The official minimum requirements are way too low than they should be. Open world locations are unplayable with these and framerate in Full HD resolution is very low. I feel decieved.

[Szszymon14]

Hi, a 32 bit player here. I can understand that DE cut off support of my system, but I cannot understand how could they release Fortuna without checking if it's still possible to run these locations with the same specs as in 2011. I'm really annoyed how could they only raise the required amount of RAM. My specs are as follows:

AMD Athlon II X4 645 (Powerful processor from 2009), GTS 450 (Direct X11 supported), 4 GB of RAM, 32-bit Windows 7.

Technically my gaming computer is a destitute one, but look how much powerful it still is in comparison to the hardware enlisted in the minimum requirements as of the 1st March 2019!:

• OS: Windows 7/8/10 64-Bit (32-bit not supported)
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo e6400 or AMD Athlon x64 4000+ (~2.2Ghz dual core CPU)
• Memory: 4 GB System RAM
• Graphics: DirectX 10 compatible video card
• Hard Drive: 35 GB free HD space

Mine vs enlisted processor - about 145% more powerful: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Athlon-II-X4-645-vs-AMD-Athlon-64-X2-Dual-Core-4000-/m2408vsm2436

My graphics card vs... um, technically it says any directX 10 video card, so 8600GT should suffice. Now look: https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GeForce-GTS-450-vs-Nvidia-GeForce-8600-GT/m7762vsm7659 At least. Three. Times. More. Powerful.

And the amount of RAM is just sufficient. (There were 2GB of RAM just a few days before)

 

Knowing that my specs are way powerful that they may be, and that the game is from 2011 I thought: "Oh boy! I'm gonna play this game at 60 fps all the time in standard Full HD!". Well, hell no.

For starters, when I started this game, it automatically set my settings to high, even though I got like 20 fps in the starting location. I reduced all the setting to the lowest ones, and set resolution scaling (keeping 1080p turned on) to 70, yet my framerate still have been dropping to 25 fps on Earth in vegetated areas during when there is many enemy units. Come on devs, how could you say that any DirectX 10 compatible card will suffice, if a 3 times more powerful is struggling to run at standard resolution (for every game released now which cares about graphics at least moderately), 1920 x 1080 resolution on minimum settings? Was those requirements composed for 1024 x 768 resolution? I think so. The minimum required graphic card should be at least GTX 560.

Although these occasional fps drops are bearable, the inability to enter open world locations is not. I had no way to expect that, yet every single time when I tried to enter Orb Vallis, I always ended up with 100% CPU usage, about 95 % of RAM usage, a few second long freeze, black screen, and crash. When I tried to enter Eidolon, I ended up with 80% of crash probability when I tried to play in squad entering through the town, and I had no crashes when I played solo and I entered Eidolon via the star map, but I was still having big freezes every couple of minutes, and my RAM usage was capping. Keeping in mind that my processor is still much better potato than some Core 2 Duo from 2006, I consider it as unacceptable. This game now needs at least something like Intel Core i5 680.

My crashes mostly resulted from too weak processor, but considering that I was having 90-100% RAM usage, I wonder if I 4GB of RAM is sufficient. Maybe you could raise up also this spec to 6GB?

I got very annoyed that the devs seems to have forgotten to update specs correctly. There are also other serious problems with this game which I encountered in my 40-hour gameplay:

• It's not hard to get stuck in this game. I had at least 2 stucks which made me a lose a few minutes. One time a common door couldn't open, and one time the end of mission results couldn't pop up because my Tenno audibly fell somewhere during extraction animation.
• The alarms are an extremely unprofitable for veterans as a way to get credits. The credits should scale with rank of player: at least +10% of a credit bonus for each player level.
• Personally, the design of some Tennos, cosmetic items, (mainly prime ones) or weapons looks so ridiculous, that I wonder how any human could use that weapon, that clothing, or move as this character and fight effectively. But it's only my own opinion.
• Please buy Prime at loading screen 😧 and everywhere on the market!

Even though I got very annoyed for that minimum requirements and other problems, I overally enjoyed Warfame. The lore and community here is superior to other F2P games. When I'll upgrade my PC in a few months, I'll be probably looking forward to play this game again. I hope this reach the devs.

[Szszymon14]

Also, I'm hoping that this game will sooner or later receive higher resolution textures, because they look quire poor compared to the graphic cards the game requires you to use. Also, I was experiencing stuttering on closed Fortuna maps or at transmitters maps in general.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Szszymon14

[MillbrookWest]

The minimum requirements denote the minimum requirements you need to pass to actually run the game There is no DX9 support for warframe anymore, so a DX9 card won't launch warframe. A DX10 card will, but your mileage will vary based on the hardware configuration. The minimum spec does not denote a 60fps experience. That is usually reserved for a "recommended" spec, which Warframe does not provide. 

NOTE: Unless you typo'd, you technically don't meet the minimum requirements. Warframe does not support 32-bit.

A 32-bit Windows only has address space for 4GB, 500-750MB of which is reserved for the OS leaving you with 3.25-3.5GB of usable memory, shared by everything you have open. Furthermore, a 32-bit Windows install only has an additional 4GB virtual address space shared (2/2) once you run out of RAM. A 64-bit Windows OS has a vastly larger virtual address space ~8TB.

[sam686]

Lets look at RAM requirements (Random Access Memory). 4 GB is probably too small. I have done some tests myself.

Windows 10 64 bit
C drive: Fast NVMe Samsung SSD 970 Evo 500GB
D drive: Slow 2.5 inch HDD 500GB
Ryzen 5 2400g (limited to 2 threads by Msconfig)
Vega 11 256 MB integrated graphics, RAM for this graphics can be changed in motherboard settings.
16 GB Ram, limited to 4 GB by Msconfig. limit 4096 MB gives me too small of 2.7 GB, so I put in 5427 MB, (4+4-2.7) x 1024 for my 4 GB limit

Swap file: 4 GB on C drive. on windows 10, right click start, system, system info, advanced system settings, advanced, performance, settings, advanced, change.

4 GB swap: Ran out of "Committed" memory of 8.0 GB / 8.0 GB, Warframe crash and closes by itself. 

 

 

8 GB swap files (4 GB on fast SSD C drive, plus 4 GB on slow HDD D drive). Freezing and constant 100% usage on slow D drive.

If I can't run it properly while limited to 4 GB of RAM by Msconfig, I wonder how they get it to work on Switch console that only have 4 GB of RAM and shared graphics memory?

Swap file on SSD is a lot faster, at a cost of burning lots of write cycles, making SSD not last very long that have limited writes.

 

Look at the "DirectX 10 compatible" graphics: intel HD graphics 2000/3000 on Sandy Bridge CPU is DirectX 10 compatible, with a freezing problem in this game. I have 16 GB of RAM and it still freezing for minutes on every loading screen on my i7-2600, intel HD graphics 2000. Joins squad, loading screen for minutes, lost connection to host, loading screen for minutes, and the cycle repeats. It just doesn't load correctly when joining squads. There are some replys that can't play properly anymore, now that DirectX 9 that had worked mostly fine, is now dropped.

 

[Szszymon14]

20 hours ago, MillbrookWest said:

NOTE: Unless you typo'd, you technically don't meet the minimum requirements. Warframe does not support 32-bit.

That wasn't a typo, because I was referring to the situation from the previous weeks when I was playing, until 32-bit support was cut off. So technically I was passing all requirements at that time. But do you think 64-bit version could really made a noticeable difference with the same specs, if my CPU was capping at 100% at the time of entering Orb Vallis? How could lack of RAM be a bigger problem at this moment? Did you even bother to check the comparison with the weakest officially acceptable processor? Or maybe do you find it fine that people with CPUs barely passing minimum requirements don't need and shouldn't expect to access open-world locations at all?

Note that someone also had problem with crashes at the same moment, even though he or she had 8GB of RAM. It must be the case of too weak CPUs:

20 hours ago, MillbrookWest said:

The minimum spec does not denote a 60fps experience.

And you don't see it as problem as well? Or that it's fine there is no official recommended specs?

[Szszymon14]

7 hours ago, sam686 said:

Lets look at RAM requirements (Random Access Memory). 4 GB is probably too small. I have done some tests myself.

Now that's the professionalism! But I'm not sure if you estimated required RAM correctly, taking into account the fact that this system wants more address space and AMD's integrated cards use up not only VRAM but also your general RAM.

[sam686]

15 minutes ago, Szszymon14 said:

I'm not sure if you estimated required RAM correctly, taking into account the fact that this system wants more address space and AMD's integrated cards use up not only VRAM but also your general RAM.

When I don't limit RAM, task manager performance will say I have 15.7 GB of RAM, because integrated graphics takes away 0.25 GB for "Dedicated GPU memory". This may be different and can be changed depending on how much memory is set on Motherboard BIOS settings.

It is not just AMD. Try that with a 256 MB graphics card, like 8600GT maybe.

A few months ago, my i7-2600 + Nvidia Gt 1030 2 GB, have had a terrible frame rate problem (video shown in that topic) when dedicated graphics is full and shared GPU memory starts being used. That was with 15.9 GB RAM (0.1 GB taken away for intel graphics multi-monitor due to Nvidia GT 1030 graphics card limit).

 

[Makemap]

Same thing for me. But what makes it worst is my specs is higher than the minimum. Cetus random lags spikes. I made it windows mode 800x600 and my FPS increased massively yet it still has tiny lag spikes, but no t as much in higher resolution. My FPS jumps from 44 down to 15/9. Eidolen Hunt is unplayable. Directx 10 is turned off, only directx 11 is on with 64 bit. All graphics is on low everything turned off.

My system requirements is

• OS: Windows 8 64-Bit(I'm using windows 8 not 8.1)
• Processor: AMD A10-4600M 2.3 GHz
• Memory: 8 GB System RAM
• Graphics: DirectX 11 compatible video card, AMD 7660G
• Hard Drive: 306 GB of free HD space

The funny thing is I can play planet nodes completely fine. Its just that open world map since Fortuna update. I used to play Cetus 100% fine no lag. It must be one of the graphic settings not able to turn off even though it suppose to be off since the update. I notice it is more of the explosion/laser effects that is causing massive FPS drop, but that doesn't happen in onslaught or survival with massive grineer explosions. Only on open world maps.

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Makemap

[MillbrookWest]

5 hours ago, Szszymon14 said:

But do you think 64-bit version could really made a noticeable difference with the same specs

DX9 was also dropped with 32bit support. The min spec is DX10, and 64bit. This means your graphics drivers will also assume a 64bit address space.

Observe in @sam686 video, in both instances, Warframe uses ~2GB RAM. This is it's own exclusive heap. Far short of the 4GB set in the min spec.

Warframe's heap =/= windows memory usage - which tracks everything required to run an application.

As i said, the min spec denotes what you need to launch the game. Your mileage(performance-wise) will vary.

5 hours ago, Szszymon14 said:

Note that someone also had problem with crashes at the same moment, even though he or she had 8GB of RAM. It must be the case of too weak CPUs:

I posted in that thread. Looks more like a memory leak, than any issue with the CPU.

5 hours ago, Szszymon14 said:

And you don't see it as problem as well? Or that it's fine there is no official recommended specs?

Thread is about minimum spec, not recommended. 

 

1 hour ago, Makemap said:

Same thing for me. But what makes it worst is my specs is higher than the minimum. Cetus random lags spikes. I made it windows mode 800x600 and my FPS increased massively yet it still has tiny lag spikes, but no t as much in higher resolution. My FPS jumps from 44 down to 15/9. Eidolen Hunt is unplayable. Directx 10 is turned off, only directx 11 is on with 64 bit. All graphics is on low everything turned off.

My system requirements is

• OS: Windows 8 64-Bit(I'm using windows 8 not 8.1)
• Processor: AMD A10-4600M 2.3 GHz
• Memory: 8 GB System RAM
• Graphics: DirectX 11 compatible video card, AMD 7660G
• Hard Drive: 306 GB of free HD space

The funny thing is I can play planet nodes completely fine. Its just that open world map since Fortuna update. I used to play Cetus 100% fine no lag. It must be one of the graphic settings not able to turn off even though it suppose to be off since the update. I notice it is more of the explosion/laser effects that is causing massive FPS drop, but that doesn't happen in onslaught or survival with massive grineer explosions. Only on open world maps.

Part of the issue in this case is that the A10 is an APU.

APU's share memory bandwidth. High end GPU's can go from 500GB/s to 1TB/s nowadays used exclusively for their purposes.
An APU by comparison will have ~20GB/s shared between CPU and GPU. Bandwidth contention (or contention of any kind) will manifest itself hitching and stutters in-game.

But in addition to that, the A10 is built off of the old bulldozer design. Each of its modules shares a single FPU. Games use the FPU more than they do the integer unit (for example). Contention of the FPU can also cause issues.

5 hours ago, sam686 said:

When I don't limit RAM, task manager performance will say I have 15.7 GB of RAM, because integrated graphics takes away 0.25 GB for "Dedicated GPU memory". This may be different and can be changed depending on how much memory is set on Motherboard BIOS settings.

Just a note: The setting for "dedicated GPU memory" is partly there as a compatibility setting. Some titles may look for a minimum set VRAM.

Since GPU's aren't used too much for day to day tasks, dedicating them a large block of memory is wasteful, but it is a bit of a non-issue - Both the GPU, and CPU access the same pool of RAM. When your APU runs out of the allocated 256MB limit set, it will just start using the main pool of memory. However, it has a lesser priority to that pool since that is the pool used for the CPU. You don't notice this during run time because whether it uses the set pool, of the main pool, it still travels down the same memory bus (the DDR4 one) which is shared with the CPU.

This may explain why your 4GB video crashes out - VRAM writing into main RAM while your CPU is filling it up.

[sam686]

9 hours ago, MillbrookWest said:

in both instances, Warframe uses ~2GB RAM

The in-game RAM doesn't count everything and may be inaccurate. Task manager is more accurate. Worst, then the in-game RAM goes up to 4000 MB then drops to 1000 MB, the system RAM does not drop at all. This is with the game using high performance graphics, RX 580, 8GB dedicated graphics memory, and system RAM is not limited.

Edit: looking at commited size... oops..

Edit 2: new numbers. The commit size is still important to make sure to set the windows Swap file to about 12 GB to ensure there are plenty of commit size. Run out of commit size will crash game or program.

commit,  ram.

5.8 GB, 3.5 GB - Launcher.
7.7 GB, 5.0 GB - Orbiter
10.3 GB, 6.5 GB - Orb Vallis
9.1 GB, 6.3 GB - return to Orbiter
11.1 GB, 8.3 GB - moments after foundry memory problem, in game says it dropped to "1039 MB", but the reality is, it doesn't drop system memory.
5.6 GB, 3.4 GB - Quit warframe. No warframe, no launcher.

Game using a lot of system RAM. No wonder the game struggles a lot on 4 GB system ram computer with constant Swap file disk usage, especially if the graphics is integrated or very old with 0.25 GB or less dedicated memory. The in-game memory counter fails to count everything.

The foundry with 450 or more blueprints at low 30 fps, excessive memory usage and crash is a bug in the game.  https://forums.warframe.com/topic/1060050-possible-memory-leak-4100mb-ram-usage-foundry/

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by sam686

[MillbrookWest]

19 minutes ago, sam686 said:

The in-game RAM doesn't count everything and may be inaccurate.

It's accurate insofar as Warframe itself is concerned.

As i described, the in-game meter counts Warframes own heap. Windows tracks the memory of the drivers (Graphics, Sound, etc.), and anything else the application needs to run, in addition to the application itself. What happens outside DE's heap may not always be something DE can work around.

[sam686]

12 hours ago, MillbrookWest said:

This may explain why your 4GB video crashes out - VRAM writing into main RAM while your CPU is filling it up.

With more testing, this only explains the severe lag/freezing. Using Rx 580 8GB dedicated GPU memory with only 4 GB swap file, still crashes seconds into Orb Vallis. The same crash as the first video "4 GB ram with 4 GB swap, out of memory crash".

Now for 4 GB ram + 8 GB swap + Rx 580 8GB... Reduced the amount of freezing, and was almost working fine... until about 20 minutes later it just out of memory crash again with 12 GB / 12 GB commited size problem. For some incredibly stupid reason, using dedicated GPU memory  also use commited size memory, requiring much bigger swap file to avoid the crash. I have seen GPU dedicated memory go up to 4 GB that also cost 4 GB of committed memory.

 

DE can do something about the runaway texture usage problem with texture memory set to "Low". Wasn't a problem back then in 32 bit Warframe, now this is more like a useless texture memory option that do almost nothing.

 

[MillbrookWest]

So i decided to yank out my RAM and install a single 4GB stick i had lying around (keeping in mind it is best to run two sticks) and i can't really observe the same effect. Pagefile is 500MB on C drive (for compatibility reasons), and 8GB-ish on a HDD. There are a few minor hitches here and there, but for the most part, i can play the game. Which is what the minimum settings denote:

(settings at end)

 

[Makemap]

So I did Teralyst hunt. I lose FPS when I'm not in void mode. But in void mode I don't lose FPS like crazy. Once I'm at Gauntalyst, FPS drops like crazy with its glowing orbs down to 6-5 fps(sometimes host migration). Void mode make it even worst. I can't complete my nightwave Hydrolyst mission!

 

I can do Teralyst Hunt no problem. I'm pretty sure something is not turned off on low settings for low end users under DirectX11 or 64bit mode. DirectX 10 only is unplayable for me even on planet nodes. Lags every time but my Graphic card says supports DirectX 11. So that might be the issue.

All graphic settings are low and off. Nothing on. Cetus Napalm causes lag with its fire effect after shooting. But planet napalms no issue at all.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Makemap

[sam686]

On 2019-03-02 at 8:06 PM, Makemap said:

• Processor: AMD A10-4600M 2.3 GHz
• Memory: 8 GB System RAM
• Graphics: DirectX 11 compatible video card, AMD 7660G

For AMD, Terascale is kindof poor, can't handle more then 2 or 4 GB of dedicated + shared GPU memory when all used up. For old Terascale integrated graphics. The best that can be done is try to go to Motherboard bios and see if the graphics can be changed to 1 or 2 GB or some other number for graphics, to find which one is the best settings.

Going to option and changing texture memory option to something different and confirm, does free up and un-load most of the existing texture memory for some period of time, but it might only just fill back up to maxing out graphics memory after a few minutes.

Still, DE can try to fix the texture memory option "Low" do almost nothing on 64 bit Warframe with 4 or more GB of GPU memory. If Low was limited to 1 GB texture memory or less, it maybe can avoid the slow down problem from old AMD Terascale running out of 32 bit texture memory address space. https://forums.warframe.com/topic/1009233-texture-memory-option-do-almost-nothing/

AMD GPU with GCN, such as in AMD A8/A10/A12 7000 or higher APU, or Ryzen G with Vega, works much better with 64 bit address texture graphics support. Wiki show more information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Core_Next#Iterations

 

Since I don't see anyone load correctly into Orb Vallis with 4 GB RAM + 4 GB swap file, it looks like the requirements need anywhere between 8.5-12 GB of Swap file, at least when on Windows 10 64 bit. Doesn't matter where the swap file is located, but it appears EE.log only looks at C drive for swap size, and not other drives.

While 4 GB RAM + graphics card with 2 GB dedicated GPU memory might work, integrated graphics need more like 6 or 8 GB of RAM to be playable in Orb Vallis, at least while texture memory of "Low" still consume up to 2 GB of memory for integrated graphics, in 4 GB RAM.

[Makemap]

On 2019-03-04 at 8:35 AM, sam686 said:

For AMD, Terascale is kindof poor, can't handle more then 2 or 4 GB of dedicated + shared GPU memory when all used up. For old Terascale integrated graphics. The best that can be done is try to go to Motherboard bios and see if the graphics can be changed to 1 or 2 GB or some other number for graphics, to find which one is the best settings.

Going to option and changing texture memory option to something different and confirm, does free up and un-load most of the existing texture memory for some period of time, but it might only just fill back up to maxing out graphics memory after a few minutes.

Still, DE can try to fix the texture memory option "Low" do almost nothing on 64 bit Warframe with 4 or more GB of GPU memory. If Low was limited to 1 GB texture memory or less, it maybe can avoid the slow down problem from old AMD Terascale running out of 32 bit texture memory address space. https://forums.warframe.com/topic/1009233-texture-memory-option-do-almost-nothing/

AMD GPU with GCN, such as in AMD A8/A10/A12 7000 or higher APU, or Ryzen G with Vega, works much better with 64 bit address texture graphics support. Wiki show more information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Core_Next#Iterations

 

Since I don't see anyone load correctly into Orb Vallis with 4 GB RAM + 4 GB swap file, it looks like the requirements need anywhere between 8.5-12 GB of Swap file, at least when on Windows 10 64 bit. Doesn't matter where the swap file is located, but it appears EE.log only looks at C drive for swap size, and not other drives.

While 4 GB RAM + graphics card with 2 GB dedicated GPU memory might work, integrated graphics need more like 6 or 8 GB of RAM to be playable in Orb Vallis, at least while texture memory of "Low" still consume up to 2 GB of memory for integrated graphics, in 4 GB RAM.

I was playing Orb of Vallis yesterday doing perfect hunt. It lag spikes every then and now just like Cetus. Fortuna is a bit worst. But not as bad as the triple Eidolon Hunt. My graphic card has 4GB of memory. I'm also using 64 bit windows.

I got a new laptop today going to test with GTX1050ti low settings since no one ever plays low setting with high graphic card. I'm pretty sure the game might have issues under Directx 10 or directx11. I don't think there is a graphic card with directx10 than can play this game properly when they ditched directx9. Directx10 is equivalent to directx9. When DE ditch directx9 means they also ditch directx10.

The latest is directx12.

[Szszymon14]

On 2019-03-03 at 4:49 AM, MillbrookWest said:

I posted in that thread. Looks more like a memory leak, than any issue with the CPU.

If so, why so few people with at least 8 GB of RAM reports this problem?

On 2019-03-03 at 9:26 PM, MillbrookWest said:

So i decided to yank out my RAM and install a single 4GB stick i had lying around (keeping in mind it is best to run two sticks) and i can't really observe the same effect. Pagefile is 500MB on C drive (for compatibility reasons), and 8GB-ish on a HDD. There are a few minor hitches here and there, but for the most part, i can play the game. Which is what the minimum settings denote:

(settings at end)

 

What did you prove with this? That 4 GB of RAM should make this location playable? If so, that doesn't make any sense, because originally you tried to persuade me that it's the RAM or too low amount of paging that causes problem. I got lost.

On 2019-03-03 at 4:49 AM, MillbrookWest said:

As i said, the min spec denotes what you need to launch the game. Your mileage(performance-wise) will vary.

It's fine as long you as you can run every location in the game which provides content unobtainable in other way. if not, then we shouldn't agree for that definition of minimum.

 

But guys, @MillbrookWest @sam686 @Makemap ,to sum it up, do you agree that the game indeed provide false minimum requirements. If yes, what hardware do you presume it's too low? If not, why?

I want to copy my thread in the Fortuna performance or general suggestion forum, but now I feel that my arguments aren't as strong, as I deemed to have.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Szszymon14

[sam686]

3 hours ago, Szszymon14 said:

to sum it up, do you agree that the game indeed provide false minimum requirements. If yes, what hardware do you presume it's too low?

Missing Swapfile requirements: Appears to require 12 GB or more swap file, more if using 4 or 8 GB graphics card. Windows default system managed swap doesn't work when there is less then 4 GB of free space on C drive.

 

Just having only "DirectX 10 compatible" isn't good enough. GPU RAM requirements?

1. Old intel graphics problem: All loading screens are extremely slow, often more then a minute. My intel HD graphics 2000 is DX10 "Compatible", but completely unplayable in multiplayer squads. Loading is too slow, it always lose connection to squads. intel i7-2600, 16 GB RAM, Windows 10 64 bit. Probably have something to do with the complete lack of GPU shader cache. Yes I know I can just use a better graphics card, but there are other users with Sandy Bridge CPU that cannot upgrade graphics on their laptops. https://forums.warframe.com/topic/1064896-unable-to-beat-loading-screens-due-to-new-low-end-requirements/#comment-10558793

Well... unless those users select DX11 in Warframe launcher, and the buggy game drops back to DX9 without the slow loading problem. This workaround won't last much longer either. https://forums.warframe.com/topic/1066186-dx11-in-warframe-settings-use-dx9-on-intel-hd-graphics-2000/

 

2. Free roam missions using Integrated graphics need more RAM, at least while "Texture Memory" of "Low" still consumes as much as 2 GB of GPU memory on 64 bit Warframe, leaving the game freezing with excessive Swap file usage. With only 4 GB RAM. It appears to work fine most area except free roam missions like Orb Vallis, that appears to require 6 GB of system RAM available to windows, or more. Note that integrated graphics can take away up to 2 GB of RAM for Dedicated GPU memory, depending on what is set on the motherboard settings.

[MillbrookWest]

On 2019-03-07 at 1:40 AM, Szszymon14 said:

If so, why so few people with at least 8 GB of RAM reports this problem?

This would make the chance of it being a memory leak more likely, as it isn't wide spread. The player could be triggering it by doing something they think is entirely benign. Alternatively, no one knows how they run their system. Malware could have a say in too.

On 2019-03-07 at 1:40 AM, Szszymon14 said:

What did you prove with this? That 4 GB of RAM should make this location playable? If so, that doesn't make any sense, because originally you tried to persuade me that it's the RAM or too low amount of paging that causes problem. I got lost.

I believe my original point - that the minimum is the minimum to run the game - stands. DE list 4GB as a minimum requirement, and as shown, the game does not have any issue with that, even loading into the new maps with no problem.

What was brought up was the 32bit OS, and how that pertains to address space (>4GB RAM, and 4GB virtual, split 2/2).

It should be noted, that DE's support page recommends leaving the pagefile to system managed: https://www.warframe.com/en/memory
See my note about the address space between 64 bit, and 32 bit OS's.

On 2019-03-07 at 1:40 AM, Szszymon14 said:

But guys, @MillbrookWest @sam686 @Makemap ,to sum it up, do you agree that the game indeed provide false minimum requirements. If yes, what hardware do you presume it's too low? If not, why?

The minimum requirements are fine. They could specify a GPU, but the fact is, people with their iGPU's still play the game. Therefore re-enforcing the point that "minimum" is what you need to launch the game.

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by MillbrookWest

[Makemap]

I'm running a new laptop with GTX1050ti. All on low settings lag free(same setup as my old graphic card). When I'm in Orb of Vallis there is a problem when coming out of a cave after entering. The snow turns super bright for no exact reason. I think that was the same bug I had when I was running 7660G graphics which is not fixed. Something is seriously wrong with Orb of Vallis graphic and optimization. Cetus have not yet tried yet. Come to realize, last time I was on Cetus. Heavy Napalm fire effect stays for a freaking long time which caused massive lag.I think Napalm effect last longer than planet node napalms. Yes, DE needs to update the system requirements for graphic cards. Heck they may have even abandon Directx10 all together because all the new graphic cards like the one I'm using is Directx 12.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Makemap

[sam686]

4 hours ago, Makemap said:

When I'm in Orb of Vallis there is a problem when coming out of a cave after entering. The snow turns super bright for no exact reason.

Bugs. This happenes to others, that only happens with dynamic exposure is off or high dynamic range off. Bug appears limited to start bounty and then enter Orb Vallis. High dynamic range on is needed for dynamic exposure to work. It is ok to have bloom off, glare off.

 

[Szszymon14]

Well, looks like the minimum requirements might be fine. But in my over 10-year old gaming career I've never stumbled about the performance problem which would result from the pagefile limit.

On 2019-03-06 at 5:01 PM, sam686 said:

Missing Swapfile requirements: Appears to require 12 GB or more swap file, more if using 4 or 8 GB graphics card. Windows default system managed swap doesn't work when there is less then 4 GB of free space on C drive.

 

J

So thereotically it's not a hardware problem, but software problem, lol. Alright, I think it's time to close this thread. I might still suggest increasing minimum specs in another forum section though. I don't think that any of the forementioned minimum processors can run Orb Vallis without a slideshow effect.