Performance

Raneman

Now, I just took some comparisons, and I found that on my computer, the FPS difference between Ridiculously Awful and Max Settings is about 5 FPS at most. That's a bit interesting, don't you think? I'm not submitting this as a problem, and there's no rush to fix it, but does anyone know what makes the difference so small?

TrC

Game is not optimized, my ignorant answer.

Higher graphics cause more stuttering though.

Asraniel

the biggest difference between those settings is the texture quality. If you have enough video ram, there will be nearly no difference. there will be one if you are low on video ram (on my laptop the difference is huge, on my desktop computere its nearly none).

The resolution has a bigger effect

peregrinus

Something like the game uses CPU power more than GPU power??

sherpa

<!--quoteo(post=1859065:date=Jul 9 2011, 03:43 PM:name=peregrinus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (peregrinus @ Jul 9 2011, 03:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1859065"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Something like the game uses CPU power more than GPU power??<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yea, it's pretty heavily CPU-bottlenecked.

From what I've heard, the best performance comes from those with the fastest cores- and I don't think it makes use of multiple cores. I had a bad frame-rate with my i7 950 + GTX 570 (~30fps).

Uzrbital

Sorta weird, I have a AMD 6850 HD, 2.7 GB video RAM with i5 3.3 GHz dual core. 4 GB RAM, 9 GB virutal RAM (used my harddrive for RAM), and I'm at a good ~60 fps.

slowJusko

AMD/ATI 4870, 8GB RAM, Q6600
Not sure what happened between 179 to 180, but I've gone from 30+ FPS to 15 or less.

*shrug*

I'll check my machine out... maybe I have something running that shouldn't be.

Jiriki

The texture settings do not really affect FPS just the GPU memory usage, because by going to different areas in big maps, it can swap which causes a fps spike.