What Should I Upgrade?

[JayTac]

Thanks guys for talking some sense into me
So this sound bug, is this something the devs have talked about? I always thought the sound bug only had to do with sound cutting out after map change, and assumed my issue was due to my specs. Hopefully that bug gets addressed soon, if not for that I'd definitely be happy with my fps.

 

[Alperce]

It's the CPU mate. I had the Q6600 too, and upgraded to an i5, and it's amazing how things run now.

 

[Yoshiro]

CPU will get you best performance boost most likey as the game is currently CPU bound.

 

[Nenjin]

Using an i5 (the 750 version), only 4 gigs of ram and a 8800 GTS, I can swing medium in most places with no problems. (Read as: playable FPS not obsessing over the number and sacrificing the obvious stuff like shadows.)

 

[Alperce]

Using an i5 (the 750 version), only 4 gigs of ram and a 8800 GTS, I can swing medium in most places with no problems. (Read as: playable FPS not obsessing over the number and sacrificing the obvious stuff like shadows.)

I have a 650, 6gb ram, and an hd5770, and I can play with 40+ fps stable with all high/ultra.

The game isn't really that rough on the components except for the CPU. However, it's really , really rough on it to compensate.

 

[Nenjin]

Indeed. If I had a decent video card and a little more ram, I think I could crank most stuff up. Plus I'm not doing some insane resolution...I play at 1280x1024. I imagine people stuck needing way higher resolutions suffer more.

 

[Alperce]

True. I play in 1920x1080, and you can tell the difference.

When I had the Q6600 CPU however, the game ran awfull. I had about 20-28 fps, always, even on low. The CPU was bottlenecking the GPU all the way.

 

[Redemption]

The bigger issue is that it dips into the 40's from time to time. Isn't really super smooth at 66 fps either, but playable. Ideally I'd like to see around 80 fps.

For realz?? This is an issue for you? I play at an average of 30 FPS and go into the mid 40s at the best of times. You realize you won't see a difference over 60 FPS right? You system seems fine from what I see

 

[JayTac]

For realz?? This is an issue for you? I play at an average of 30 FPS and go into the mid 40s at the best of times. You realize you won't see a difference over 60 FPS right? You system seems fine from what I see

Yes you do. On another game I go from 100 fps down to 60 when I run fraps and I can notice the difference. So much so that I don't use it because of that.

Anyway I'm going to wait and see what my fps looks like when the new patch comes out. Is the sound bug fixed in this patch, or is this two different things being talked about?

 

[Nenjin]

Sound bug is getting addressed again this patch. Cross your fingers.

 

[r5cya]

gameplay and fps is vastly improved with the todays patch to the beta. don't buy anything yet. it's really getting good now!

 

[svgamer]

The original posters CPU is NOT the problem

I have done extensive research and testing. The Q6600 still holds it's own in most games. It may not benchmark as fast as an i5/i7, but it can still deliver adequate (smooth playable) FPS.

I am running the following on maxed settings, and the only issue I run into is related to sound causing a dip in FPS

Q6600 @3.0Ghz
ATI 6950 2GB (Catalyst 11.8) 1920x1080
8GB DDR2
Abit IP35-Pro
Onboard Sound (Realtek HD)
Win7 x64

Upgrade if you want, but you will not see a huge improvement playing games unless you get off on benchmark numbers.

 

[Spoon]

Im waiting for this game to be optimized as Im shocked at the amount of money people pay to play computer video games. Ill adjust my budget to what the best specs for around 40 fps. in gameplay.
My collecting dust pc is a Athlon 5600 which is dual core 2.8. Only 1mb cache
4 gig ram and looking at buying a video card to handle this game at around 150 dollar mark which I don't think can be done.

 

[Nenjin]

Forget the video card. You can't play ROHOS worth a poo unless you get a decent processor first. If you can't afford a mid to high range video card though, the chances you can afford a good quad core are also probably slim.

 

[Richey79]

When it dips like that for me, the sound starts to breakup and the video stutters for a few moments.

When they fix the sound processing (putting too much load on the CPU at the moment) and optimise the maps, your frame-rate will be much smoother.

Unless you want to play on a much bigger monitor, the issue is with the game, not your PC.

Im waiting for this game to be optimized as Im shocked at the amount of money people pay to play computer video games.

This.

 

[Nenjin]

It's no less shocking than what people pay to play console games over the same span of time. I've probably spent $1,500 on computers since the mid 90s. That's technically three machines, but really two since I gutted my second one and reused the case.

Upgrading smart means you spend less over time. It will always have the sticker shock though.

 

[samthegreat4]

Everybody with even a half decent rig that isn't getting good or consistent FPS has to STOP considering upgrading hardware RIGHT NOW!

I've got a Phenom 2 x4 920, 4GB RAM and a HD6970 (flashed 6950 2GB).
And I'm sticking between 15 and, very very infrequent, 60 FPS. And the settings don't even matter. Low, med, high, no AA, Ultra MSAA, lightning, shadows, no shadows, etc. Inside buildings everything is fine, but outside I'm getting avg. maybe 25/30 FPS.

So: everybody who's thinking: ''IT's MY INCAPABLE PC!!!'' has to stop thinking that right now. It's TWI's fault. Bad optimisation probably. Because I won't find this playable until I, and all the other people with good rigs (and even people with 10x better rigs get the same FPS as I do right now!) will get a minimum and no lower than 55 FPS or something on at least medium/high.

Because it is achievable, other games that are as new or newer than Red Orchestra 2 prove it. And no, don't blame it on the ''heavily modded'' UT3 engine. That's bull. Heavily modded or not, it should run smooth. Period.

EDIT:
Richey79 ninja'd me :')..

 

[Borack]

I was getting about 25-35 fps on my cpu when it was 2.8GHz and i brought a cooler and over clocked it to 4GHz and now get 50-60 frames on ultra - so cpu is the best choice to upgrade - you should look up if you chip overclocks well because it would be alot cheaper.

 

[Kapmes_Karel]

This thread could have been started by me. I have a Q6600 too, and a GTX 560. Performance is really poor, settings don't seem to matter much. I

 

[svgamer]

Q6600 vs i5-2500K (Anandtech Bench)

Clearly the 2500K is faster, but the Q6600 runs excellent frames per second in mainstream games. Well above the 30fps many feel is the min acceptable.

Q6600 vs i5-2500K - GPU Scaling....

The GTX460 (which is still a decent mid-range card) is a bigger bottleneck than the CPU in the chart above.

I recently upgraded to an ATI 6950 from a 4890. I can run all my games at max settings, and I have no issues with my Q6600 being a bottleneck.