How's your performance?

[Mormegil]

There's a lot of people talking about poor performance on this game. Reading all of this, you might think most people are having problems, but I have my doubts. Especially since it seems to be tied to ATI / Crossfire for a lot of people - and there can't be a majority of people running that type of rig.


Note, you can enable frames per second, by typing "stat fps" in the console.


If possible, give us your FPS when video is set to High.

 

[Panzer Jager '43]

Fantastic thread. Let's poll most of the community on the forums since that's where all the players are, not playing the game.

 

[Tet5uo]

Performance is pretty terrible.

see lows of 25 FPS with highs of 80 FPS and an average somewhere around 45-50 FPS.

This is on this system http://www.modsrigs.com/detail.aspx?buildid=23594 with only the "high" settings preset.

 

[vyyye]

Not like this would depend on settings, rig or anything. Just a static performance number.

 

[Mormegil]

Fantastic thread. Let's poll most of the community on the forums since that's where all the players are, not playing the game.

That's a good point. We could expect an over representation of people who can't play the game due to poor performance.

 

[Panzer Jager '43]

Yes, for example there were some 10,000 players on release.

Now there's around 5,000 in-game. Let's see if we even get 1,000 votes.

Now if the player base drops considerably and forum posts go up about complaints (which is happening to some degree), then perhaps lots of people are not playing the game because of performance issues.

 

[Mormegil]

Not like this would depend on settings, rig or anything. Just a static performance number.

I guess I could ask people to switch their settings to High, and stand in a specific spot on a specific map with a specific number of players on-line.

While ideal, I don't think I'll get many people voting that way.

I'll edit the post to go with "High" settings.

 

[Oo.k.]

Kind of biased since it's all about your graphic settings. You need a beast to play on Ultra especially with bigger maps.

 

[froggyluv]

High 40's, low 50's all on Ultra.

i5 @4.4
2x460gtx sli
8 gig 1600 ddr3
Win 7 64

 

[MrGoat]

q9550 at 3.7ghz
2 gtx 460 1gb in SLI
4 gigs of ddr3 ram 7-7-7-20 1600
790i mobo
1000w psu

And I still get around 25-40 dips, indoors it runs at like 60-90 fps.

Overall it runs about 40-50 fps tho, I really hope this is fixed, it really is keeping me from enjoying the game.

 

[Mihajlo Pavlovic]

High 30 s low 40 on ultra.

I5 2500
gtx 560ti
4 gig ram

 

[some idiot]

Framerates don't matter because with the microstuttering 50 FPS feels like 15.

Q9550 3.4 GHZ
ATI 4890 or AMD 6870 or GTX570, they're all the same
8GB DDR2 800
OCZ Agility SSD

q9550 at 3.7ghz

And I still get around 25-40 dips, indoors it runs at like 60-90 fps.

It really seems like we're CPU bound with our C2Qs huh? We get the same performance on the same CPU regardless of videocard.

 

[Nezzer]

It's weird. In the first minutes in a server I get 60-70 FPS, but after half an hour or so I start getting 15-30, and 10-20 after an hour.

 

[Murphy]

@Nezzer: That sounds like a memory leak. I'm sure TWI would be interested in a perf dump of yours (check the support section) because this actually sounds like a fixable issue!

I get 30-60, generally. It might drop to 25 on rare occasions, mostly involving artillery and it's higher on less rare occasions indoors, but all in all it's comfortably between 30 and 60 frames per second.

 

[FBX]

Nezzer are you using the sniper scope at all when that happens?

 

[Maizel]

Better options would have been things along the lines of:

Good for my rig
Decent for my rig
Dissapointing for my rig.


60 fps might be good for a 3 year old rig.

ButSomeone with a new top end machines, would expect a bit more than 60 fps

It's all relative.

I get 60 fps with my rig.

I was counting on at least double.

 

[fieldsofillusion]

It's weird. In the first minutes in a server I get 60-70 FPS, but after half an hour or so I start getting 15-30, and 10-20 after an hour.

i don't start at that high an fps, but, especially in beta, i was having the same experience, and i kept thinking memory leak.

 

[Dr.Phibes]

I get about 50 fps with all settings on ultra, which is ok. I don't need 80 fps or more, since I can't really tell the difference.

 

[The_Pharoah]

I'm in the poor performance category. I get around 14fps on the following rig:

E6600 2.4
6gig DDR2 Ram
ATI 4890 1gig vid card
Gigabyte 965-DS3P mobo

love the game but the speed is just above powerpoint. but hey, I'm not whinging...I see this as a temp problem which'll get fixed. heck, EVERY game that I've played (on release) has been problematic but the key is getting the devs focused on fixing it and making it better.

Over to you TWI

 

[fieldsofillusion]

I get about 50 fps with all settings on ultra, which is ok. I don't need 80 fps or more, since I can't really tell the difference.

yeah, you won't typically, the differences between frames at that point boils down to the amount of input latency.