Can my computer play NS2 beta?

konata

<div class="IPBDescription">A short guide</div>So there is a lot of people lately who are requesting refunds or do not know if their computer will meet a 'basic' running requirement for NS2, hopefully I and other members of the community can pitch in with basic computer understanding in this thread.

I'm going to break down below, core components and explain what you need to look for in them and then suggest minimum and recommend products based on my own perceptions. These may not be perfect, they will vary and you will not get amazing results as this is a beta/alpha game.

<b>CPU</b>


<i>Intel</i>

NS2 is currently heavily CPU bound. Thus, it will favour Intel CPUs over AMD due to the way each chipmaker manufactures. You may get much lower performance on AMD than Intel from what I've seen so far. If you have the money to go for Intel I recommend it, if not there are AMD processors that will fit the mould and as the game becomes more and more optimised this will matter less.

In your CPU you should be looking for the following,

Cores - Minimum of 2. A single core processor will not be enough.

<b>Intel minimum</b> - Core2Duo E or Core2Quad. Any other numbers/descriptions such as Celeron, Pentium and Atom will be underpowered. If you're using a laptop (which I don't recommend currently) Core2Duo T may be your description, the P and L will be underpowered.

Core2Duo processors are 55/65W as a minimum and I would not go lower than this.

<b>Intel recommended/Maximum</b> - Intel i5/i7 series. Xeon processors would also probably fit in to this category.

<b>tldr</b> - Core2Duo E, i5, i7.


<i>AMD</i>

<b>AMD minimum</b> - As a minimum I'd recommend AMD Phenom X3/4 on the AM2 slot and on the AM3 slot there is a newer set of Phenom X2 II. These are 64 bit CPUs. If anyone has tested with the AM2 X2's I'd be interested to see how it is as this could be a minimum too but I would not recommend it without knowing someone who has tried.

<b>AMD recommended</b> - AM2/AM3 Phenom II X6. They're the newest and most powerful processors. AMD bundle cores to add power and these are the best set for overclocking so if you've got one of these you can rest assured a basic level of play.

Thanks to Scardybob for the following on clocks,

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->WRT CPUs, I would add that clock speed is a pretty good indicator of performance (i.e. higher is better). My informal guidelines are
< 3.0 GHz = Will have trouble playing NS2 (<30 fps, <10 fps in combat)
3.0-4.0 GHz = Will generally have acceptable fps (>10 fps, average close to 30 fps), but still could see issues in some situations
>4.0 GHz = Will almost always have acceptable fps (>20 fps, average in the 30-50 fps range)
I've benchmarked my 4.3 GHz i5 2500k at 67 fps (range 49-79 fps) on an empty server, for people who want to compare (i.e. just run from marine start to alien start on tram).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>tldr</b> - AM2 Phenom X4/X6, AM3 Phenom X2/X4/X6, 3GhZ


<b>RAM</b>

Not really my field. DDR2/DDR3 need not matter. 4GB+ I'd recommend for ANY gaming system these days. If anyone has mobility experience again this would be appreciated.


<b>Graphics</b>

Graphics is the main reason for this article. It seems a lot of people have reasonable CPU/RAM setups but do not know the ins and outs of their graphics cards and pretty much, this is hampering performance so much.

It's true NS2 beta currently does not have much on the graphics side, but there are processes involved that mean it needs to hit a basic requirement.

The first problem is Bus width 64/128/256/384/512 bit graphics cards. A lot of people I've seen actually have 64 bit CPUs and they do not know this, these are very underpowered and will not run NS2. They are the cheap budget cards, typically most are made by AMD/ATi. The easiest way to spot these is they are often "xx50". They're also very tiny in comparison to video cards you will use for gaming.

Below is a 5450 which is 64bit and can not run NS2,
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/j8UE1.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Typically they're only passively cooled, meaning they only have a heatsink, are tiny and single slot.

Below is a Radeon 6870,
<img src="http://www.chillblast.com/images/P/Radeon-HD-6990.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
As you can see this is much larger, also has casing where the heatsink is underneath and there is a fan. Typically they are double slotted but do also come in single slots.

Visually that's the EASIEST way to see what sort of performance you could get out of a video card. Secondarily you need to actually look at the specification,

If I keep using AMD/ATi rather than Nvidia, you will notice @ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_(GPU_family)#Radeon_HD_5400" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_(GP...#Radeon_HD_5400</a>

The 5450 is 64-bit Bus width with a TDP of 19W. To put that in comparison, you get more power out of your mobile phone and basic laptop graphics cards. This will not be powerful enough to run a video game such as NS2.


The 5870 is 256-bit and has a maximum power usage of 150W. To put that in comparison, that's roughly as much power as an entire laptop will use. This is a comfortable gaming option.

The 5770 has a 128-bit bus width. It uses 108W at maximum power and as you can see is the mid-ground between the other two cards above. This is a good but not the best option for gaming.

At a minimum you want 512MB RAM on your graphics card for all modern games, however this has quickly become a bottleneck for low cards. So I'd recommend you get a 1GB RAM graphics card.

Below is a selection of AMD/ATi and Nvidia cards I've seen on the forums and scouted out that should wok with the NS2 beta,

<b>AMD</b>
Radeon 4890, 4870, 4850, 4770, 4670(This last one would REALLY be a push on the minimum)
Radeon 5970, 5870, 5850, 5770
Radeon 6990, 6970, 6950, 6870, 6850, 6790, 6770,

<b>Nvidia</b>
Geforce 9800 GT, GX2, GTX.
Geforce GTS 250, 450
Geforce GTX 460, 550 Ti, 560, 560 Ti, 570, 580, 590

<b>tldr</b> - 1GB RAM, 128-bit, 256-bit, GTS/GTX, 4xxx, 5xxx, 6xxx, NOT xx50
I'm much more acquainted with AMD/ATi cards so anyone that can provide any more information on Nvidia cards needed added. Let me know.

Scardybobs suggested graphics card performance tips,

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can't speak much about the video card situation except that I think that the list you provided is probably overkill. People who post their comp stats online generally have higher performance systems. Frankly, I think if your video card is on Passmark's high end video card chart, you're probably ok (though you might run into issues if its toward the lower end of the list).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

There's hopefully a better idea of what you should be looking at on your system requirements before buying and hopefully a better idea if I've got your card included on the list. I will not have got everything so remember to read replies of people who will hopefully reply with their own cards/CPU variations and performance so you know you got a safe bet on them too.



CPU VS Graphics combination

<a href="http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scaling-performance-review/9" target="_blank">http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-79...rmance-review/9</a>

This article shows just how vastly a CPU matched with a card can perform on a given game. BF3 is the most up to that on that 7970 list and it doesn't affect it too much, no. However if you now look at this one,

<a href="http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scaling-performance-review/4" target="_blank">http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-79...rmance-review/4</a>

Anno 1404, the frame rate is drastically changed by the CPU matched with the 7970. It's pretty much spot on there too for how I'd match it in scale.

Techercizer

Informative post, Konata. I might have a point to pick with a few fine details in it, but I think that the idea is solid and that the forums will be a better place for having this to refer people to.

ScardyBob

WRT CPUs, I would add that clock speed is a pretty good indicator of performance (i.e. higher is better). My informal guidelines are
< 3.0 GHz = Will have trouble playing NS2 (<30 fps, <10 fps in combat)
3.0-4.0 GHz = Will generally have acceptable fps (>10 fps, average close to 30 fps), but still could see issues in some situations
>4.0 GHz = Will almost always have acceptable fps (>20 fps, average in the 30-50 fps range)
I've benchmarked my 4.3 GHz i5 2500k at 67 fps (range 49-79 fps) on an empty server, for people who want to compare (i.e. just run from marine start to alien start on tram).

I can't speak much about the video card situation except that I think that the list you provided is probably overkill. People who post their comp stats online generally have higher performance systems. Frankly, I think if your video card is on <a href="http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html" target="_blank">Passmark's high end video card chart</a>, you're probably ok (though you might run into issues if its toward the lower end of the list).

As long as you don't have a ridiculous system, like an OCd i7 with crappy integrated graphics, your CPU is probably holding you back.

Techercizer

<!--quoteo(post=1890217:date=Dec 14 2011, 12:20 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 14 2011, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890217"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->WRT CPUs, I would add that clock speed is a pretty good indicator of performance (i.e. higher is better). My informal guidelines are
< 3.0 GHz = Will have trouble playing NS2 (<30 fps, <10 fps in combat)
3.0-4.0 GHz = Will generally have acceptable fps (>10 fps, average close to 30 fps), but still could see issues in some situations
>4.0 GHz = Will almost always have acceptable fps (>20 fps, average in the 30-50 fps range)
I've benchmarked my 4.3 GHz i5 2500k at 67 fps (range 49-79 fps) on an empty server, for people who want to compare (i.e. just run from marine start to alien start on tram).

I can't speak much about the video card situation except that I think that the list you provided is probably overkill. People who post their comp stats online generally have higher performance systems. Frankly, I think if your video card is on <a href="http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html" target="_blank">Passmark's high end video card chart</a>, you're probably ok (though you might run into issues if its toward the lower end of the list).

As long as you don't have a ridiculous system, like an OCd i7 with crappy integrated graphics, your CPU is probably holding you back.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a 3.2 GHz CPU, but can run NS2 with no problems in the slightest; my only cap is my server's tickrate.

My GTX 560 and 2000MHz RAM are probably picking up some of the slack. That, or some of my 7 other threads are getting use. *shrugs*

Quovatis

If you expect to get "playable" framerates (i.e. over 40 FPS) in the current builds, you need a core i5, i7, or a xenon preprocessor. There are a few exceptions, but in general, a Core2Quad will not cut it. I used to have a heavily overclocked Q6600, and even that wouldn't cut it. Of course, that was in the very early builds, so it might be acceptable now. Graphics card really doesn't matter and long as it's reasonably powered (actively cooled at least).

Of course in builds 188 and 189, performance seems limited by the servers, not the client.

Spektor56

My gf just bought me the game for christmas, I'm playing on my laptop right now at 25 fps. From what people were saying about performance I thought it would be much worse, I can play just fine

laptop specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 @ 2.4GHZ
4GB DDR2
Nvidia 9650M GT

Floodinator

This post would also need a resolution to FPS side. A HD 4870 may handel NS2 on 1024x768 but not at full HD. NS2 would be playable but it looks like NS1.

Quovatis

I personally don't consider 25 FPS as playable, but obviously some might.

Spektor56

I dont know how u cant consider that playable, that's the same framerate a lot of movies are played at. I used to play counter-strike in cal-I, and im not complaining.

Was just playing for the first time on the Heidis server, was fun.

Quovatis

Aiming is affected at framerates below about 40 for me. Any lower and your hand-eye coordination is thrown off by the delay on screen.

ScardyBob

<!--quoteo(post=1890279:date=Dec 14 2011, 10:58 AM:name=Quovatis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quovatis @ Dec 14 2011, 10:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890279"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aiming is affected at framerates below about 40 for me. Any lower and your hand-eye coordination is thrown off by the delay on screen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.

Although, I would characterize anything >20 fps as 'playable' and >40 fps as 'desirable'. The cutoff points for what people consider 'playable' vary widely, which is why I like to try to characterize things in terms of fps and let the person reading decide whether that is playable in their view.

Ironsoul

if you want playable performance in ns2, I think you should note that ALL LAPTOPS are out, except the ones costing over $3000.

I've heard time and again of someone with a decent laptop, that can max EVERY OTHER GAME, (skyrim is always mentioned so far). But can't run ns2.

So, yeah, laptops won't run ns2... yet.

Deadzone

Informative post and reasoning, konata. This should get stickied :)

SlainPariah

Thanks for the guide. My laptop get around 5-10 fps so I'm unable to play right now.
I'm getting a new computer soon though that should run it.

Intel Core i7 3960X
64 GB DDR3
Two GTX 590

Techercizer

You don't need 64GB of RAM, pariah. Ever. For anything.

Deadzone

<!--quoteo(post=1890310:date=Dec 14 2011, 08:25 PM:name=SlainPariah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SlainPariah @ Dec 14 2011, 08:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890310"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for the guide. My laptop get around 5-10 fps so I'm unable to play right now.
I'm getting a new computer soon though that should run it.

Intel Core i7 3960X
64 GB DDR3
Two GTX 590<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Also know that NS2 can't be run with SLI/Crossfire right now. You'll have to disable it when playing.

player

<!--quoteo(post=1890316:date=Dec 15 2011, 03:57 AM:name=Deadzone)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Deadzone @ Dec 15 2011, 03:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also know that NS2 can't be run with SLI/Crossfire right now. You'll have to disable it when playing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have to, it just won't be used if the driver hasn't a profile for it.

I don't think he was being serious with that spec, but let me stipulate that indeed NS2 does not do SLI, so a hypothetical 2x GTX 590 (Quad-SLI), will be crippled down to the speed of about a single GTX 560, which is pretty fair still to play the game, but it will be horrific value for the money you are spending (other games notwithstanding).

Hugh

Fantastic work pulling all this together Konata, kudos!

Something super minor: You speak of Pxxxx mobile processors being less powerful than Txxxx - not true exactly, P simply denotes that the processor has a lower TDP in watts (usually higher binned), the architecture is the same, and there is usually only a very small clock speed drop. E.g. a P9600 (25w) is the same processor as the T9600 (35w), with a 133mhz clock drop. Only realised because I've tried running NS2 on a P9600... Failed due to the paired 9300m!

The only issue I've seen with crossfire so far was shadow flickering on a 5970.

swalk

I get 30-40 frames at game start, with an e6850 Dual Core 3.0Ghz processor and an ATI Radeon 5770HD graphics card.
Good thread, should be webbed.

Deadzone

<!--quoteo(post=1890317:date=Dec 14 2011, 11:06 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Dec 14 2011, 11:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890317"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You don't have to, it just won't be used if the driver hasn't a profile for it.

I don't think he was being serious with that spec, but let me stipulate that indeed NS2 does not do SLI, so a hypothetical 2x GTX 590 (Quad-SLI), will be crippled down to the speed of about a single GTX 560, which is pretty fair still to play the game, but it will be horrific value for the money you are spending (other games notwithstanding).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If i understand correctly, "quad SLI" is just a term. Having one of the x2 cards is kind of like having a dual core CPU - you've still only got one physical card plugged in, so it does not require SLI in order to operate.

minibanana

I'm probably on the lower end of computer requirements.

CPU: AMD X2 3800+
RAM: 6 GB
Motherboard: Asustek M2N-E
Graphics: 5670

NS2 Performance - Low to Med.
- In RR I get about 40-50 fps
- In game (Beg) 20-30
- In game (Middle) 10-25
- In game (End) 4 - 15

Still I consider the game playable for my standards.

Hope this helps with any analysis in computer performance.

player

<!--quoteo(post=1890415:date=Dec 16 2011, 01:23 AM:name=Deadzone)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Deadzone @ Dec 16 2011, 01:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890415"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If i understand correctly, "quad SLI" is just a term. Having one of the x2 cards is kind of like having a dual core CPU - you've still only got one physical card plugged in, so it does not require SLI in order to operate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is indeed one physical card, but the principle is still SLI (we're talking about 2 seperate GPUs on that card, with their own sets of VRAM). This means that if you have for example a GTX 590, you will be able to use only 1 of the 2 GPUs on that card, which is why I made the approximation of a GTX 560). Even if you have 2x GTX 590, you will still only be able to use 1 of those (now 4) GPUs, and you're still getting only the performance of a GTX 560. So you can stick as many videocards\GPUs in there as you like, it can only use 1 GPU.

This of course applies only to the current situation of NS2.

WizardHUN

what u think if i buy another eah5870 and set them to crossfire, will it be much better?:)

acid_rain

I currently run the game at over 50-60 FPS with a stock-clocked core i7 extreme, 12gb dd3 tri-channel corsair ram, an asus rampage ii extreme motherboard, and an asus matrix platinum 5870 at core clock. My limit is the sky.

Laosh'Ra

nice idea, this seems quite helpful.
just one thing, you might want to add a ns2-version info to the initial post, as the performance can change with patches.
also, here are some related things you might want to take a look at:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=114428&hl=" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....=114428&hl=</a>
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=114414&st=20&p=1865716&#entry1865716" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....p;#entry1865716</a>

konata

Updated the bottom main page to show a link to a Guru3D article on scaling performance on the 7970. Of the games shown you can see most games are affected by CPU with GPU. The 'best' made games, the most optimised don't have as drastic a difference between CPU and the GPU. However all software is different and I'd personally match the Anno scaling to NS2 right now, as NS2 is as volatile.