Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Expected performance...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Expected performance...

    Ok, like almost everyone else here I am in awe of the new graphics but am quite disappointed now about how my system seems to handle it. After playing the second demo I thought I would have seen a drastic improvement in FPS over the first demo but even with setting all below what I would have hoped to set them to at best I get 15-20 FPS during quiet moments in battle and dropping to around 8-15 at other times.

    This is my system

    P4 3.6Ghz HT
    1GB DDR2
    ATI X600 256MB Hypermemory with Catalyst 6.9
    SB X-Fi

    Anybody have any suggestions on potential tweaks or why this would be struggling? It's just that I felt this would have been more than capable to run the game pretty decently.

    Cheers

  2. #2
    Lusted's Avatar Look to the stars
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brighton, Sussex, England.
    Posts
    18,184

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    Turn shadows off, really boost performance.
    Creator of:
    Lands to Conquer Gold for Medieval II: Kingdoms
    Terrae Expugnandae Gold Open Beta for RTW 1.5
    Proud ex-Moderator and ex-Administrator of TWC from Jan 06 to June 07
    Awarded the Rank of Opifex for outstanding contributions to the TW mod community.
    Awarded the Rank of Divus for oustanding work during my times as Administrator.

  3. #3
    Spart's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,411

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    It's not that bad for your system. Your graphics card just can't keep up. Turn of shadows, lower units detail and disable bloom etc..
    Member of S.I.N
    Finns to the rescue!

    How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.
    -Søren Kierkegaard

  4. #4

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    The thing is, I already do have most things turned down low and have shadows off, but it still doesn't want to run smoothly. Surely the X600 isn't that weak.

  5. #5
    nightwar's Avatar Ducenarius
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America USA
    Posts
    991

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergkamp
    The thing is, I already do have most things turned down low and have shadows off, but it still doesn't want to run smoothly. Surely the X600 isn't that weak.
    Oh yes x600 is a low standard video card. just google x600 reviews.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergkamp
    The thing is, I already do have most things turned down low and have shadows off, but it still doesn't want to run smoothly. Surely the X600 isn't that weak.
    It's weak and them some, infact for a game like MTW2 it's dire, shame as the rest of your system is good.
    It's Christmas soon, so bin the old graphics card and treat yourself(or get someone to treat you!)

  7. #7

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    Hmmmm, interesting. I had been told by people before that it was ok. Does anybody have any suggestions about what might work well and rough prices?

    Also, tell me if this is being daft, but now with this whole AMD and ATI coming together does this mean in future I should stay clear of ATI cards as surely they will be designed to work best with AMD processors?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    Can someone give me a guess?

    Geforce 7600 256MB OR 512MB
    Intel Pentium 4 HT 3.06Ghz
    512MB RAM DDR

  9. #9
    Spart's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,411

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    Quote Originally Posted by big bad badger
    Can someone give me a guess?

    Geforce 7600 256MB OR 512MB
    Intel Pentium 4 HT 3.06Ghz
    512MB RAM DDR
    It'll handle the game nicely, especially if that 7600 is GT. Could get more RAM, it might lag quite annoyingly with just 512 MB.
    Member of S.I.N
    Finns to the rescue!

    How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.
    -Søren Kierkegaard

  10. #10

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    If u really want the game to run smoothly with bloom, lowest shadows, high textures and nice vegetation, i would recommend to take at least a nVidia 7800 video card. There is a significant gap of performance between 7600 and 7800~7950 series.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    To the Basement with you...

  12. #12
    Kaweh's Avatar Aerani
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    2,247

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    I have this specs:

    AMD Athlon 2800+ XP
    nVidia 6600 GT
    512 MB RAM

    A bit outdated indeed, I plan on buying more RAM and upgrading the CPU, anyway it runs smooth on higher-middle (is that a word?) settings (I use shader version 1, though, does look just as good as v2 to me...), so you should be able to play it on quite high settings without serious lag (I would advise to upgrade your RAM to 1 GB, though, you'll notice a huge improvement) I played the demo for the first time today, damn, I'm so hyped.

    I'd advise:

    - use shader version 1, helps alot, and doesn't realy look worse than v2
    - keep this setting on low/medium: shadows

    Then it should run without any problems....

    K.K
    Last edited by Kaweh; October 30, 2006 at 12:47 PM.

    SIBLESZ·CRANDAR·SIMETRICAL​·DARTH VADER·KAWEH·RAVEN DARKWING·KALOS
    · PROUD MEMBER OF ROMA SURRECTUM II ·

  13. #13

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    What if its a GS? I don't want lag! I'll shop around for cheap RAM.

  14. #14
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    Yes, a GS wil lag on high settings.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    Ok, been reading a few reviews about the new X1950Pro... Anybody have any opinions or advice about this card? Seems to be getting some good reviews and I can't argue with that price.

    Also, would there be much of a jump in power consumption between the X600 and this card?

  16. #16
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    the X1950Pro is overpriced at £200, it ain't any better than the X1900GT (£150).
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    I've seen the the 1950 Pro on the net for £140 including shipping.

    Here it is
    Last edited by Bergkamp; October 31, 2006 at 01:45 PM.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    If I turn shadows off? Surely I will get great performance without shadows.

  19. #19
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    Try it and see, but with a GS dont expect 1600x1200 @ max settings like what I get.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Expected performance...

    I don't want resolution. Just graphical effects will do.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •