This game needs Quad Core!

[|ChaoS|]

I've been playing RO2 since release on my E8400 and I just upgraded to 2500k (I know it's right before Bulldozer release...I don't think BD will give Intel Competition in gaming, besides, it will give me another excuse to upgrade my 2nd rig)

Anyways, WHAT a difference. Game is SO smooth right now.

Keep in mind I'm playing it with the same 460GTX I used with E8400. Also I've tried many settings with E8400/460GTX (lowering etc) and although it was playable it was never as smooth as SB.

I guess you don't realize it until you switch.

Regardless, I thought I would let you guys know. For those that enjoy the game and still rock Dual Cores....might want to think about upgrading.

 

[John Lackland]

I run on a 3.4 GHZ quad core with a mediocre to bad card and yes, it makes all the difference in the world for me.

 

[defektive]

Even on quad-core (AMD 965) lots of stuff going on still wrecks the framerate, possibly c/o the CPU processing all sound as well as everything else in which we've already been informed is a CPU intensive game. Turn the sound off and it's as smoothe as an android's bottom - even when the njubgun is blazing away.

I've been doing battle with this game since its release, trying all manner of config tweaks, and findings seem to be increasingly pointing the finger of blame at the sound.

 

[|ChaoS|]

Well, for whatever it's worth, I used Onboard sound with E8400 and 2500k.

Or can it be that Quad AMD is not up to SB performance in gaming?

sorry I had to

 

[defektive]

Evidently in RO2 it isn't, and that's a pretty big market to exclude the game from.

 

[ComeAndSee]

Running your games in a raid or SSD makes a difference too. My game loads so fast that I can pick my team and class before 95% of the people join and go AFK and do something by the time the match starts.

 

[SolitarioSoldat]

Well, for whatever it's worth, I used Onboard sound with E8400 and 2500k.

Or can it be that Quad AMD is not up to SB performance in gaming?

sorry I had to

Yes your right,the actual 2500K shines more in gaming than the 2600K,as for the phenom x4,the 2500K is good 15% ahead of it.your CPU is 15% ahead of my AMD x6 too,but when it comes to games that use more than 4 cores such as BF3,we either are dead iven or your 2-5% in advantage.

Sadly I dont like BF3 iven though that game does good with new hardware.

 

[ComeAndSee]

The 2500k is a amazing little processor for its cost considering you can ramp it up over 4 GHZ on air cooling!

 

[Dan.]

Yup.

2500K here running @ 4.7ghz (watercooled) eats up RO2 nicely

 

[Sufyan]

Does RO2 even use more than two cores? I don't doubt the UE3 engine can do it, but did Tripwire go through the programming headache to take advantage of it?

 

[Luckless]

Does RO2 even use more than two cores? I don't doubt the UE3 engine can do it, but did Tripwire go through the programming headache to take advantage of it?

I tend to watch system stats on my second monitor while gaming, and RO2 is fairly steady usage out of all cores. Generally 1 core runs in the 80-90% range, sometimes topping out, 2 cores will usually be at least 60-80%, and my 4th core can sometimes lag down around 50% usage, but even it can shoot to the 90% range at times.

In general, the game looks fairly well balanced on core usage for an imbalanced processing environment.

 

[Mormegil]

Even on quad-core (AMD 965) lots of stuff going on still wrecks the framerate, possibly c/o the CPU processing all sound as well as everything else in which we've already been informed is a CPU intensive game. Turn the sound off and it's as smoothe as an android's bottom - even when the njubgun is blazing away.

I've been doing battle with this game since its release, trying all manner of config tweaks, and findings seem to be increasingly pointing the finger of blame at the sound.

Have you tried turning the number of audio streams down? I'm also curious if using a sound card will make a difference, instead of an integrated system. I've got a spare Sound Blaster X-Fi or something lying around.

I'm generally getting 60 or so FPS, but a few more wouldn't hurt.

 

[Tunagoblin]

i5/i7 (K-series) are totally awesome for gaming.
More so on i5 since it OC more than i7 usually due to no HT.
My i5 is at 4.8GHz 24/7 on air. Any i5 2500k will go to 4+GHz stable.
Mine goes up to 5.5GHz. Even AMD BD won't catch up on "i" series, yet.

 

[|ChaoS|]

I tend to watch system stats on my second monitor while gaming, and RO2 is fairly steady usage out of all cores. Generally 1 core runs in the 80-90% range, sometimes topping out, 2 cores will usually be at least 60-80%, and my 4th core can sometimes lag down around 50% usage, but even it can shoot to the 90% range at times.

In general, the game looks fairly well balanced on core usage for an imbalanced processing environment.

Correct, I had Task Manager open yesterday and I was surprised that all 4 cores were utilized.

 

[ComeAndSee]

Does RO2 even use more than two cores? I don't doubt the UE3 engine can do it, but did Tripwire go through the programming headache to take advantage of it?

There's a benchmark out there that shows that RO2 makes use of double, triple, and quad cores. The advantage of more cores is the inherent load balance being spread.

 

[MadTommy]

Whilst quad cores are better it seems to be really Ghz speed that is important..

I also run a E8400 overclocked @ 3.6 Ghz with a GTX 480, and it runs this game pretty much maxed out with no issues at all, 50-90fps with no stutters. But i know people with 2.8 Ghz quads that are struggling.

Of course a 2500k is a lot better and is what i'd like to be running, but i don't need it for RO2 my dual core E8400 still eats it up with no problems.

 

[|ChaoS|]

Whilst quad cores are better it seems to be really Ghz speed that is important..

I also run a E8400 overclocked @ 3.6 Ghz with a GTX 480, and it runs this game pretty much maxed out with no issues at all, 50-90fps with no stutters. But i know people with 2.8 Ghz quads that are struggling.

Of course a 2500k is a lot better and is what i'd like to be running, but i don't need it for RO2 my dual core E8400 still eats it up with no problems.

That's exactly what I thought until I switched.

I ran it on ultra and god consistent 30 FPS, but the game just felt off (hard to describe)

Now it's just night and day, it's weird.

 

[Kukki]

I have a q6600 and GTX460, yet my game likes to slow down from 40-50 fps to 10-20 in random places, when i move a few inches it goes all way back to normal.

So, to be exact - This game needs i5 or i7... Or this game is still broken in some parts and even quadcores can turn out to be not enough for it.

 

[Spungey]

Running your games in a raid or SSD makes a difference too. My game loads so fast that I can pick my team and class before 95% of the people join and go AFK and do something by the time the match starts.

I was wondering this, i always seem to be the first in the server. I usually play commander, and its always free when i load. But i dont have a raid or SSD or anything. So ive no idea why im loading faster than others.

 

[MajorMelchett]

I have a q6600 and GTX460, yet my game likes to slow down from 40-50 fps to 10-20 in random places, when i move a few inches it goes all way back to normal.

So, to be exact - This game needs i5 or i7... Or this game is still broken in some parts and even quadcores can turn out to be not enough for it.

I was gonna post that, i have a 3.9ghz PII X4 yet changing the CPU from a quad to a tri and to a dual (set affinity) makes no difference to how it performs with my GTX480 @ 1080p.