<!--quoteo(post=1964137:date=Aug 16 2012, 11:39 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Aug 16 2012, 11:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->these are extremely powerful systems we have and that we can barely stay about 30fps is problematic<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If quality is defined as number/severity of <b>unexpected</b> defects than NS2 is of very low quality. Its worth is far from 0 but that's whole other matter.
If devs are not running LAN server with massive fakelag then how are they supposed to notice such problems, they notice them very late in the process and you have results.
BTW You're all stupid. :P Most of you omit RAM clock. I have half-assed RAM that I usually run at 1066 instead of 1600. Having RAM clocked at 1600 usually made a difference between lag and smooth gameplay. Lua GC in NS2 doesn't fit in L2 or L3 cache and memory clock matters.
<!--quoteo(post=1964144:date=Aug 16 2012, 10:02 PM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Aug 16 2012, 10:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964144"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BTW You're all stupid. :P Most of you omit RAM clock. I have half-assed RAM that I usually run at 1066 instead of 1600. Having RAM clocked at 1600 usually made a difference between lag and smooth gameplay. Lua GC in NS2 doesn't fit in L2 or L3 cache and memory clock matters.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It appears a challenge just to convince people of a CPU-bottleneck (what with how other games aren't remotely bothered by this as much as NS2), if we get into other peripherals too this thread will never reach consensus, but yea I can see RAM-freq\latency having an effect (though I haven't observed this first-hand).
However, that he didn't benchmark with the highest graphic settings, as noted in the Benchmark Thread Guidelines, indicates that he probably didn't pay attention to the guidelines at all.
So he might have just benchmarked in the readyroom, like on his screenshots. Which would explain his unrealistic claims of stable 60-90 FPS with his 3.4 Ghz CPU. Thats why I asked him to do it again, taking account of the guidelines this time.
<i>(Maybe even lumina gets it this time. :p)</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. I still don't get it because you still can't explain it.
What would a max settings benchmark do to prove him wrong?
What would a max setting benchmark mean to the original conversation of system requirements?
If it doesn't even touch on either issue in this thread, why are you still going on about it? I find it pretty funny that you pretend to be a smart guy as you fail to understand some pretty simple logic.
DghelneshiAims to surpass Fana in post edits.Join Date: 2011-11-01Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1964462:date=Aug 17 2012, 08:17 PM:name=lumina)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lumina @ Aug 17 2012, 08:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What would a max settings benchmark do to prove him wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If he made an effort to make a benchmark as comparable to others as possible, he would see that he gets similar performance to others with the same processor but a much more powerful graphics card, thus hinting at him being wrong about NS2 being GPU-bottlenecked.
Benchmarks are incredibly hard to make comparable though. I actually had slightly lower performance on minimum settings vs. max settings due to how the game played out. In an almost-still-screen scenario (standing still, looking at the marine base) there was no observable performance difference.
SecurityJoin Date: 2005-01-07Member: 33133Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1964462:date=Aug 17 2012, 08:17 PM:name=lumina)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lumina @ Aug 17 2012, 08:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope. I still don't get it because you still can't explain it.
What would a max settings benchmark do to prove him wrong?
What would a max setting benchmark mean to the original conversation of system requirements?
If it doesn't even touch on either issue in this thread, why are you still going on about it? I find it pretty funny that you pretend to be a smart guy as you fail to understand some pretty simple logic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I explained that more than once. You are just like a child replying "NO U!!1" over and over again now.
Comments
^This
If devs are not running LAN server with massive fakelag then how are they supposed to notice such problems, they notice them very late in the process and you have results.
BTW You're all stupid. :P Most of you omit RAM clock. I have half-assed RAM that I usually run at 1066 instead of 1600. Having RAM clocked at 1600 usually made a difference between lag and smooth gameplay. Lua GC in NS2 doesn't fit in L2 or L3 cache and memory clock matters.
It appears a challenge just to convince people of a CPU-bottleneck (what with how other games aren't remotely bothered by this as much as NS2), if we get into other peripherals too this thread will never reach consensus, but yea I can see RAM-freq\latency having an effect (though I haven't observed this first-hand).
However, that he didn't benchmark with the highest graphic settings, as noted in the Benchmark Thread Guidelines, indicates that he probably didn't pay attention to the guidelines at all.
So he might have just benchmarked in the readyroom, like on his screenshots. Which would explain his unrealistic claims of stable 60-90 FPS with his 3.4 Ghz CPU.
Thats why I asked him to do it again, taking account of the guidelines this time.
<i>(Maybe even lumina gets it this time. :p)</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. I still don't get it because you still can't explain it.
What would a max settings benchmark do to prove him wrong?
What would a max setting benchmark mean to the original conversation of system requirements?
If it doesn't even touch on either issue in this thread, why are you still going on about it? I find it pretty funny that you pretend to be a smart guy as you fail to understand some pretty simple logic.
If he made an effort to make a benchmark as comparable to others as possible, he would see that he gets similar performance to others with the same processor but a much more powerful graphics card, thus hinting at him being wrong about NS2 being GPU-bottlenecked.
Benchmarks are incredibly hard to make comparable though. I actually had slightly lower performance on minimum settings vs. max settings due to how the game played out. In an almost-still-screen scenario (standing still, looking at the marine base) there was no observable performance difference.
What would a max settings benchmark do to prove him wrong?
What would a max setting benchmark mean to the original conversation of system requirements?
If it doesn't even touch on either issue in this thread, why are you still going on about it? I find it pretty funny that you pretend to be a smart guy as you fail to understand some pretty simple logic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I explained that more than once. You are just like a child replying "NO U!!1" over and over again now.