<!--quoteo(post=2053651:date=Dec 31 2012, 05:21 AM:name=Akel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Akel @ Dec 31 2012, 05:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053651"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Something about SSD:
Buy a small SSD (128GB will do) and buy regular HDD as big as you like. Make the SSD your system drive, with OS on it and office and everything you use every day. Store big stuff (movies, pictures, music) on the other drive(s).
This way you have: an OS that boots in 8 seconds, instantly starting programs like Word or Chrome, and still all the space you need on the HDD's.
For games: The games you play everyday can still be stored on the SSD. This dramatically reduces loading times for new maps, helping you to be in the ready room early. Performance on FPS or something is not influenced indeed.
How do I do this? Download a steam-app mover. This way you can move your games to another drive, and only store those you play often on your SSD.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This man says the truth, this is what I do, and it is the best of both worlds. Avoid SSD caching nonsense (only supports 64gb for that right now anyway) and do this instead. If you're on the fence on SSD and your only concern is cost, it's very very worth it.
<!--quoteo(post=2053296:date=Dec 30 2012, 09:42 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Dec 30 2012, 09:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053296"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yea it is old and extremely hard to change but it is pretty cool.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, it would be difficult to maintain...But with that much cooling you could get away with an obscene amounts overclocking.
<!--quoteo(post=2053645:date=Dec 31 2012, 02:59 AM:name=AlphaWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AlphaWolf @ Dec 31 2012, 02:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053645"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just recently bought a new case along with some other things, and part of what the case includes is a big grille on the top with holes for mounting 120mm or 140mm fans. I put the radiator on that and had the fans blowing inward rather than outward, and put some painters tape (so no gunk stays on) around the rims of the fans to make sure the air only comes through the radiator itself.
The idea is that the radiator gets cool air from the outside, rather than receive hot air from the inside, which you would get from outward blowing. The radiator is cool to the touch, and the CPU has yet to exceed 64C.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Curious about how your other fans are set-up. The top is ALWAYS an exhaust unless you're trying to do a positive pressure set-up which generally doesn't work as well. I have the same giant hole on the top of my case and I tried switching the fan from outward to inward and the difference was huge. Blowing the air out was about 15 degrees cooler under load.
<!--quoteo(post=2053883:date=Dec 31 2012, 02:19 PM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Dec 31 2012, 02:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2053883"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Curious about how your other fans are set-up. The top is ALWAYS an exhaust unless you're trying to do a positive pressure set-up which generally doesn't work as well. I have the same giant hole on the top of my case and I tried switching the fan from outward to inward and the difference was huge. Blowing the air out was about 15 degrees cooler under load.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My case came with an air pulling 140mm on top.
Also can anyone recommend a good mechanical backlit keyboard with some type of matte finish? I hate the glossy finish on mine now because I'm OCD about fingerprints and stuff. The 2013 Blackwidow is but I don't know if there are better options out there someone is using.
My performance literally doubled going from amd phenom 1055t 6 core to intel i7 3770k 4core (8 thread). I would fork up the cash for an intel CPU undoubtedly.
get a 3770k with water cooling and delid your cpu. oc to the max. turn of hyperthreading to get more performance (boosts mine from ~100 over ~130 gflops)
fast ram and ssd are nice but not needed for max fps. graka is such a thing... i get 20-50fps using the integrated hd4000.
my bottleneck is my ultra slow screen, unplayable with a screen like that :( but its a working machine anyways :)
series 2 and 3 i7s do not lose performance directly when hyperthreading is enabled.
If your performance descreases it's probably because you did not OC correctly or your CPU is not getting enough voltage or it's overheating. There is no point in disabling HT on the 3770k unless hyperthreading is stressing your clock settings.
<!--quoteo(post=2054641:date=Jan 2 2013, 12:20 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Jan 2 2013, 12:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2054641"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->series 2 and 3 i7s do not lose performance directly when hyperthreading is enabled.
If your performance descreases it's probably because you did not OC correctly or your CPU is not getting enough voltage or it's overheating. There is no point in disabling HT on the 3770k unless hyperthreading is stressing your clock settings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
didnt know how CPU heavy this game is until last night, finally got my i7 rig up, 90-70 fps constant. same gtx 470 vid card, same 8 gigs of ram. i7 3770k non o/c sofar. 1920x1080 everything on high
sheesh
so much easier to see now too, skulks moving in slomo
<!--quoteo(post=2052622:date=Dec 28 2012, 08:55 PM:name=CommunistWithAGun)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 28 2012, 08:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052622"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't touch anything AMD. You'll save 100-200 dollars and you'll spend the rest of the time owning it regretting that choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As an AMD owner, I'd like to say you have no clue what you are talking about. I have an AMD FX-8320 and it handles this game no problem. I never get FPS skips or drops that make the game feel slow. Average FPS during early game combat is 40-60 fps, during late game combat with exos / bile / spores / all that jazz it sometimes drops to 25-30 but thats still very playable. Usually it stays around 30-40 during late game 24 player servers. And thats at stock clock speeds with the stock cooler. I'm sure if someone OCd to 4+ghz it would be even faster. Also, since NS2 can only utilize about 4 cores, the FX-6300 is a cheaper alternative being a 6 core. It will also run a bit cooler than my 8 core, so you can probably overclock it further if you wanted (not that you need to).
My System at a glance:
Asus m5a97 r 2.0 MB AMD FX-8320 CPU (no OC) 8gb ddr3 ram @ 2600mhz Radeon HD 6850 1gb video SSD drive for windows / page file, 7200 rpm drive for NS2 game files
So while Intel does perform good, do not overlook the FX-6300 / FX-8320 / FX-8350 . They handle this game just fine, despite all terrible & uninformed advisors here saying "ERMAHGERD DUN BUY AMD DEY WAIST OF MONEYS DEY NO GOODS !!!11one"
<!--quoteo(post=2055599:date=Jan 3 2013, 06:05 PM:name=joederp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (joederp @ Jan 3 2013, 06:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055599"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As an AMD owner, I'd like to say you have no clue what you are talking about. I have an AMD FX-8320 and it handles this game no problem. I never get FPS skips or drops that make the game feel slow. Average FPS during early game combat is 40-60 fps, during late game combat with exos / bile / spores / all that jazz it sometimes drops to 25-30 but thats still very playable. Usually it stays around 30-40 during late game 24 player servers. And thats at stock clock speeds with the stock cooler. I'm sure if someone OCd to 4+ghz it would be even faster. Also, since NS2 can only utilize about 4 cores, the FX-6300 is a cheaper alternative being a 6 core. It will also run a bit cooler than my 8 core, so you can probably overclock it further if you wanted (not that you need to).
My System at a glance:
Asus m5a97 r 2.0 MB AMD FX-8320 CPU (no OC) 8gb ddr3 ram @ 2600mhz Radeon HD 6850 1gb video SSD drive for windows / page file, 7200 rpm drive for NS2 game files
So while Intel does perform good, do not overlook the FX-6300 / FX-8320 / FX-8350 . They handle this game just fine, despite all terrible & uninformed advisors here saying "ERMAHGERD DUN BUY AMD DEY WAIST OF MONEYS DEY NO GOODS !!!11one"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An AMD won't handle any game anywhere near as well as an Intel will. That's a fact with thousands of benchmarks full of proof to back it up. Just because you think your processor is great doesn't mean you need to come in here and mislead people.
<!--quoteo(post=2055611:date=Jan 3 2013, 06:22 PM:name=SixtyWattMan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SixtyWattMan @ Jan 3 2013, 06:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055611"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An AMD won't handle any game anywhere near as well as an Intel will. That's a fact with thousands of benchmarks full of proof to back it up. Just because you think your processor is great doesn't mean you need to come in here and mislead people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Show me where I said AMD is faster than Intel regarding games. All I said is that the newer line of AMD CPUs can handle NS2 just fine, and that is a fact buddy.
In line with your closing comment - this is something every AMD basher in this thread needs to read:
<b>Just because you have an Intel CPU that runs NS2 great doesn't mean you should go around giving terrible advice and claiming no AMD CPU can run NS2. </b>
<!--quoteo(post=2055621:date=Jan 3 2013, 03:41 PM:name=joederp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (joederp @ Jan 3 2013, 03:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Show me where I said AMD is faster than Intel regarding games. All I said is that the newer line of AMD CPUs can handle NS2 just fine, and that is a fact buddy.
In line with your closing comment - this is something every AMD basher in this thread needs to read:
<b>Just because you have an Intel CPU that runs NS2 great doesn't mean you should go around giving terrible advice and claiming no AMD CPU can run NS2. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You said your fps goes down to 25-30... That's not playable... Compared to an i7 2600k which is twice the price of what you have, you get well over double the performance... So yea, AMD not worth it.
<!--quoteo(post=2055681:date=Jan 3 2013, 08:57 PM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Jan 3 2013, 08:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055681"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You said your fps goes down to 25-30... That's not playable... Compared to an i7 2600k which is twice the price of what you have, you get well over double the performance... So yea, AMD not worth it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha ok buddy, show me an i7 that can get 50-60 fps during late game heaviest of combat on a 24 person server.. that is the only time mine drops that low and I'm willing to bet you can not maintain 60fps during those conditions with ANY cpu... so no you do not get double the performance. No benchmark rates that cpu at double the performance of a new FX chip. And for the record 25-30 fps is absolutely playable . Its not ideal by any means but it most certainly is playable. I noticed the threshold of 'unplayable' is in the 10-15 FPS range or lower. 20 is borderline.. I barely ever see 30fps I only mentioned it so as to avoid the "I never drop below 30fps" claim. It does go that low once in a great while but very very rarely. 99% of my play time is in within 50-60 fps during combat.
So yeah, AMD CPU that costs half as much but still does everything you need INCLUDING NS2.. IMO Intel is the chip that 'is not worth it' ..
Some good advice in this thread, but also a lot that is... misguided. I will offer my own $.02:
On CPUs: A modern i5 such as the 3570 is the most you need for a pure gaming machine, the HyperThreading of an i7 will not give you better performance unless you're talking about productivity software. If you want to overclock, you will need one with a K sku, E.G. 3570k. If you are not overclocking, you can save a little money by getting something like a 3470 for no appreciable performance loss. Intel does currently outperform AMD in terms of single-thread performance (like in games), but the gap is not as large as some make it out to be. An AMD Vishera chip can handle modern games just fine, but since you are not on a tight budget, you might as well go Intel.
If anyone has doubts about the veracity of the i5 vs the i7 or the capability of the Visheras, I can dig up some benchmarks if needed.
CPU Cooling: If you are not overclocking, the stock Intel cooler will do the job adequately. As someone else mentioned though, you could still get a 3rd party cooler that will run quieter than the stock fan if noise is a concern. If this is the case, you need not spend more than $15-20, something like the Coolermaster Hyper212 Plus or EVO will do the trick. Even if you do want to have the option to overclock, a relatively inexpensive 3rd Party HSF can still give you plenty of thermal headroom to do so, like the aforementioned 212. The only reason to spend more than about $20 on CPU cooling is if you want to do some extreme OCing, which I would not recommend if you're new to PC Hardware / Building. There's very little reason to buy a closed loop liquid cooler like some here are suggesting, unless you want both overclocking headroom and extreme portability, the latter of which can at times be problematic with large air coolers. Closed loop water coolers are typically much more expensive than their air cooler counterparts, and the amount of noise they generate is dependent on the fans they use, same as any air cooler. Furthermore, the argument that an air cooler moves hot air around inside your case is equally true of any internally mounted CLLC Radiator, they are both going to have an affect on your system's airflow, and neither is likely to be more detrimental than the other unless you orient them in a manner that conflicts with your other case fans. Most air coolers are in the 'tower' style and nominally oriented to cooperate with the exhaust fan/vent directly behind the CPU at the back of the case, so that they operate similar to a push/pull setup. A radiator mounted as an intake at the top of the case can also work just fine as long as you have sufficient exhaust elsewhere in the case that isn't creating turbulence from fighting against your intake positioning. Someone also mentioned that a positive pressure system is less effective, and this is untrue as well.
Here is a helpful article that compares several closed loop liquid coolers: <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/h100i-elc240-seidon-240m-lq320,3380.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/h100i-...lq320,3380.html</a>
Spoiler: An air cooler won the roundup. You will note that while the Corsair H100i has slightly better temps than the Noctua NH-D14, it is also louder and more expensive, which is why they gave the nod to the air cooler. As they correctly point out though, and as I alluded to earlier, if you want to lug your machine back and forth to LAN parties on a regular basis, the heavy air coolers can be a liability, and a closed loop cooler would be better for that usage if you don't mind the extra expense.
Ultimately, if you want the absolute best cooling, then a full custom watercooling kit is the way to go, and will beat the pants off both closed loop and air coolers, with commensurate cost and skill requirements. Otherwise, both air and CLLC are viable options, but air is far more economical in most cases as Closed Loop typically doesn't give ENOUGH of an improvement over air to justify the cost.
Storage: An SSD will not directly affect your FPS in games, as others have pointed out, but it will improve load times and the general responsiveness of your PC outside of games. An SSD will perform far better than a mechanical drive, even a group of them in a RAID array, but performance in between the various models of SSDs tends to be largely academic and marginal in real world performance. It's generally recommended to get a smallish to moderately sized SSD for your OS and the games that you play the most, and then a much higher capacity but slower HDD for secondary storage of games you play less often, videos, music, and so forth. This way you get the best of both worlds, and it's not prohibitively expensive. A 128GB SSD will run you $70-90 typically, and will give you plenty of room for Windows and a good number of games on top, and after that you are basically paying for the convenience of not having to micro manage or play favorites between which application goes on which drive.
A RAID0 array would give you much higher capacity than an SSD+HDD, but at that point we are talking about 2+ TB vs ~1TB, and I think it is safe to say that most users do not have more than 1TB worth of games that they actively play and need installed at all times. :P In that range of capacity, you are most likely looking at lots of media rather than applications, which you don't really need high performance storage to hold. An external USB drive is more than capable of handling that type of data. Furthermore, a RAID0 setup introduces a significant stability factor in that any drive in the array failing causes the entire array to fail.
In short, a RAID0 is not a great idea for your primary storage solution, and is really kind of a relic from the pre-SSD era. An SSD will give you significantly better performance than a RAID array, and far better stability as well. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that you will hit the write limit or notice a significant speed loss on your SSD during the lifespan of the computer, though it has been shown that you will lose some performance if you max out the capacity completely. It's ideal if you leave 20-30% of your SSD unused at all times for the best performance consistency.
Keyboards: All peripherals are going to be highly, highly subjective to the user in question. A lot of people like mechanical keyboards, but you will have to try one for yourself to know if it's worth the higher cost. If the keyboard is expensive and NOT mechanical, it better have some really critical and unique must-have feature(s) to justify itself, but only you can decide what is worth it to you when it comes to human interface.
I hope this is helpful to you, or anyone who is thinking about upgrading.
Very well said Havoc. You said what I was trying to convey in regards to CPUs, but much more eloquently =)
This discussion got me thinking - why haven't I tried to OC my chip yet? I just bumped it from 3.5 to 4.1 ghz now, going to see what kind of FPS I get. I'll post it to the 'official' FPS with X cpu thread if anyone is interested.
<!--quoteo(post=2055684:date=Jan 3 2013, 06:05 PM:name=joederp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (joederp @ Jan 3 2013, 06:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Haha ok buddy, show me an i7 that can get 50-60 fps during late game heaviest of combat on a 24 person server.. that is the only time mine drops that low and I'm willing to bet you can not maintain 60fps during those conditions with ANY cpu... so no you do not get double the performance. No benchmark rates that cpu at double the performance of a new FX chip. And for the record 25-30 fps is absolutely playable . Its not ideal by any means but it most certainly is playable. I noticed the threshold of 'unplayable' is in the 10-15 FPS range or lower. 20 is borderline.. I barely ever see 30fps I only mentioned it so as to avoid the "I never drop below 30fps" claim. It does go that low once in a great while but very very rarely. 99% of my play time is in within 50-60 fps during combat.
So yeah, AMD CPU that costs half as much but still does everything you need INCLUDING NS2.. IMO Intel is the chip that 'is not worth it' ..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ... Lol...
That's my fps, on average it's about 130 or so. There's actually a whole topic dedicated to what fps people are getting. I'd suggest you check it. But seriously though you have no idea what you're talking about.
<!--quoteo(post=2055684:date=Jan 3 2013, 09:05 PM:name=joederp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (joederp @ Jan 3 2013, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Haha ok buddy, show me an i7 that can get 50-60 fps during late game heaviest of combat on a 24 person server.. that is the only time mine drops that low and I'm willing to bet you can not maintain 60fps during those conditions with ANY cpu... so no you do not get double the performance. No benchmark rates that cpu at double the performance of a new FX chip. And for the record 25-30 fps is absolutely playable . Its not ideal by any means but it most certainly is playable. I noticed the threshold of 'unplayable' is in the 10-15 FPS range or lower. 20 is borderline.. I barely ever see 30fps I only mentioned it so as to avoid the "I never drop below 30fps" claim. It does go that low once in a great while but very very rarely. 99% of my play time is in within 50-60 fps during combat.
So yeah, AMD CPU that costs half as much but still does everything you need INCLUDING NS2.. IMO Intel is the chip that 'is not worth it' ..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How embarrassing. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/PGcFp.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/6Xxpy.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
You guys just proved my point , actually. If you look at the graphs you posted you see similar dips near or below 30fps for SixtyWattman, which is exactly what I was seeing with my chip. It just happens in Ns2 since it is not very optimized yet. And Davil I don't know what you specs are but that is one of the highest graphs I have ever seen, and you didn't post what kind of server you were in. If it was a 24 person with all settings on max, then that is impressive - but Im willing to bet your system did not cost anywhere close to my system, probably roughly double the cost.
Whats embarrassing is that you are arguing a point I never made. Everyone knows Intel chips are performing better, the point I was making is the AMD Vishera chips are performing just fine for NS2. I just bumped my CPU to 4.1ghz, and my average FPS was around 70-80. Late game FPS in a 16 player server just now was around 60 consistent. I'll join a 24 man tomorrow and grab a log for that performance thread. So what exactly are you clowns trying to prove me wrong about again? You guys act like AMD chips are a waste of money and its just horribly wrong advice.
<!--quoteo(post=2055760:date=Jan 3 2013, 09:06 PM:name=joederp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (joederp @ Jan 3 2013, 09:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055760"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You guys just proved my point , actually. If you look at the graphs you posted you see similar dips near or below 30fps for SixtyWattman, which is exactly what I was seeing with my chip. It just happens in Ns2 since it is not very optimized yet. And Davil I don't know what you specs are but that is one of the highest graphs I have ever seen, and you didn't post what kind of server you were in. If it was a 24 person with all settings on max, then that is impressive - but Im willing to bet your system did not cost anywhere close to my system, probably roughly double the cost.
Whats embarrassing is that you are arguing a point I never made. Everyone knows Intel chips are performing better, the point I was making is the AMD Vishera chips are performing just fine for NS2. I just bumped my CPU to 4.1ghz, and my average FPS was around 70-80. Late game FPS in a 16 player server just now was around 60 consistent. I'll join a 24 man tomorrow and grab a log for that performance thread. So what exactly are you clowns trying to prove me wrong about again? You guys act like AMD chips are a waste of money and its just horribly wrong advice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/facepalm
You just said we can't possible be getting 60fps in a 24 person server. Well guess what on max settings in 1920x1080 I'm getting significantly higher than that. I average 130 and honestly I just set my maxfps to 100 cause any higher heats my cards up too much. But here's your point, that AMD isn't a waste of money... But it is. Here's why, the flagship top model for AMD is less powerful and costs the same as the middle of the line model from intel, the i5 3570k. And you don't have to overclock it to get good performance like the AMD 8350. This is why it's a waste of money. For $20 more you get a significantly better processor, end of story.
As for my system specs here you go:
i7 2600k OC'ed to 4.6ghz (water cooled) 16gb DDR3 2000Mhz Ram 2 x GTX 680 Signature Edition OC'ed 250gb Vertex Agility 4 SSD 2 x 2tb WD Caviar Black HDD in Raid0 27" LED Monitor with 2ms response time
<!--quoteo(post=2055806:date=Jan 4 2013, 08:05 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Jan 4 2013, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055806"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->/facepalm the flagship top model for AMD is less powerful and costs the same as the middle of the line model from intel, the i5 3570k. And you don't have to overclock it to get good performance like the AMD 8350. This is why it's a waste of money. For $20 more you get a significantly better processor, end of story.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that depends on the context. In heavily multithreaded apps, the AMD 8350 can (but not always) perform better than 3570K, albeit not much. It's a noteworthy detail for professionals using these CPUs for very narrow activities. In a strict gaming context, no one should ever ever get a 8350 over a 3570K (or a 3770K+ over a 3570K, likewise).
Also, Intel CPUs are quite less power hungry compared to AMD ones and, combined with their greater average speed, Intel clearly wins in Efficiency Run benchmarks.
On the other hand, AMD has the advantage of keeping its CPU sockets for longer times than Intel, thus allowing easier upgrades on the same mobo. Intel is now planning to develop SoC products, which frankly scares me :(
<!--quoteo(post=2055824:date=Jan 3 2013, 11:52 PM:name=buhehe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (buhehe @ Jan 3 2013, 11:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, that depends on the context. In heavily multithreaded apps, the AMD 8350 can (but not always) perform better than 3570K, albeit not much. It's a noteworthy detail for professionals using these CPUs for very narrow activities. In a strict gaming context, no one should ever ever get a 8350 over a 3570K (or a 3770K+ over a 3570K, likewise).
Also, Intel CPUs are quite less power hungry compared to AMD ones and, combined with their greater average speed, Intel clearly wins in Efficiency Run benchmarks.
On the other hand, AMD has the advantage of keeping its CPU sockets for longer times than Intel, thus allowing easier upgrades on the same mobo. Intel is now planning to develop SoC products, which frankly scares me :(<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strictly talking about games, I'd expect an 8 core processor to do very well on tasks like media encoding and junk which it doesn't even really do that compared to the other Intel models. Intel has been pretty stupid about changing their socket type with each generation lately but how often would you really buy a CPU without a new motherboard anyway? Every time I buy a new motherboard there is a new technology out like Sata III most recently, so it's not really a big deal to change both.
That's my fps, on average it's about 130 or so. There's actually a whole topic dedicated to what fps people are getting. I'd suggest you check it. But seriously though you have no idea what you're talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What was the total record time here?
I record my Fraps for at least 20 mins cause that usually involves late heavy fire fights.
Reason I ask is because it looks like you create your graphs the same as I do yet my time line goes all the way up to 1198 (1200 seconds) where yours only goes up to 90. If I were to cut mine down to only the first 90 lines, I would have a much higher FPS graph but in reality that is not true.
So if yours is only truely 90 seconds, please post up a longer fraps so we can see a real benchmark.
<!--quoteo(post=2055968:date=Jan 4 2013, 07:16 AM:name=MiniH0wie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MiniH0wie @ Jan 4 2013, 07:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2055968"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What was the total record time here?
I record my Fraps for at least 20 mins cause that usually involves late heavy fire fights.
Reason I ask is because it looks like you create your graphs the same as I do yet my time line goes all the way up to 1198 (1200 seconds) where yours only goes up to 90. If I were to cut mine down to only the first 90 lines, I would have a much higher FPS graph but in reality that is not true.
So if yours is only truely 90 seconds, please post up a longer fraps so we can see a real benchmark.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here you go, this one was a full 24 player server I joined near the end. Cysts everywhere, clumps of 5 crags and whips on every corner, gorges bile bombing, grenades and flame throwers too. I played marines for the first half and switched to aliens for the second half to get a good idea of both sides. The only time my FPS really went down was at the end of the game when the aliens win text appeared which is likely due to a lot of things happening as that happens. Even so my FPS stuck around 90 while I was on marines and 80 while I was on aliens. Also bear in mind that I had a score of 50/10 so I was seeing a lot of action during this 15 minutes or so. The map was docking and all settings were maxed 1920x1080 resolution.
Here you go, this one was a full 24 player server I joined near the end. Cysts everywhere, clumps of 5 crags and whips on every corner, gorges bile bombing, grenades and flame throwers too. I played marines for the first half and switched to aliens for the second half to get a good idea of both sides. The only time my FPS really went down was at the end of the game when the aliens win text appeared which is likely due to a lot of things happening as that happens. Even so my FPS stuck around 90 while I was on marines and 80 while I was on aliens. Also bear in mind that I had a score of 50/10 so I was seeing a lot of action during this 15 minutes or so. The map was docking and all settings were maxed 1920x1080 resolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you So now we can see the real picture. Before it looked like you never went under ~60fps but your real graph shows that you suffer late game low fps like everyone else where you were dropping down to 40fps.
As for the drop in fps at the end, I don't see that as being caused by the "Aliens Win" text. Your drop started around 801 and stayed low until about 980 which is roughly 3:00 minutes worth. I'm guessing there was some serious fighting going on right at the very end.
Btw, that is a nice performance you've got going there. Just wish we weren't getting those late end game fps drops.
Here you go, this one was a full 24 player server I joined near the end. Cysts everywhere, clumps of 5 crags and whips on every corner, gorges bile bombing, grenades and flame throwers too. I played marines for the first half and switched to aliens for the second half to get a good idea of both sides. The only time my FPS really went down was at the end of the game when the aliens win text appeared which is likely due to a lot of things happening as that happens. Even so my FPS stuck around 90 while I was on marines and 80 while I was on aliens. Also bear in mind that I had a score of 50/10 so I was seeing a lot of action during this 15 minutes or so. The map was docking and all settings were maxed 1920x1080 resolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess you're CPU limited when u hit those 40fps, right? Does the game scale decently with your SLI?
Comments
Buy a small SSD (128GB will do) and buy regular HDD as big as you like.
Make the SSD your system drive, with OS on it and office and everything you use every day. Store big stuff (movies, pictures, music) on the other drive(s).
This way you have: an OS that boots in 8 seconds, instantly starting programs like Word or Chrome, and still all the space you need on the HDD's.
For games:
The games you play everyday can still be stored on the SSD. This dramatically reduces loading times for new maps, helping you to be in the ready room early. Performance on FPS or something is not influenced indeed.
How do I do this?
Download a steam-app mover. This way you can move your games to another drive, and only store those you play often on your SSD.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This man says the truth, this is what I do, and it is the best of both worlds. Avoid SSD caching nonsense (only supports 64gb for that right now anyway) and do this instead. If you're on the fence on SSD and your only concern is cost, it's very very worth it.
Yeah, it would be difficult to maintain...But with that much cooling you could get away with an obscene amounts overclocking.
The idea is that the radiator gets cool air from the outside, rather than receive hot air from the inside, which you would get from outward blowing. The radiator is cool to the touch, and the CPU has yet to exceed 64C.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Curious about how your other fans are set-up. The top is ALWAYS an exhaust unless you're trying to do a positive pressure set-up which generally doesn't work as well. I have the same giant hole on the top of my case and I tried switching the fan from outward to inward and the difference was huge. Blowing the air out was about 15 degrees cooler under load.
My case came with an air pulling 140mm on top.
Also can anyone recommend a good mechanical backlit keyboard with some type of matte finish? I hate the glossy finish on mine now because I'm OCD about fingerprints and stuff. The 2013 Blackwidow is but I don't know if there are better options out there someone is using.
fast ram and ssd are nice but not needed for max fps.
graka is such a thing... i get 20-50fps using the integrated hd4000.
my bottleneck is my ultra slow screen, unplayable with a screen like that :(
but its a working machine anyways :)
If your performance descreases it's probably because you did not OC correctly or your CPU is not getting enough voltage or it's overheating. There is no point in disabling HT on the 3770k unless hyperthreading is stressing your clock settings.
If your performance descreases it's probably because you did not OC correctly or your CPU is not getting enough voltage or it's overheating. There is no point in disabling HT on the 3770k unless hyperthreading is stressing your clock settings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So does HT benefit performance at all in NS2?
This is NS2's CPU use with an i7 3770k : <a href="http://puu.sh/1HfWt" target="_blank">http://puu.sh/1HfWt</a>
1920x1080 everything on high
sheesh
so much easier to see now too, skulks moving in slomo
As an AMD owner, I'd like to say you have no clue what you are talking about. I have an AMD FX-8320 and it handles this game no problem. I never get FPS skips or drops that make the game feel slow. Average FPS during early game combat is 40-60 fps, during late game combat with exos / bile / spores / all that jazz it sometimes drops to 25-30 but thats still very playable. Usually it stays around 30-40 during late game 24 player servers. And thats at stock clock speeds with the stock cooler. I'm sure if someone OCd to 4+ghz it would be even faster.
Also, since NS2 can only utilize about 4 cores, the FX-6300 is a cheaper alternative being a 6 core. It will also run a bit cooler than my 8 core, so you can probably overclock it further if you wanted (not that you need to).
My System at a glance:
Asus m5a97 r 2.0 MB
AMD FX-8320 CPU (no OC)
8gb ddr3 ram @ 2600mhz
Radeon HD 6850 1gb video
SSD drive for windows / page file, 7200 rpm drive for NS2 game files
So while Intel does perform good, do not overlook the FX-6300 / FX-8320 / FX-8350 . They handle this game just fine, despite all terrible & uninformed advisors here saying "ERMAHGERD DUN BUY AMD DEY WAIST OF MONEYS DEY NO GOODS !!!11one"
Also, since NS2 can only utilize about 4 cores, the FX-6300 is a cheaper alternative being a 6 core. It will also run a bit cooler than my 8 core, so you can probably overclock it further if you wanted (not that you need to).
My System at a glance:
Asus m5a97 r 2.0 MB
AMD FX-8320 CPU (no OC)
8gb ddr3 ram @ 2600mhz
Radeon HD 6850 1gb video
SSD drive for windows / page file, 7200 rpm drive for NS2 game files
So while Intel does perform good, do not overlook the FX-6300 / FX-8320 / FX-8350 . They handle this game just fine, despite all terrible & uninformed advisors here saying "ERMAHGERD DUN BUY AMD DEY WAIST OF MONEYS DEY NO GOODS !!!11one"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An AMD won't handle any game anywhere near as well as an Intel will. That's a fact with thousands of benchmarks full of proof to back it up. Just because you think your processor is great doesn't mean you need to come in here and mislead people.
Show me where I said AMD is faster than Intel regarding games. All I said is that the newer line of AMD CPUs can handle NS2 just fine, and that is a fact buddy.
In line with your closing comment - this is something every AMD basher in this thread needs to read:
<b>Just because you have an Intel CPU that runs NS2 great doesn't mean you should go around giving terrible advice and claiming no AMD CPU can run NS2. </b>
In line with your closing comment - this is something every AMD basher in this thread needs to read:
<b>Just because you have an Intel CPU that runs NS2 great doesn't mean you should go around giving terrible advice and claiming no AMD CPU can run NS2. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You said your fps goes down to 25-30... That's not playable... Compared to an i7 2600k which is twice the price of what you have, you get well over double the performance... So yea, AMD not worth it.
Haha ok buddy, show me an i7 that can get 50-60 fps during late game heaviest of combat on a 24 person server.. that is the only time mine drops that low and I'm willing to bet you can not maintain 60fps during those conditions with ANY cpu... so no you do not get double the performance. No benchmark rates that cpu at double the performance of a new FX chip.
And for the record 25-30 fps is absolutely playable . Its not ideal by any means but it most certainly is playable. I noticed the threshold of 'unplayable' is in the 10-15 FPS range or lower. 20 is borderline.. I barely ever see 30fps I only mentioned it so as to avoid the "I never drop below 30fps" claim. It does go that low once in a great while but very very rarely. 99% of my play time is in within 50-60 fps during combat.
So yeah, AMD CPU that costs half as much but still does everything you need INCLUDING NS2.. IMO Intel is the chip that 'is not worth it' ..
On CPUs:
A modern i5 such as the 3570 is the most you need for a pure gaming machine, the HyperThreading of an i7 will not give you better performance unless you're talking about productivity software. If you want to overclock, you will need one with a K sku, E.G. 3570k. If you are not overclocking, you can save a little money by getting something like a 3470 for no appreciable performance loss. Intel does currently outperform AMD in terms of single-thread performance (like in games), but the gap is not as large as some make it out to be. An AMD Vishera chip can handle modern games just fine, but since you are not on a tight budget, you might as well go Intel.
If anyone has doubts about the veracity of the i5 vs the i7 or the capability of the Visheras, I can dig up some benchmarks if needed.
CPU Cooling:
If you are not overclocking, the stock Intel cooler will do the job adequately. As someone else mentioned though, you could still get a 3rd party cooler that will run quieter than the stock fan if noise is a concern. If this is the case, you need not spend more than $15-20, something like the Coolermaster Hyper212 Plus or EVO will do the trick. Even if you do want to have the option to overclock, a relatively inexpensive 3rd Party HSF can still give you plenty of thermal headroom to do so, like the aforementioned 212. The only reason to spend more than about $20 on CPU cooling is if you want to do some extreme OCing, which I would not recommend if you're new to PC Hardware / Building. There's very little reason to buy a closed loop liquid cooler like some here are suggesting, unless you want both overclocking headroom and extreme portability, the latter of which can at times be problematic with large air coolers. Closed loop water coolers are typically much more expensive than their air cooler counterparts, and the amount of noise they generate is dependent on the fans they use, same as any air cooler. Furthermore, the argument that an air cooler moves hot air around inside your case is equally true of any internally mounted CLLC Radiator, they are both going to have an affect on your system's airflow, and neither is likely to be more detrimental than the other unless you orient them in a manner that conflicts with your other case fans. Most air coolers are in the 'tower' style and nominally oriented to cooperate with the exhaust fan/vent directly behind the CPU at the back of the case, so that they operate similar to a push/pull setup. A radiator mounted as an intake at the top of the case can also work just fine as long as you have sufficient exhaust elsewhere in the case that isn't creating turbulence from fighting against your intake positioning. Someone also mentioned that a positive pressure system is less effective, and this is untrue as well.
Here is a helpful article that compares several closed loop liquid coolers:
<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/h100i-elc240-seidon-240m-lq320,3380.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/h100i-...lq320,3380.html</a>
Spoiler: An air cooler won the roundup. You will note that while the Corsair H100i has slightly better temps than the Noctua NH-D14, it is also louder and more expensive, which is why they gave the nod to the air cooler. As they correctly point out though, and as I alluded to earlier, if you want to lug your machine back and forth to LAN parties on a regular basis, the heavy air coolers can be a liability, and a closed loop cooler would be better for that usage if you don't mind the extra expense.
Ultimately, if you want the absolute best cooling, then a full custom watercooling kit is the way to go, and will beat the pants off both closed loop and air coolers, with commensurate cost and skill requirements. Otherwise, both air and CLLC are viable options, but air is far more economical in most cases as Closed Loop typically doesn't give ENOUGH of an improvement over air to justify the cost.
Storage:
An SSD will not directly affect your FPS in games, as others have pointed out, but it will improve load times and the general responsiveness of your PC outside of games. An SSD will perform far better than a mechanical drive, even a group of them in a RAID array, but performance in between the various models of SSDs tends to be largely academic and marginal in real world performance. It's generally recommended to get a smallish to moderately sized SSD for your OS and the games that you play the most, and then a much higher capacity but slower HDD for secondary storage of games you play less often, videos, music, and so forth. This way you get the best of both worlds, and it's not prohibitively expensive. A 128GB SSD will run you $70-90 typically, and will give you plenty of room for Windows and a good number of games on top, and after that you are basically paying for the convenience of not having to micro manage or play favorites between which application goes on which drive.
A RAID0 array would give you much higher capacity than an SSD+HDD, but at that point we are talking about 2+ TB vs ~1TB, and I think it is safe to say that most users do not have more than 1TB worth of games that they actively play and need installed at all times. :P In that range of capacity, you are most likely looking at lots of media rather than applications, which you don't really need high performance storage to hold. An external USB drive is more than capable of handling that type of data. Furthermore, a RAID0 setup introduces a significant stability factor in that any drive in the array failing causes the entire array to fail.
In short, a RAID0 is not a great idea for your primary storage solution, and is really kind of a relic from the pre-SSD era. An SSD will give you significantly better performance than a RAID array, and far better stability as well. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that you will hit the write limit or notice a significant speed loss on your SSD during the lifespan of the computer, though it has been shown that you will lose some performance if you max out the capacity completely. It's ideal if you leave 20-30% of your SSD unused at all times for the best performance consistency.
Keyboards:
All peripherals are going to be highly, highly subjective to the user in question. A lot of people like mechanical keyboards, but you will have to try one for yourself to know if it's worth the higher cost. If the keyboard is expensive and NOT mechanical, it better have some really critical and unique must-have feature(s) to justify itself, but only you can decide what is worth it to you when it comes to human interface.
I hope this is helpful to you, or anyone who is thinking about upgrading.
This discussion got me thinking - why haven't I tried to OC my chip yet? I just bumped it from 3.5 to 4.1 ghz now, going to see what kind of FPS I get. I'll post it to the 'official' FPS with X cpu thread if anyone is interested.
And for the record 25-30 fps is absolutely playable . Its not ideal by any means but it most certainly is playable. I noticed the threshold of 'unplayable' is in the 10-15 FPS range or lower. 20 is borderline.. I barely ever see 30fps I only mentioned it so as to avoid the "I never drop below 30fps" claim. It does go that low once in a great while but very very rarely. 99% of my play time is in within 50-60 fps during combat.
So yeah, AMD CPU that costs half as much but still does everything you need INCLUDING NS2.. IMO Intel is the chip that 'is not worth it' ..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... Lol...
<img src="http://an.davidsirritation.com/fps.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
That's my fps, on average it's about 130 or so. There's actually a whole topic dedicated to what fps people are getting. I'd suggest you check it. But seriously though you have no idea what you're talking about.
And for the record 25-30 fps is absolutely playable . Its not ideal by any means but it most certainly is playable. I noticed the threshold of 'unplayable' is in the 10-15 FPS range or lower. 20 is borderline.. I barely ever see 30fps I only mentioned it so as to avoid the "I never drop below 30fps" claim. It does go that low once in a great while but very very rarely. 99% of my play time is in within 50-60 fps during combat.
So yeah, AMD CPU that costs half as much but still does everything you need INCLUDING NS2.. IMO Intel is the chip that 'is not worth it' ..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How embarrassing.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/PGcFp.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/6Xxpy.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Whats embarrassing is that you are arguing a point I never made. Everyone knows Intel chips are performing better, the point I was making is the AMD Vishera chips are performing just fine for NS2. I just bumped my CPU to 4.1ghz, and my average FPS was around 70-80. Late game FPS in a 16 player server just now was around 60 consistent. I'll join a 24 man tomorrow and grab a log for that performance thread.
So what exactly are you clowns trying to prove me wrong about again? You guys act like AMD chips are a waste of money and its just horribly wrong advice.
Whats embarrassing is that you are arguing a point I never made. Everyone knows Intel chips are performing better, the point I was making is the AMD Vishera chips are performing just fine for NS2. I just bumped my CPU to 4.1ghz, and my average FPS was around 70-80. Late game FPS in a 16 player server just now was around 60 consistent. I'll join a 24 man tomorrow and grab a log for that performance thread.
So what exactly are you clowns trying to prove me wrong about again? You guys act like AMD chips are a waste of money and its just horribly wrong advice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/facepalm
You just said we can't possible be getting 60fps in a 24 person server. Well guess what on max settings in 1920x1080 I'm getting significantly higher than that. I average 130 and honestly I just set my maxfps to 100 cause any higher heats my cards up too much. But here's your point, that AMD isn't a waste of money... But it is. Here's why, the flagship top model for AMD is less powerful and costs the same as the middle of the line model from intel, the i5 3570k. And you don't have to overclock it to get good performance like the AMD 8350. This is why it's a waste of money. For $20 more you get a significantly better processor, end of story.
As for my system specs here you go:
i7 2600k OC'ed to 4.6ghz (water cooled)
16gb DDR3 2000Mhz Ram
2 x GTX 680 Signature Edition OC'ed
250gb Vertex Agility 4 SSD
2 x 2tb WD Caviar Black HDD in Raid0
27" LED Monitor with 2ms response time
the flagship top model for AMD is less powerful and costs the same as the middle of the line model from intel, the i5 3570k. And you don't have to overclock it to get good performance like the AMD 8350. This is why it's a waste of money. For $20 more you get a significantly better processor, end of story.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that depends on the context.
In heavily multithreaded apps, the AMD 8350 can (but not always) perform better than 3570K, albeit not much.
It's a noteworthy detail for professionals using these CPUs for very narrow activities.
In a strict gaming context, no one should ever ever get a 8350 over a 3570K (or a 3770K+ over a 3570K, likewise).
Also, Intel CPUs are quite less power hungry compared to AMD ones and, combined with their greater average speed, Intel clearly wins in Efficiency Run benchmarks.
On the other hand, AMD has the advantage of keeping its CPU sockets for longer times than Intel, thus allowing easier upgrades on the same mobo.
Intel is now planning to develop SoC products, which frankly scares me :(
In heavily multithreaded apps, the AMD 8350 can (but not always) perform better than 3570K, albeit not much.
It's a noteworthy detail for professionals using these CPUs for very narrow activities.
In a strict gaming context, no one should ever ever get a 8350 over a 3570K (or a 3770K+ over a 3570K, likewise).
Also, Intel CPUs are quite less power hungry compared to AMD ones and, combined with their greater average speed, Intel clearly wins in Efficiency Run benchmarks.
On the other hand, AMD has the advantage of keeping its CPU sockets for longer times than Intel, thus allowing easier upgrades on the same mobo.
Intel is now planning to develop SoC products, which frankly scares me :(<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strictly talking about games, I'd expect an 8 core processor to do very well on tasks like media encoding and junk which it doesn't even really do that compared to the other Intel models. Intel has been pretty stupid about changing their socket type with each generation lately but how often would you really buy a CPU without a new motherboard anyway? Every time I buy a new motherboard there is a new technology out like Sata III most recently, so it's not really a big deal to change both.
<img src="http://an.davidsirritation.com/fps.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
That's my fps, on average it's about 130 or so. There's actually a whole topic dedicated to what fps people are getting. I'd suggest you check it. But seriously though you have no idea what you're talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What was the total record time here?
I record my Fraps for at least 20 mins cause that usually involves late heavy fire fights.
Reason I ask is because it looks like you create your graphs the same as I do yet my time line goes all the way up to 1198 (1200 seconds) where yours only goes up to 90.
If I were to cut mine down to only the first 90 lines, I would have a much higher FPS graph but in reality that is not true.
So if yours is only truely 90 seconds, please post up a longer fraps so we can see a real benchmark.
I record my Fraps for at least 20 mins cause that usually involves late heavy fire fights.
Reason I ask is because it looks like you create your graphs the same as I do yet my time line goes all the way up to 1198 (1200 seconds) where yours only goes up to 90.
If I were to cut mine down to only the first 90 lines, I would have a much higher FPS graph but in reality that is not true.
So if yours is only truely 90 seconds, please post up a longer fraps so we can see a real benchmark.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="http://an.davidsirritation.com/fps2.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Here you go, this one was a full 24 player server I joined near the end. Cysts everywhere, clumps of 5 crags and whips on every corner, gorges bile bombing, grenades and flame throwers too. I played marines for the first half and switched to aliens for the second half to get a good idea of both sides. The only time my FPS really went down was at the end of the game when the aliens win text appeared which is likely due to a lot of things happening as that happens. Even so my FPS stuck around 90 while I was on marines and 80 while I was on aliens. Also bear in mind that I had a score of 50/10 so I was seeing a lot of action during this 15 minutes or so. The map was docking and all settings were maxed 1920x1080 resolution.
Here you go, this one was a full 24 player server I joined near the end. Cysts everywhere, clumps of 5 crags and whips on every corner, gorges bile bombing, grenades and flame throwers too. I played marines for the first half and switched to aliens for the second half to get a good idea of both sides. The only time my FPS really went down was at the end of the game when the aliens win text appeared which is likely due to a lot of things happening as that happens. Even so my FPS stuck around 90 while I was on marines and 80 while I was on aliens. Also bear in mind that I had a score of 50/10 so I was seeing a lot of action during this 15 minutes or so. The map was docking and all settings were maxed 1920x1080 resolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you
So now we can see the real picture. Before it looked like you never went under ~60fps but your real graph shows that you suffer late game low fps like everyone else where you were dropping down to 40fps.
As for the drop in fps at the end, I don't see that as being caused by the "Aliens Win" text. Your drop started around 801 and stayed low until about 980 which is roughly 3:00 minutes worth. I'm guessing there was some serious fighting going on right at the very end.
Btw, that is a nice performance you've got going there. Just wish we weren't getting those late end game fps drops.
Here you go, this one was a full 24 player server I joined near the end. Cysts everywhere, clumps of 5 crags and whips on every corner, gorges bile bombing, grenades and flame throwers too. I played marines for the first half and switched to aliens for the second half to get a good idea of both sides. The only time my FPS really went down was at the end of the game when the aliens win text appeared which is likely due to a lot of things happening as that happens. Even so my FPS stuck around 90 while I was on marines and 80 while I was on aliens. Also bear in mind that I had a score of 50/10 so I was seeing a lot of action during this 15 minutes or so. The map was docking and all settings were maxed 1920x1080 resolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess you're CPU limited when u hit those 40fps, right?
Does the game scale decently with your SLI?