Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Tera on Ultra Quality
darkcircuit
Member Posts: 211
Hey all,
Wasn't sure if this belongs in Hardware or the Tera forum. I was wondering if anyone who has beta tested in EU (high rez textures) can tell me whether I should be able to run the game at the highest level of quality without any FPS issues (less than 30 FPS) with the below rig (my current)?
Case: Antec P180
Monitor: Samsung 24" running at 1920x1200
PSU: Seasonic X760W Gold 80+
MB: MSI P67A-GD53
Memory: 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600Mhz
HD: 120GB Corsair Force 3 SATA III
Seagate 750GB Hard Drive SATAII 7200rpm 32MB Cache
CPU: Intel Core i7 2600k (professionally OC'd to 4.5Ghz)
Cooler: Arctic Cooling Freezer 13
Graphics: ASUS 570GTX Direct CUII
OS: Windows 7 Professional
I know the recommended settings are greatly surpassed, but that doesnt mean I'll be able to play it maxxed out.
Thanks
Comments
You have one of the best rigs money can build and you're asking whether you'll be able to max out an MMO of all things? Assuming they fix the bugs with the higher textures you'll be able to max it out easily, but then you probably already know that.
You're covered. I have the 580 chip, but I doubt is needed, the game is very well optimised. As for the textures, I don't know. They looked pretty good in my end. If they get any better, it'll be amazing. Here are a few screenshots I made at the end of the sneak peek event:
https://picasaweb.google.com/107440833209077349079/Tera?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCIHSjvf928u6oAE&feat=directlink
Ok you really wanting to know if you can run the game max settings or just wanted to show off lol,
about 70% of players dont even have a rig like that and developers normaly think of people who dont have a high end system, so your fine for about 5 or 6 yrs for any type of game.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/3845509852.png
I know it comes across like I'm trying to show off, but I play Rift which IMO doesn't have graphics as nice as this game seems to and I only manage about 20 FPS on absolutely max settings.
benchmark result
http://gall.dcinside.com/list.php?id=pridepc_new3&no=193377
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/intro.aspx
http://www.speedtest.net/result/3845509852.png
Really! i have a system that matches yours(nearly the same except for GPU) but with a 6990 and i maxed rift out with 50+ FPS.
Windows 7 Ultimate
Intel Core i7 2700K 3.50GHz OC 4.60GHz
Asus Maximus IV Extreme -Z Intel Z68
PowerColor ATI Radeon HD 6990 4096MB
OCZ ZX 850 Gold Rated PSU
H²Flo Extreme Liquid Dual Fan CPU Cooler w/ x2 Sharkoon Silent Eagle Fans
Samsung SH-B123L/RSBP 12x BD-ROM / 16x DVD Writer Drive -
BlackHard Drive: 1TB HDD
Crucial RealSSD M4 256GB 2.5" SATA 6Gb/s Solid State Hard Drive
Kingston HyperX Grey 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 1600MHz Dual Channel
As for Tera,i think you know you would be able to max it out,system that are half ours can max it out with NP.
then their is either somthing really wrong with Rifts or your System LOL..
Your system is more than good enough to max tera..
Also whats professionally over clocked mean ?
Cool thanks guys
I dont know why Rift plays so badly, guess its due to a poorly optimised engine. Thanks again 
I was in the sneak peak and i ran the game on the High settings on this rig:
Screen :Acer 24" LCD P246HBD
CPU:AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition
GPU:HIS Radeon HD 6850 1GB GDDR5
MB:ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO, Socket-AM3
RAM:Corsair XMS3 DHX DDR3 1333MHz 4GB CL9
Mouse:Razer Deathadder Respawn,
Keyboard: Logitech Media Keyboard K200
Case: NZXT Phantom Big Tower black
Headset: Creative Headset HS-450
HDD:Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1TB SATA2
I experienced a 30-25fps when there was alot of people on screen and in combat., but a side from that i ran it silcky smooth.
Judging from that, i think you will be able to run the game without any problems on max
That one in a million Anime loving,Workout crazy, Gamer.
KiX0@Steam/Raptr
Professionally OC'd means I bought the system as a barebones bundle (MB, CPU, Memory and Cooler) pre-built and overclocked by the seller (scan.co.uk), they test the system for 24 hours and if it crashes or underperforms during that 24hours then they bin the setup and start all over again until they find a stable setup.
I get 50 FPS outside the city in Rift with a 560 ti. Turn on SLI and I get 90 and have to use vsynk which gives me a rock solid 59 no mater what I do.
Rift can eat you gpu if you don't have a nice setup. But thats mostly because of the engine and poor optimization. If your getting 20FPS with that setup it's not Rift.
##Best SWTOR of 2011
Posted by I_Return - SWTOR - "Forget the UI the characters and all ofhe nitpicking bullshit" "Greatest MMO Ever Created"
##Fail Thread Title of 2011
Originally posted by daveospice
"this game looks like crap?"
Ok maybe I overexagerated :P I get more like 30FPS, but thats with everything totally maxxed; not just the slider on ultra, but every single thing on the highest possible setting.
Good old scan i live 5 mins from the main retailer since there is only the one and thay do awsum systems too.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/3845509852.png
No matter how fast your hardware is, sufficiently slow software can still make it choke. Sometimes it's a case of poorly coded software. Other times, the reason is that they don't really cap your settings much, but let you set some things really high and sabotage your performance if you want to be an idiot, but the game will still look very nice at 60 frames per second if you're more reasonable in the settings you pick.
Well i'm on an I5 overclocked 4 GIG,Running a rad 5770 and i had constantly smooth gameplay with everything apart from anti aliasing turned up to the max,so the Op's rig pretty much blows mine away so i expect u will have no problems at all.
There is a ~huge~ difference between maxxed (note the two X's) settings, and settings that look visually indistinguishable but run really well, in most games.
A lot of games will have some ridiculous options that make almost no visual impact, like SSAA x16, depth of field, or ridiculous texture filtering options, or shadow effects that are rendered inefficiently, etc.
Cranking everything up to MAX or Ultra is usually almost totally unnoticeable except in a few very contrived screen shots, from just the standard "high" or reasonable graphics settings. But it can take a tremendous amount of horsepower to perform, and generally are just for bragging rights.
Take SSAA for instance. SSAAx4 renders the scene at 4x the resolution, and then scales it back down to perform the antialiasing. Some people claim to see a very slight difference between x4 and x6, a very few can notice x8. I don't know anyone who can tell x16 (rendered at 16x the screen resolution), usually not even in screen shots. So to run at 16x the resolution, your video card has to generate 256 times more pixels - that means a standard 1080p resolution image is rendered at 30,720x17,280 - which isn't really going to eliminate that many more jaggies than just x4.
Now, there are other ways of doing Antialiasing - but SSAA is typically chosen as the "Ultra" quality method - mostly because it's a waste of horsepower.
People really need to stop asking if they can play "maxxed out" - because that isn't what matters. What you really mean to ask is if it will play smoothly and look good. A lot of the "maxxed out" settings are only there to make you want to buy faster hardware (or more specifically, to make you feel better about having spent a lot on hardware), not to make the game look any better.
nx SSAA means n pixels instead of 1, just like nx MSAA. It doesn't mean an n x n array of pixels instead of one.
Champions Online has /renderscale, which lets you multiply the resolution by any arbitrary number (not necessarily integers!) and then scale it in the manner you describe. The performance of "/renderscale 2" is indistinguishable from 4x SSAA through Catalyst Control Center. Either one means about double the work for the video card as opposed to 4x MSAA. (Four times as many pixels means some things have to be done four times as much, and other things aren't done any more than before.)
But your basic point that sometimes the problem is stupidly high settings is correct. I think what some of the people who want to run games at max settings really want is for games to restrict the max settings to be low enough that their hardware can run the game smoothly. Of course, that creates problems like the SWTOR high resolution textures dispute.
Personally, I like SSAA, and do think it looks better than MSAA. But I agree that anything over 4x SSAA is silly. And I'm not a "max settings" kind of guy. I turn shadows off entirely in most games because I think they look bad, even apart from the performance hit.
x for FSAA/SSAA (often used as synonyms) means "Screen rendered at X times resolution".
Of course, that varies based on hardware implementations and software API's - but in general it's a good starting point to understanding it. Some cards x2 means "Horizontal over-render only", other cards it means "Blit with the pixel next to it" rather than actually over-rendering. But in general, it's easiest to think of it as just over-rendering, and that isn't far from being very accurate in most cases.
Here's a neat page that sums up some of the various hardware quirks, with illustrations.
http://homepage.mac.com/arekkusu/bugs/invariance/FSAA.html
Those are a bunch of really old cards. Maybe that's how it was used years ago. But today, as AMD implemented it through Catalyst Control Center, nx means n pixels instead of one. And even if it is four pixels, they aren't necessarily what you'd get from doubling the resolution, either. With MSAA, AMD and Nvidia found long ago that arranging the samples in other arrangements works better. Catalyst Control Center even lets you pick from several options of where the sample points will be chosen. As AMD implements it, nx SSAA basically means nx MSAA, except applied to every single pixel on the screen, rather than just the edges of polygons.
I don't know what Nvidia calls it. But if AMD is calling something 4x SSAA and Nvidia has a choice of calling it 2x or 4x, I'd imagine that they'd want to call it 4x to compete with AMD. Otherwise, people will notice that 4x SSAA on Nvidia cards brings a vastly bigger performance hit than 4x SSAA on AMD cards (because 4x on Nvidia would be the same as 16x on AMD), and think something is wrong with Nvidia cards as a result.