Bad performance Rome Total War

**iCrusader** · November 13, 2012, 08:53 PM

Hello, I have a problem that is angering me enough.

Let's see, my PC hardware is:

* Phenom II 965 3.4Ghz
* HD 5770
* 4 GB RAM
* 1 TB HDD

All temps are good, the drivers updated, Windows formatted recent... etc.

And when I play Rome Total War, (without mods) in a battle with1500 soldiers, I will be a maximum of 20 FPS with all option to max(without antialiasing) and 1366x768.

I do not understand why. The game is from 2004, so with my processor and GPU would be more than enough.

Okay, the game only uses one core, but is that gentlemen, a Phenom II 965 to a core, is a thousand times more powerful than a single-core processor at the time (2004)

So what happens in 2004 when the released game, no one was able to move the game over 20 fps? (60 is the minimum to seeing game good, without lag)

Can anyone tell me what happens? Surely if I play with a computer old (2004) until better, am I right?

I use Windows 7 x64. I should use Windows XP for better performance? or not?

Regards.

**irishron** · November 13, 2012, 09:14 PM

The game only uses one core of your cpu for everything including shaders, grass, textures (Have you checked the polycount in some of the textures? Higher than you amy think.), animations, shadows, lighting, trees blowing in the wind or just a good, thick forest, city/castle wall textures, water, even the proverbial kitchen sink.

The only things to make it faster are a faster cpu, and low graphics settings with no eyecandy.

Whether Win 7 or XP, it's all about the cpu.

Edit: Rome2, when released will have the same bottleneck.

**iCrusader** · November 13, 2012, 09:16 PM

So you're saying that in 2004 this game is not played decent FPS? (60) has always played at 20-30 fps?

**irishron** · November 13, 2012, 09:35 PM

You can get better fps but it costs money.
How much are you into graphics or can you play with minimum and 1024 x 768 monitor resolution? You may get a steady 30 with your rig but no promises.
If you want to approach 60, invest in a i7 3770k Ivybrridge, an aftermarket cooler, and overclock it to ~5GHz, and still plan on minimum monitor resolution and minimum graphics.

The same goes from right here with Rome right on through the release of Rome2.

**iCrusader** · November 14, 2012, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by irishron

You can get better fps but it costs money.
How much are you into graphics or can you play with minimum and 1024 x 768 monitor resolution? You may get a steady 30 with your rig but no promises.
If you want to approach 60, invest in a i7 3770k Ivybrridge, an aftermarket cooler, and overclock it to ~5GHz, and still plan on minimum monitor resolution and minimum graphics.

The same goes from right here with Rome right on through the release of Rome2.

Let's see, as a modern game is going to have the same problem? I do not feel the same with Napoleon or Empire, going really well ... and they support 4 cores.

**irishron** · November 14, 2012, 08:41 AM

Napoleon and Empire do not support 4 cores.
Check your usage in those games. 100% will be on one core. Anything on the other cores will be residual background noise pushed there, nothing from the game. It's been proven too many times.

Edit: Some may say off-topic but dealing with a CA 0ne-core/XP/32bit mentality, http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...4xr2-must-lagg is still relevant to this discussion.

**iCrusader** · November 14, 2012, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by irishron

Napoleon and Empire do not support 4 cores.
Check your usage in those games. 100% will be on one core. Anything on the other cores will be residual background noise pushed there, nothing from the game. It's been proven too many times.

Edit: Some may say off-topic but dealing with a CA 0ne-core/XP/32bit mentality, http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...4xr2-must-lagg is still relevant to this discussion.

So if I OC my Phenom II 965 to 4.2ghz - 4,4ghz notice enough improvement in FPS in these games do not? (Napoleon, Empire, etc)

I did not know until Shogun 2 used only one core ... : S