Is my computer able to run it?
- Thread starter Shwepps
- Start date
How is 40-50 FPS "maxed out"? Personally I can't stand playing games, especially multiplayer ones, below 70 FPS.
Also, with a setup like that one should easily be able to get 150-200 FPS in a UE3 game, if it's not horribly optimized.
"Maxed out" tends to refer to all settings set to their maximum/highest setting with some AA and AF at a decent resolution. You can run a game "maxed out" and still get 3 frame rates average. I can't tell the difference between 50 and 70 frame rates either. Anything below 40 I seem to notice a difference though.
The "UE3 game" comment is a rather incorrect statement. A game like ME2 or UT3 will run far better than a game like RO2 due to the lack of ballistics to model, the small maps, lack of destruction ect. RO2 might be one of the most, if not the most demanding UE3 game ever released. You must remember that UE3 has been updated a lot over the past few years. In a way this makes me think my original guesses might me off.
Hopefully I can get more than 30 frame rates with a HD 6950 2GB/GTX 560... because that is what I plan on upgrading to. If RO2 comes out soon enough, maybe others can test and see how well those cards run RO2 before I buy either.
You bought both AMD and Intel?
That seems like a very low expectation in my eyes. Are you trolling?
I'm hoping to get 70+ FPS @ 1920x1080 with my setup. i7 920 @4GHz, HD5770, 6GB RAM. If that means not playing at max graphics, then so be it.
Nice set up!
I'm expecting 100+ FPS,my set up is:
AMD Phenom x6 1090T @4.0ghz
2x ATI 6870's
8gb ram @1600mhz
Attachments
Replies in bold.
That seems like a very low expectation in my eyes. Are you trolling?
I believe someone needs to take some remedial English courses.
I'm hoping to get 70+ FPS @ 1920x1080 with my setup. i7 920 @4GHz, HD5770, 6GB RAM. If that means not playing at max graphics, then so be it.
That video card is rather low end, though I would think if you lowered your graphics you'd get some high frame rates. Luckily your CPU is fast. RO2 should be more CPU intensive than games like ME/UT due to the ballistic calculations and whatnot. That is what we can assume for now at least.
I just hope my AMD 965 will be up to the task...
seriously...im running a Phenom II X4 945, GTX 460 1gb and 4 GB of DDR3. hope this is enough to run everything on high with good framerates.
All I really care about is just being able to play the game but I guess I should be able to do that and get good settings with my AMD Phenom II X4 965 @3.2gHz and HD6850. Atleast I hope so.
I have to believe that that kind of rig will do fine with ROHoS. Yoshiro already stated somewhere else that a 6850 would be fine for the game.
The 965 runs stock at 3.4 BTW. The 955 is the 3.2 chip.
Right now I'm standing with my PII X3 720, and I'll be upgrading to a 6870 from my 3870 this summer. I'll start there, and IF I need to throw a 965BE in my board I will, but the truth is for gaming, there is not a HUGE ton of difference between the 720 and the 955...and only a bit more between the 720 and the 965. The new 980 really slashes the 720, but it's also a power hog space heater.
720 vs 965:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/83?vs=102http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/83?vs=102
Look at that...then look at the comparison between the 720 and the 6-core 1090T:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/83?vs=146
For games like Crysis, Fallout 3, even Far Cry 2....more cores do not necessarily mean a giant leap in performance. For spreadsheets, video work etc maybe so, but not yet for games.
Bottom line: I will be extremely surprised if ROHoS runs poorly on anything over a strong dual core and a 5850 or GTX 460. Sure it will run better on a strong quad and 6950, but that shouldn't scare anyone off from getting the game who has a solid mid-range rig. I bought RO in March '06 with a single core Athlon and a ATi 9200SE. It ran, very poorly...but it ran. And I was hooked from the start.
EDITED. Thanks u-s-e-r
Last edited:
I went from an AMD 9950BE to the 965. It was kind of expensive at $160, but it was not that bad. I think it was worth it. Crysis Warhead and ArmA 2 run much better. I used to play the map with the train in Warhead at high settings and still get some low frame rates... quitting to the menu stalled a bit. I now run that at the highest settings with higher frame rates. Going to the menu is instant.
So if you're on the fence about getting a 965, I would say do it...
The PII X3 720 is a better gaming chip than the 9950, with 3x the L3 cache and a DDr3 memory controller.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/21?vs=83
The 965 is better than the 720 by about the same margin as the 720 is better than the 9950, so yeah I can see that as a viable upgrade option.
Right now, I am saving up for about a 250 dollar upgrade budget. I can either get a solid HD6870 or maybe a 1gb HD6950....or I could get one of those new Sapphire HD5850's for 140 bucks and a 965 for 150. A little over budget, but still do-able. I lean towards the HD6xxx option because that 720 still has some life to it, and with Bulldozer coming out I can only see the price of the current 6-core chips dropping by the end of the year. As good a deal as that HD5850 is, it will inevitably show it's age faster than the HD6870 with more DX11 stuff coming along.