performance
dooney
Join Date: 2012-03-13 Member: 148697Members
Join Date: 2012-03-13 Member: 148697Members
Comments
PS. Anything below 30fps becomes unplayable, 30-59fps is good enough to enjoy.
Its hard to say otherwise, as you can't really compare NS2 to any other game at the moment, performance-wise.
Right now, the better your CPU is, the smoother it will run. I'd say 3,5 Ghz minimum.
It also depends on the server. NS2 is even more demanding serverside and a lot of servers can't really handle it yet, so their ticrate drops way under 30 when they fill up on players and structures.
I'd say you probably can't play NS2 as smooth as you'd expect yet. Just so you wont be disappointed.
I don't know if there is <i>anyone</i> who can play NS2 in full action without FPS ever dropping below 60 fps right now.
It also depends on the server. NS2 is even more demanding serverside and a lot of servers can't really handle it yet, so their ticrate drops way under 30 when they fill up on players and structures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I run a 2.6Ghz i7 (first gen) and with a GeForce 470, I get average 40-60 FPS.
Performance is always improving, post up your specs and we can give you an idea. For ref: my Core2Duo 2.4Ghz witha GeForce 240M GT can manage 30FPS in awful settings in a window.
Performance is always improving, post up your specs and we can give you an idea. For ref: my Core2Duo 2.4Ghz witha GeForce 240M GT can manage 30FPS in awful settings in a window.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I get 100FPS standing in RR, its not a realistic scenario though.
Even with an i7 (first gen too) OCd to 4.2ghz I still drop to 30-40FPS in long games with lots of structures. Dropping even further in combat. This is partially because no server can maintain 30ticks through a full game right now, but it IS the current performance of the game.
The performance is dreadful, if you dont consider <60FPS to be acceptable don't try NS2 yet (no matter what computer you have), wait a while longer.
2-3Ghz = Will have trouble, but can be playable if you do some of the tweaks I suggest in my <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=114428" target="_blank">benchmarking thread</a>.
3-4Ghz = Playable, but will drop into the sub 30FPS range during long matches/heavy combat
>4GHz = Best, and will be the most likely to maintain a >30FPS under all conditions
GPU, RAM, etc will generally not be a problem unless you have something uncommonly old/low when compared to your CPU.
Edit: A major caveat with this 'rule of thumb' is that it presumes you have a CPU released within the last 5 years. Also, this isn't going to be the eventual system requirements, but are representative of the system needed to run the current beta. As performance improves, you're FPS will increase/you will need lesser system requirements to get the same FPS.
nice, my 3ghz pentium 4 is going to be amazing for this game!
I personally have a 4 ghz i7 920 and it makes a huge difference. The developers are more than aware of the performance concern (I dare say frustrated even) and impact it has on new players as well as game play overall. Its top priority I think
P.s. See my signature. ;)
i have a 2.4 ghz pentium 4 without htt, it used to run the game at like 5fps. haven't tried in about 20 builds though.
That's actually a pretty subpar framerate and wouldn't be considered smooth by the criterion of any popular FPS. There's a glaring difference between bearable, how I'm sure most would describe their fps at the moment, and desirable frames. Unless your prospects are grim or your standards are weak you shouldn't be content with the game's performance currently. There's much work to be done on the games back end, but that's to be expected.
The idea that 30-60 fps is good or even ideal is one I feel is held exclusively by those accustomed to playing on a console.
that being said i definitely understand the importance of FPS, and also how subjective its importance can be. me personally? i need over 40. thats my minimum. but i can tell the difference between 100 and 200 fps easily.
does that mean i expect an unreleased game to reach these numbers? no.
do i know the developers are working hard on this issue and that they have commented/responded to it <u>ad nauseum?</u> YES.
do i consider the fps i get to be "bearable"? <b>YES</b>. more than enough. if anything its the server tickrate that kills me at the end of a long game.
i listed my specs and i listed my resulting FPS. (over 2 yr old hardware, LV426) <b> thats all we can do for the OP.</b>
beyond that its all subjective and up to his opinion on the matter, much like it is yours on what is "good" or "ideal."
2-3Ghz = Will have trouble, but can be playable if you do some of the tweaks I suggest in my <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=114428" target="_blank">benchmarking thread</a>.
3-4Ghz = Playable, but will drop into the sub 30FPS range during long matches/heavy combat
>4GHz = Best, and will be the most likely to maintain a >30FPS under all conditions
GPU, RAM, etc will generally not be a problem unless you have something uncommonly old/low when compared to your CPU.
Edit: A major caveat with this 'rule of thumb' is that it presumes you have a CPU released within the last 5 years. Also, this isn't going to be the eventual system requirements, but are representative of the system needed to run the current beta. As performance improves, you're FPS will increase/you will need lesser system requirements to get the same FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't really that accurate. Clock speed is one thing, but what is really important is the instructions per clock that the CPU can execute. A core 2 vs an i7 with identical clock speeds will have radically different performance. So a better rule is: high end over clocked core 2 series and mobility i7 will get you mediocre performance, anything older will get you rather unmanageable FPS. and anything newer will generally run like a champ.
No idea how AMD fares in this equation.
No idea how AMD fares in this equation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A fair point. My performance 'rule-of-thumb' is obviously not perfect, as a 3.0GHz C2D will perform worse than a 3.0GHz i7. However, my estimates will get you within the ballpark of where your FPS will likely be.
I remember times, where you have to buy a new graphics-card every year if you want to play the new top titles.
And after 3 years you wasnt able to play any game.
Thanks to consoles, this "problem" is gone.
8gigs of ram
gtx 570
Run the game on highest settings 95% of the time flawlessly (can be glitchy and such at times due to some beta issues - some bad servers run poorly,etc).
Overall, I bought the game a couple weeks ago and have yet to be disappointed by how it runs.
Basically if you have a pretty new rig you should be fine at this point.
I also used to run BF3 on max settings 1920x1200 with no lag issues.
I remember times, where you have to buy a new graphics-card every year if you want to play the new top titles.
And after 3 years you wasnt able to play any game.
Thanks to consoles, this "problem" is gone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And thanks to consoles we're getting loads of ports instead of PC-dev'd games, hence loosing quality as those titles are not adapted to what a high-end PC can take.
I'm also quite wondering if it's the time to buy NS2 as I've been in love with NS1 for ages and I remember having loads of fun with my friends on my private server back in the days :)