DX10 only looks so much better. I mean, in the Flight Simulator screenshots, it's downright amazing at the difference. But in the Age of Conan screenshots... well, I don't really care about being able to see a few extra trees on the horizon.
Maybe It's just me, but I just don't see the point of upgrading to a DX10 card and Vista for a few extra trees, additional lighting, and draw distance. The NPC looks nearly identical in the screenshots, in my opinion, and since that's what I'll be looking at the most anyway, I can't really justify dropping that cash for a few extra beams of sunlight here and there...
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
I remember when I first saw videos of DX10 and I was going OMG DX10 IS SO CRAZY NICE!! at first... but now that I have seen it, it barely does any difference? sure it is nicer, but from what I've heard its not much nicer at all and eats alot more fps.
second, I'm not gonna link to anywhere but google for people experiencing fps loss because of vista, since it requires more in the background while you play? In anycase, atleast I had heard vista was running games worse then xp and that it was VERY common, in fact I havent heard once of anyone getting more fps in vista then xp, but here are two people here claiming they do? What an amazing discovery
This is key. If you do not want all the bells and whistles there is not sense in worrying about them. Everyone derives something different out of gaming...some want bleeding edge graphics where even the smallest added eye candy is important. Others just want to play the game and could care less about shaders and FPS and extra foliage. Play how you want.
Bottom line is play what you want. DX10 or DX9...Vista of XP...it does not matter. If you are getting 60 FPS in XP using DX9 and you're happy with the graphics that's great...if you're getting 45 FPS in Vista using DX10 ad you're happy with the graphics...also great. Both are getting great performance...both are happy...but only the DX10 player is seeing all the eye candy.
OK spikenog:
1)skip
2)Flight simulator screens ARE fake. Very high quality in crysis is achievable with dx9. google it.
Aoc screens will be fake when the game launches. You can quote me on that.
Why am i saying that? Because they are a part of microsofts campaign to promote vista and dx10, just like screens from flight simulator.
3)if i remember right, fighting in aoc is real time. good luck killing anybody with lagspikes.
I own a 42" monitor.
Pre-cu Fanbois,
There will be no rollback.
Go outside - Get a life,
It's not coming back.
We arn't giving you your game-back.
So go outside, and realize that you've wasted 2 years.
Pre-cu Fanbois.
2) Yes...Crysis can be played on Very High Quality on DX9...BUT YOU WILL NOT SEE THE SAME EYE CANDY AS DX10!!
3) Seriously...again, you have no clue...LAG SPIKES ARE NOT FPS RELATED!!!!!
Awesome!