A PC to rule Divide Et Impera!!!

[Irishmafia2020]

Get an SSD to load the game from... Your loading times will diminish drastically, and the speed of your game will increase overall!

[KeirnAelin]

Thanks for all your replies. Ill probably go for 16GB Ram, I7 4790K or a skylake I7 6700 depending on the price and performance ratio And ill get a 970 with a samsung ssd so i can skid some of that load time.... And to that person asking if Rome can take advantage of an 8 core processor, id say no... Games are still using 4 cores max, and no more. Now the I7's are mainly 4cores, except the I7's like 5820 that has 6 cores. Intel has yet to create a 8 core consumer grade processor

[TheAnkka]

I have a GTX 970 aswell running with i5-3570k and 8gb of RAM. Even tho my CPU is on the older side and I could have a little more RAM, It still gets the job done on ultra settings keeping the FPS at 60. I also have the game installed on SSD so the load times are fast.

[WolfLuyt]

I agree definitely go for the GTX 970 (i would suggest a gaming edition). I have i5 4670k 3.4 ghz,8gb ram and GTX 970 4GB MSI Gaming Edition.

[zonks40]

I have a GTX 970 aswell running with i5-3570k and 8gb of RAM. Even tho my CPU is on the older side and I could have a little more RAM, It still gets the job done on ultra settings keeping the FPS at 60. I also have the game installed on SSD so the load times are fast.

Not really any need for more than 8GB of RAM, most games don't use anymore than 4GB anyway, Rome 2 being one of them.

[Seggi911]

You might want to consider a R9 390. The 390 and 970 trade blows at 1080p (not sure which is better at Rome 2) but the 390 wins at 1440p and 4k. More over the 390 is definitely more future proof due to more vram 3.5GB on the 970 vs 8GB on the 390 (yes its only 3.5Gb since there is an issue which results in the 970 only using 3.5GB at full speed). And right now there is another issue with Nvidia GPU's not supporting DX12 Asynchronous Compute/Shaders.

The 390 does however produce more heat which will only play a role if u live in a hot area or your system has really poor airflow and it will use more power. Maybe something like 5-50€ per year depending on where u live and how much you game.

Just wanted to tell you that you can get better bang for the buck than the 970 if you dont mind going with AMD (alot of ppl like Nvidia better) and are only looking for performance per euro/dollar. The 970 is still a really good card and will easily run Rome 2!

[KeirnAelin]

[QUOTE=Seggi911;14699467]You might want to consider a R9 390. The 390 and 970 trade blows at 1080p (not sure which is better at Rome 2) but the 390 wins at 1440p and 4k.

As i stated i am learned about pc's. Now as far as the 390 being more future proof and having more VRAM means nothing.... Why? Well let me give you an example. My friends and i were testing out GPU's a week ago. The game of choice ofcourse was GTA V because of its popularity. Now. An r9 280X has 3GB of Vram and we pinned the 280 against an 960 2GB of Vram. The game was set to high settings. When the game was played on the AMD gpu it was eating more than 2,6GB of Vram on 1080p, but when we were running GTA with the 960 it was only eating up 1,5GB of Vram. So what i am saying is that game developers by default go with better optimisation for Nvidia instead of AMD. So in my mind the 970 will beat out the 390 in all things that are to come, if the developers keep on going like this. Now that aside, i need to state that i HAVE an AMD gpu atm. And i swore i would never buy another one because of its power consumption, heat output and most of all... The god damn ing awful drivers that AMD puts out..... I just cant imagine owning another AMD card untill they fix all their problems with the drivers

[Baldos]

Get an SSD to load the game from... Your loading times will diminish drastically, and the speed of your game will increase overall!

GeForce GTX 770 2048MB GDDR5
I5-3570K (water cooled and overclocked to 3.8GHz)
ASUS P8 Z77-V Pro MB
8 GB Ram at 1866
1920 x1080
Windows 7 Pro & Direct x 11
512 GB SSD Samsung 840 Pro + 1 TB drive

Rome 2 DeI runs well mostly on Extreme or Ultra settings. The SSD really helps with the load times.
This PC is about 2 years old. I got it for Shogun 2 and it runs RTW 2 to my satisfaction.
If Fallout 4 runs slow I may get a new GPU.
I do not think I will get a new PC for the next TW game. I will not buy Warcraft and wait till the next historical TW game to upgrade my PC. TW games need fast CPU & GPU.

[SickRabbit]

2x MSI GTX970
Intel i5-4690K 3.50GHz
MSI Z97 Gaming 5 MB
16GB RAM
1920x1080
1000W bequiet
512 SSD + 2x 1TB

I'm playing with 35units per army. Is it normal, to have low fps in battles with those hardware? How do I have to change my settings, to get a good looking and with high fps level gameplay experience? Which settings need CPU and which GPU?

Thanks for your answers

[KAM 2150]

I have "only" one GTX970 but also i7 4790k and 16gb ram, playing also on 1920x1080, but I have ALL setting set to max plus I use GEM that also adds more presure to the game, everything runs smooth even while recording. I guess your GPU might cause the problem with 35 units per army.

[SickRabbit]

hmm ok, any idea how to change the settings to get a little flow to battles? I really really dont like to play with less than 35 and I've still accepted that 40Units are impossible.

[KAM 2150]

Could you post your graphic options screenshot here? Although those 35 units are the main problem here.

[IamOdysseus]

I have an i7 3770 and a GTX 970. The game runs really well on everything maxed (except unlimited VRAM) and I play with medium sizes because when I play 40vs40 battles the game lags always (even at low settings).

[philler]

I have "only" one GTX970 but also i7 4790k and 16gb ram, playing also on 1920x1080, but I have ALL setting set to max plus I use GEM that also adds more presure to the game, everything runs smooth even while recording. I guess your GPU might cause the problem with 35 units per army.

Do you really have all battles without unit stuttering? Even in big battles - like with more than 30000 soldiers? I have always thought, that from some point there is no chance any affordable PC could handle that much computing..if so, could I see some videos with battles like that? I just wonder, if it is really possible to play Rome 2 on such a scale, with immense number of soldiers and still without lags/unit stuttering..

[KAM 2150]

Dunno, never had a battle with 30 000 troops ; P All I know that there is no stuttering when there are 3 full armies on the field, but I do not remember exact troop count. Battle with 30 000 troops would mean that there is at least 100 of 300 men strong units so it woud involve at least 5 full stacks of 300 men units.

[Augustusng]

Just had a battle with 15000 troops (with my submod and a bunch of AI levy spearmen units at 480 men each). My FPS dropped to single digits at certain points. Still playable though.

[UsulDaNeriak]

I got an I5 4670K, which was better than some I7s 2 years ago. And a GTX 780. Plus a SSD drive. Still works good with all games after 2 years. I trend to buy the GTX ...80 instead of the ...70. It is a bit more expensive, but it is more performant and is able to compete with the next generation of ...70s. Just my experience.

[SickRabbit]

Here my Graphic settings (recommend GeForce Experience settings)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[KAM 2150]

If ein means that option is ticked as on (although I only took ein as one), then vegetation alpha takes a HUGE impact on FPS and has almost zero impact on game visuals so you can turn that one off. Also lowering water details can help in those battles as there is water under the ground as it is always rendered. Grass details and max unit details can be turned down by one option as only difference between max and almost max is the distance in which those things will be fully rendered.

I hope this will help a bit

[duskwarrior797]

If ein means that option is ticked as on (although I only took ein as one), then vegetation alpha takes a HUGE impact on FPS and has almost zero impact on game visuals so you can turn that one off. Also lowering water details can help in those battles as there is water under the ground as it is always rendered. Grass details and max unit details can be turned down by one option as only difference between max and almost max is the distance in which those things will be fully rendered.

I hope this will help a bit

This is correct; only low-very high actually change graphical fidelity. The only thing that Ultra and Extreme settings change is render distance, so Very High settings will still make the game look nice without harming your FPS as much as Ultra/Extreme.