Post here your average framerate & specs?

13

Comments

  • SixtyWattManSixtyWattMan Join Date: 2004-09-05 Member: 31404Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2052654:date=Dec 28 2012, 11:15 PM:name=YMICrazy502)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (YMICrazy502 @ Dec 28 2012, 11:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052654"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There was a benchmark thread already if anyone wants to look at detailed results

    <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=119506" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=119506</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    This.
  • MinimumMinimum Join Date: 2012-12-27 Member: 176382Members
    C2Q Q6600 @ 3.15 Ghz
    ATI 7850 @ 1050/1450 Mhz
    4GB DDR2/1111 5-5-5-15
    Graphics @ Max

    I average around 50 fps while out of combat and I dip down to about 30 fps in intense combat. The CPU is the bottleneck when the lag hits. I see full core utilization on 2 of my cores while my 2 other cores sit idling. My GPU never goes above 80% utilization.
  • SanCoSanCo Join Date: 2012-08-18 Member: 155744Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2052663:date=Dec 29 2012, 04:49 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Dec 29 2012, 04:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052663"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well thankfully no one else seems to agree with your opinion so have a nice day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    It's like watching 2 children fighting over which children show is the best, pointless. Software benchmark are more accurate, /thread. Yet you still need to trust the person posting them that they are truthful about settings and haven't altered the result, /thread.
  • DavilDavil Florida, USA Join Date: 2012-08-14 Member: 155602Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=2052872:date=Dec 29 2012, 07:42 AM:name=SanCo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SanCo @ Dec 29 2012, 07:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052872"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's like watching 2 children fighting over which children show is the best, pointless. Software benchmark are more accurate, /thread. Yet you still need to trust the person posting them that they are truthful about settings and haven't altered the result, /thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    And you're like the little girl who thinks she knows best I guess. What possessed you to try and solve a dispute that was already over?
  • cikamecikame Join Date: 2011-09-21 Member: 122491Members
    To sum it up quickly, below average frame rate on a machine similar to everyone elses which runs Battlefield 3 on high no problem.

    Wish this game was less intensive/better optimized.
  • Kommunism Must LiveKommunism Must Live Join Date: 2012-12-29 Member: 176682Members
    Processor = intel Core2Duo E8400 3.00GHz
    RAM = 5GB DDR2
    Radeon HD 5750 1GB Video Card


    full detail iam taking 91-95 fps after the last patch.
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The Netherlands Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
    <!--quoteo(post=2053035:date=Dec 29 2012, 09:20 PM:name=Kommunism Must Live)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kommunism Must Live @ Dec 29 2012, 09:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Processor = intel Core2Duo E8400 3.00GHz
    RAM = 5GB DDR2
    Radeon HD 5750 1GB Video Card


    full detail iam taking 91-95 fps after the last patch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Readyroom doesn't count...
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    I don't see how a C2D could average above 40.
    I tried disabling HT and limiting my cores to 2 on my i7 and my average performance tanked all the way to 40fps. So NS2 does benefit from multiple cores and HT technologies in some way.
  • SrsSarcasMSrsSarcasM Join Date: 2012-12-27 Member: 176464Members, Reinforced - Silver
    <!--quoteo(post=2052644:date=Dec 29 2012, 03:41 PM:name=AlphaWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AlphaWolf @ Dec 29 2012, 03:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052644"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here are the results I have for a system that I built almost two years ago, and even then it was considered mid-range:

    I created a totally unrealistic scenario: spawned 10 exos, 10 regular marines, 6 or so onos, 8 or so fades, 6 or so skulks, and 8 or so lerks all in the data core hive room in ns2_summit with full infestation. In addition, I also dropped about 20 crags, a few shifts (and maxed out their egg deployment) and all upgrades. I then went lerk and spammed spores and umbra all over the room. All graphic settings are at their maximum. Tried with and without shades to stealth all of the aliens.

    Try as I might, I couldn't get the FPS to drop below 33 (measured with fraps.) Here are my specs:

    i7 2600k @ 4.4
    Sapphire OC 7850
    8GB 1600 8-8-8
    Samsung 840 Pro

    As I stated earlier, this isn't exactly a high end system, and 33fps isn't bad at all, and given how unrealistic of a scenario I created, I can't see it staying that low on a regular basis. I'm also running windows 8 (with metro apps removed) if that matters to anybody.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    The 7850 came out <i>this year</i>, in Feb/March, there is no way this rig is almost 2 years old.
  • SixtyWattManSixtyWattMan Join Date: 2004-09-05 Member: 31404Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2053056:date=Dec 29 2012, 06:00 PM:name=SrsSarcasM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SrsSarcasM @ Dec 29 2012, 06:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053056"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The 7850 came out <i>this year</i>, in Feb/March, there is no way this rig is almost 2 years old.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The processor is technically 2 years old. A 2600K @ 4.4 though? That's still considered a high end system.
  • MiniH0wieMiniH0wie Join Date: 2007-11-25 Member: 63013Members
    i5-2500k @ 4.0GHz
    8GB RAM
    ATI HD4850 512MB (my bottle neck)
    Win7 64bit



    This is at 1024x768.
    <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Zick/Junk/PC/ns2fps_zps93e54172.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />

    This is at 1152x864.
    <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Zick/Junk/PC/ns2fps1152x864_zps7b062c49.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />

    This is at 1280x1024.
    <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/Zick/Junk/PC/ns2fps1280x1024_zpsc700a173.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
  • KoruyoKoruyo AUT Join Date: 2009-06-06 Member: 67724Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited December 2012
    Checked out ns2 on my old rig (q6600@3ghz with gtx 275) and i have to say i'm quite disappointed, especially considering that something like this is what the average player might have.

    While fps can go as high as 60-80, its usually dropping below 30 where/when it matters. (lowest settings possible and 720p instead of my monitors native res of 1080p)
    Those drops cause mouselag, stutter - all the lovely stuff that you like while playing fast competitive fps games.

    Its a horrible experience playing like that. (after testing it on 5 different servers[since i wanted to be fair and test it only on the best possible servers] i <b><u>never want to touch ns2 on this pc again</u></b>)

    I feel kinda ashamed that i dared to whine about performance every now and then playing mainly on an i5@4.2ghz... (you also have big fps drops etc and need to play on minimum settings with a pc like that - but at least you can enjoy playing the majority of the time)

    I just now really understand the ppl with their performance whine posts saying, "but i can run other games on..." (this ######ty pc can really handle every modern game on decent settings...)

    NS2 performance is worse than i thought.
  • YMICrazyYMICrazy Join Date: 2012-11-02 Member: 165986Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2053181:date=Dec 29 2012, 11:50 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Dec 29 2012, 11:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053181"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just now really understand the ppl with their performance whine posts saying, "but i can run other games on..." (this ######ty pc can really handle every modern game on decent settings...)

    NS2 performance is worse than i thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Yea I made my PC 2 years ago and it is holding up fairly well. The worse it gets is 40ish during gigantic battles with spores and grenades etc. But I also have to wonder if people leave because they keep getting killed over and over due to their computer's performance. I have previously refused to play games that ran like crap on my PC just because I felt so helpless and useless to the team not being able to shoot anything. Most popular games have low requirements and so it is something to think about. But I have to wonder if it is partly the lua scripting. We had an entire team of around 9-10 gorges rush our home base and each of them built 3 hydras and kept healing each other till we could barely move in the slideshow.
  • soccerguy243soccerguy243 Join Date: 2012-12-22 Member: 175920Members, WC 2013 - Supporter
    edited December 2012
    NVIDIA System Information report created on: 12/29/2012 23:58:16
    <!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>FPS: 60 in ready room, 30 by late-game in 20 player server.

    </b><b>Processor: Intel i7 920 @ 2.93 Ghz

    </b><b>Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-bit (Service Pack 1)
    </b>
    <b>GPU processor: GeForce GTX 560 Ti (x2 in SLi)<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--></b>
    <!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Driver version: 310.70
    CUDA Cores: 384
    Core clock: 835 MHz
    Shader clock: 1670 MHz
    Memory data rate: 4000 MHz
    Memory interface: 256-bit
    Memory bandwidth: 128.00 GB/s
    Total available graphics memory: 3835 MB
    Dedicated video memory: 1024 MB GDDR5
    System video memory: 0 MB
    Shared system memory: 2811 MB
    <!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    edited December 2012
    4850 is a bottleneck? I doubt it, even with that CPU you have. You can run the game low everything 800x600 and still get terrible fps, NS2's lack of optimization is in the code that always runs despite your settings. Soccerguy you should probably disable SLI, as it's not doing much for FPS.
  • MiniH0wieMiniH0wie Join Date: 2007-11-25 Member: 63013Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2053259:date=Dec 30 2012, 06:35 AM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 30 2012, 06:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053259"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4850 is a bottleneck? I doubt it, even with that CPU you have. You can run the game low everything 800x600 and still get terrible fps, NS2's lack of optimization is in the code that always runs despite your settings. Soccerguy you should probably disable SLI, as it's not doing much for FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Not sure how you figure a 4850 isn't a bottleneck?

    It's a very old card.

    This article shows that even an i5-750 @ 4GHz running a GTX 460 the GPU is the main bottle neck and benefits from a better card.
    <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bottleneck,2737.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-p...eneck,2737.html</a>

    And even though it's only an i5-750 and I have a 2500k, clock for clock there isn't much difference between them.
    <a href="http://semiaccurate.com/2011/01/02/intel-core-i7-2500k-review/" target="_blank">http://semiaccurate.com/2011/01/02/intel-c...7-2500k-review/</a>

    Now a GTX 460 compared to a 4850;
    GTX 460 G3D Mark: 2669
    HD4850 G3D Mark: 1040
  • soccerguy243soccerguy243 Join Date: 2012-12-22 Member: 175920Members, WC 2013 - Supporter
    edited December 2012
    I just did the first two steps in the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=117259" target="_blank">Performance thread</a>

    Setting NS2 to high gave me a 20 FPS boost
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2053346:date=Dec 30 2012, 01:29 PM:name=MiniH0wie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MiniH0wie @ Dec 30 2012, 01:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This article shows that even an i5-750 @ 4GHz running a GTX 460 the GPU is the main bottle neck and benefits from a better card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    In any other game that isn't NS2 this would be true. I can get 250 frames in empty rooms and it's still not limited by GPU.
  • DC_DarklingDC_Darkling Join Date: 2003-07-10 Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
    Intel i7 930 running at 2.8 + hyperthreading. (4 cores, 8 'cores')
    6GB memory
    crucial SSD + standard datadisks. (NS/steam is on the slower datadisks)
    gainward phantom gforce 570
    nice broadband connection
    Win 7 Pro, 64b, fully patched.

    All drivers updated to latest.
    resolution is 1920*1080
    I run fullscreen windowed without vsync.

    pretty much everything in NS2 is set to max / on, except particles (low), ambien occlusion (off), and the experimental one.

    Below image is a graph made from fps from a match in NS2 with fraps.
    As it pretty much stays at 30+ on its low values I find it pretty ok to play with, personally.

    <img src="http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8854/fpsns2.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
  • MiniH0wieMiniH0wie Join Date: 2007-11-25 Member: 63013Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2053423:date=Dec 30 2012, 02:36 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 30 2012, 02:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053423"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In any other game that isn't NS2 this would be true. I can get 250 frames in empty rooms and it's still not limited by GPU.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    This below just proves my point that my GPU is holding me back. Below has a slower clock speed but a better card and running at a higher resolution with more setting on high and manages to get better FPS than I'm getting.
    I run everything on low and at low resolution 1280x1024 but just manage to stay above 30 but no more than 80. While he's staying above 30 and even as high as 100+ running at 1920x1080 and most everything on high.

    <!--quoteo(post=2053454:date=Dec 30 2012, 05:10 PM:name=DC_Darkling)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DC_Darkling @ Dec 30 2012, 05:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Intel i7 930 running at 2.8 + hyperthreading. (4 cores, 8 'cores')
    6GB memory
    crucial SSD + standard datadisks. (NS/steam is on the slower datadisks)
    gainward phantom gforce 570
    nice broadband connection
    Win 7 Pro, 64b, fully patched.

    All drivers updated to latest.
    resolution is 1920*1080
    I run fullscreen windowed without vsync.

    pretty much everything in NS2 is set to max / on, except particles (low), ambien occlusion (off), and the experimental one.

    Below image is a graph made from fps from a match in NS2 with fraps.
    As it pretty much stays at 30+ on its low values I find it pretty ok to play with, personally.

    <img src="http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8854/fpsns2.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  • Action83Action83 Join Date: 2012-12-31 Member: 176818Members
    I also found my GPU to be the bottleneck (GTX 570). I lowered resolution and got better framerates. End game battle experience became much better.

    <b>1920x1080, VSync off, AO off, Particles low, Texture streaming off</b>
    FPS in
    Menu >120
    Ready room >60 (with 24 players)
    Game >50 (with 24 players)
    Big end game base battles >30 (with 24 players)

    <b>1600x900, VSync off, AO off, Particles low, Texture streaming off</b>
    FPS in
    Menu >160
    Big end game base battles >40 (with 24 players)


    CPU: Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.6 GHz
    GPU: EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 Superclocked 1.28 GB
    RAM: 6 GB Kingston DDR2 1066 MHz

    Windows 7 64bit Home
  • NervsNervs Join Date: 2012-12-31 Member: 176827Members
    edited December 2012
    Mobo: Gigabyte Z68AP-D3
    CPU: i5 2500k @ 3.3 Ghz
    RAM: 8gb @ 1866 Mhz DDR3
    GPU: Gefore GTX 580 OC --- Using current Nvidia drivers 310.70

    Playing on max settings with ambient occlusion and Vsync off @ 1600x900 resolution.

    At the beginning of the game my frame rate is 80 - 110
    In the late game my frame rate can drop as low as 30, sometimes lower.

    Graphic settings have no effect on my fps at all. Turning ambient occlusion to high doesn't lower my fps further when in the late game but I can hear my card working harder so for the reason I keep it off.
  • StrikerX3StrikerX3 Join Date: 2012-11-08 Member: 168423Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited December 2012
    Motherboard: ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z
    CPU: i7 2600K @ 4.5 GHz
    RAM: 16 GB @ 1962 MHz DDR3
    GPU: Geforce GTX 680 no OC with current Nvidia drivers

    All settings off/minimum except:
    Texture Quality = High
    Anti-aliasing = On
    Anisotropic Filtering = On
    Multicore Rendering = On
    Resolution = 1920x1080, 120 Hz, Windowed Fullscreen

    On a 24 player match on Tram: min 45, max 180, average 103 fps
    Aliens had the whole map, and most of the action happened on ET.
  • DC_DarklingDC_Darkling Join Date: 2003-07-10 Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
    <!--quoteo(post=2053481:date=Dec 31 2012, 02:05 AM:name=MiniH0wie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MiniH0wie @ Dec 31 2012, 02:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This below just proves my point that my GPU is holding me back. Below has a slower clock speed but a better card and running at a higher resolution with more setting on high and manages to get better FPS than I'm getting.
    I run everything on low and at low resolution 1280x1024 but just manage to stay above 30 but no more than 80. While he's staying above 30 and even as high as 100+ running at 1920x1080 and most everything on high.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I am sorry but I have to correct you. Allow me to explain.

    As you already said, my video card is better. But you went wrong. my CPU is also superior.

    Yours is a i5-2500k. This is, according to the intel site, a 4 core with 4 threads, running at 3.7. (did you overclock?)
    Mine is a 4 core with 8 threads.
    Windows 7 + new games like NS2 can run multiple threads, so my CPU can run more threads for NS2 at one time. While its not as black and white as im gona say now, I can sort of run twice as much on my cpu as you can.

    From the looks of it, both would be a bottleneck considering many stated its a CPU intensive task. (I can check next time I play myself)
    This may not feel strange to me, as many physics calculations in many games run directly on most CPUs instead the vid card.
  • ResRes Join Date: 2003-08-27 Member: 20245Members
    edited December 2012
    <!--quoteo(post=2053950:date=Dec 31 2012, 09:19 PM:name=DC_Darkling)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DC_Darkling @ Dec 31 2012, 09:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053950"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yours is a i5-2500k. This is, according to the intel site, a 4 core with 4 threads, running at 3.7. (did you overclock?)
    Mine is a 4 core with 8 threads.

    ..... I can sort of run twice as much on my cpu as you can......<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Having more threads on an Intel CPU does not actually affect frames per second as much as you might think. There are some benchmark tests out there that show there is really not that much of a jump in performance by having more threads, except for possibly when it comes to video/media editing/compiling code.
  • DC_DarklingDC_Darkling Join Date: 2003-07-10 Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
    <!--quoteo(post=2053956:date=Jan 1 2013, 02:27 AM:name=Res)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Res @ Jan 1 2013, 02:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053956"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having more threads on an Intel CPU does not actually affect frames per second as much as you might think. There are some benchmark tests out there that show there is really not that much of a jump in performance by having more threads, except for possibly when it comes to video/media editing/compiling code.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Your right in that depending on the kind of game it may or may not need as many cores. (also, I did not get NS2 to use more then 4 cores).
    So I thought.. What can I do to test this? Putting some of my cores in parked mode, would be possible. But the registry edit is questionable. it sometimes works, sometimes does not.
    So instead I just kicked up prime, set its torture tests to calculations which a CPU does not like, and started NS. Note my cpu was around max on all 8 'cores' before I even started NS2.

    It ran FINE. fps was slightly less, but well in the 40+ ranges. On a maxed cpu.
    So yeh.. I would start blaiming the vid cards aswell.
    (on a side note, this is a cpu which model is not THAT old. And not all cpu are as good at certain calculations. so results may very)
  • buhehebuhehe Join Date: 2012-05-15 Member: 152140Members
    <!--quoteo(post=2053950:date=Jan 1 2013, 02:19 AM:name=DC_Darkling)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DC_Darkling @ Jan 1 2013, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053950"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Windows 7 + new games like NS2 can run multiple threads, so my CPU can run more threads for NS2 at one time. While its not as black and white as im gona say now, I can sort of run twice as much on my cpu as you can.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    As of now, 2600K = 2500K in games. HT doesn't provide the tiniest benefit (which it does in video/audio encoding and many productivity tasks).
    I can't name a single game which benefits from more than 4 cores.


    On topic:

    2500K @ 4.2 Ghz
    Asus 6950 2GB
    8GB DDR3 1600
    SSD Samsung 830 128GB

    I get a steady 50ish FPS on 20-24 players, all maxed @ 1680*1050 except AO set to OFF.
    I rarely dip below 30 FPS when things get messy with many players during late game.

    My bottleneck seems to be my GPU: r_stats 1 shows that the CPU usually waits 5ms for the GPU.
    With AO maxed it was 8ms.

    Overall I'm satisfied with *my* performance, even if it's quite poor for the average PC out there.
  • 0xDECAFBAD0xDECAFBAD Join Date: 2012-11-13 Member: 170467Members
    How do you guys get the graphs from Fraps benchmarks?
  • DC_DarklingDC_Darkling Join Date: 2003-07-10 Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
    simple.. I took the csv log which made a list of fps.

    Then I went to a editor like excel or Libreoffice calc, and opened that csv. Then I used the graph option, and tada.


    Your are right. I checked and most my games run at 4 cores max. However, lets asume for a minute that a game will push those 4 cores to its max. If you got more cores left for your OS to do other stuff, or put in parking, its still gona be slightly faster. (especially with turbo).

    But I will agree that the difference is probably not worth noticing.
  • Rich_Rich_ Join Date: 2012-11-05 Member: 167152Members
    CPU: i7 3770k @ stock 3.5
    GPU: GTX 560 superclock


    @766p (high as my baddy monitor goes) i can max out the game with 75 fps on stock GPU clock, overclocked into the 80's. I dont have noticable dips.


    Previous specs were phenom 1055t 6 core CPU @2.8ghz + the same gtx 560, and i would struggle to stay in the 40's on low and high settings.
Sign In or Register to comment.