Make it more Low PC friendly

[LotLP]

I have a 3770K at 4.5 jiggaherz, and 16 gigs of ram. Also a 580 that I overclocked the balls out of. Haven't tried overlaying my FPS yet, but I'm doing really well in terms of smoothness.

My friend, however. He has a GT620. A 620.

He plays this without a problem.

EDIT: Alright, 150 fps average. Dayum.

Edited January 10, 2013 by LotLP

[Kurtino]

I've never played a f2p that looked so good with such a smooth frame rate, these guys clearly know what they're doing with the optimisation.

Please whatever you do don't messup what's good at the moment by compensating for lower computers. If it's going to decrease performance anywhere else don't do it.

[ACRONYNJA]

Right now it's not even high-end PC friendly when you turn on APEX. I usually run my games at 1440p, but at 1080p my system experiences lots of frame drops below 60 fps. The biggest problem is that there's no proper SLI implementation just yet. But I did try out the game in 1440p downsampled to 1080p and it was pretty amazing. Visually this game just owns.

[Slodin]

your spec is too low....

this game isn't even that demanding...

my old machine can easily handle this game...

although now im running a i7...

[Cogrock]

I'm playing this with 60 FPS constant on a junky old E8400 Wolfdale, 4 GB of RAM, and some old ASUS board I bought for $75, I think the game is pretty damn well optimized already. The GTX260 helps though.

Now now, don't knock the E8400 There are still A LOT of games out there and still being released that don't support more than 2 cores properly. Which is where nice high clocked E8400s become great little CPUs. They still have some life left in them.

You will likely get better performance in a lot of games than these kids who think having 4/6/8 cores means they should have better performance. But, that's not always how it works depending on what you want to perform. I bet you hands down you get better performance from your CPU in say FireFall or Planetside 2 than most of the guys with quad (or more) core systems.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Cogrock

[MegatechBody]

Now now, don't knock the E8400 There are still A LOT of games out there and still being released that don't support more than 2 cores properly. Which is where nice high clocked E8400s become great little CPUs. They still have some life left in them.

You will likely get better performance in a lot of games than these kids who think having 4/6/8 cores means they should have better performance. But, that's not always how it works depending on what you want to perform. I bet you hands down you get better performance from your CPU in say FireFall or Planetside 2 than most of the guys with quad (or more) core systems.

B-b-but MOAR COARZ!!!!!!1111eleven

Nah but just incase you didn't know if you want to see single core thread benchmarks refer to this handy dandy chart:

http://www.cpubenchm...ngleThread.html

The Intel Pentium G series looks very awesome in the "bang for your buck" sector.

Edited January 10, 2013 by MegatechBody

[ToxicDoom]

Okay this thread has been inactive for around a month although and admin has responded I can't see anything being done about this,I mean I'm a beta tester but the only thing I can test right now is the forum -.- so please can you at least tell me how far you've went with my suggestion,Thanks.

[Sealgaire]

Update 6 - "New Stompin’ Grounds"

Dynamic Lighting added to Display Options for those with older hardware.

Performance improvements for particle-heavy scenes (fire and ice).

I don't know how much more optimization you can reasonably expect at this point. The game already runs phenomenally on older hardware.

[Zakalwe]

Toxic, you can't expect modern development to cater for systems as low-end as yours, sorry. :(

If you can't affoird a gaming pc, perhaps you should invest in a console.

[DreamerNeon]

All you need for this game is a mediocre graphic card, the game runs great, I'm playing on high on my 2yo rig.

[ToxicDoom]

I don't know how much more optimization you can reasonably expect at this point. The game already runs phenomenally on older hardware.

Actually I didn't see this part from the patch designs,Sorry for my not well thought reply.

All you need for this game is a mediocre graphic card, the game runs great, I'm playing on high on my 2yo rig.

Yes,that's the point as I said in the beginning, and other player said the same,getting this parts in my country is hardly an option since those parts,even the mediocre parts aren't available.

[Aggh]

Well, while the game is pretty optimized for a beta, there's always room for improvement.

I can run it just fine on my desktop, but not really as well as I would expect from my hardware. In case you're wondering, the specs:

2x ATI HD6950 2GB

AMD Phenom x6 1090T @ 3.2GHz

4GB RAM (definitely need an upgrade there)

Windows 7 Ultimate x64

While the game performs admirably most of the time (max settings, of course,) I get some pretty wacked out framerate dips (especially in co-op games.)

It might just be my drivers, since I'm using ATI's latest beta drivers, and if that's the case then disregard my above issues.

All in all I can play it alright, but could use a bit of improvement.

However my main concern is that I can't run it well at all on my laptop. Granted it's not that good of a laptop, but it's still pretty decent and not even a year old. The specs are as follows:

GeForce GT630M 1GB

Intel Core i3-2350M @ 2.30GHz

4GB RAM

Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Now I'm pretty sure that's at least a little better than the minimum specs this game requires, yet even on the lowest possible settings and playing on 1280x720 (native resolution is 1366x768) I still hardly get over 20fps.

I just don't get why that is. It might be that god-awful nvidia Optimus garbage giving me problems, but I specifically set both of the games executables to run on my GT630M in the nvidia CP.

In case you're wondering why in the hell I would be playing games on my craptop if I have a good desktop rig, it's just that I also like to get my gaming fix when I'm not at home, and I definitely need my Warframe fix.

To sum up, the game could definitely use some more optimization, at least on the low end. A game can always use more optimization.

Most new/beta games don't have good crossfire/sli profiles. That kind of stuff is up to Nvidia/amd. Try disabling cf, a single 6950 should be plenty for this game and might be better than when cf is on.

[Cathulhu]

I realize that, it's an entry level card after all, but surely it can't be worse than the minimum spec cards. Or am I wrong?

Well, yes and no.

If you compare your 630M to a Geforce 8800GT the 630M is faster regarding pixel fill rate, but in that crucial area about shader computing power the 8800GT is a lot faster providing 504GFlops compared to your 336GFlops, which means a Geforce 630M has only 66% of the shader computing power of a six year old videocard. Warframe is pretty heavy on shaders, so it's heaviest load is where the bottleneck of your videochip is.

A Geforce 8800 is commonly used for minimum system requirements these days.

Yes, it is worse than a six year old videocard. I'd turn every setting off or down and try lower resolutions in a window mode.

[Archade]

Game runs alright on my three year old computer (E8400 @ 3.6, 3.25GB ddr2(32 bit os), HD 4850). I turned off AA and shadows but its running at my native resolution (1680x1050) and i didn't have to turn everything down. I keep meaning to build a new computer but i keep finding games i want to play that dont require it yet. So i just wait.

[DetergentPod]

You don't need high end spec to play this game well. For all of you with 4 gb ram saying you need an upgrade. You really don't 4 gb is already a decent amount.

My old PC has 4 gb DDR3 ram, i3 processor, and an intergrated graphic card and I can play league on high setting. A dual core, 4 gb of ram and a 100 dollar graphic should be enough to play this game smoothly. My new gaming PC which was build with 600 dollars (including a new case) can run anything atm on Ultra high setting. So building a new PC isn't really that expensive.

The main problem with being unable to play a game smoothly is your graphic card not being able to handle it.

Edited February 3, 2013 by ThePieBoy

[Aggh]

You don't need high end spec to play this game well. For all of you with 4 gb ram saying you need an upgrade. You really don't 4 gb is already a decent amount.

My old PC has 4 gb DDR3 ram, i3 processor, and an intergrated graphic card and I can play league on high setting. A dual core, 4 gb of ram and a 100 dollar graphic should be enough to play this game smoothly. My new gaming PC which was build with 600 dollars (including a new case) can run anything atm on Ultra high setting. So building a new PC isn't really that expensive.

The main problem with being unable to play a game smoothly is your graphic card not being able to handle it.

Lol is not a demanding game so it shouldn't be presented as any kind of bench mark for gaming. And there is no way a $600 PC could possibly run anything on ultra. There are games where you'll have to put more money in your graphics card(s) alone to max out the graphics settings.

8 gb of ram is pretty much the standard for gaming. A lot of games now a days use up ~1.5 gb of ram and 4 gb barely gives you space for your OS and background programs if you want to play a passibly demanding game. 8 gb of ram is ~$35-50 and is one of the cheapest upgrades to your computer that you can make.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Aggh

[Zakalwe]

My new gaming PC which was build with 600 dollars (including a new case) can run anything atm on Ultra high setting. So building a new PC isn't really that expensive.

"Running on Ultrra" is not the same as "getting good fps on Ultra"

For $600, you're not goning to be able to play the latest games on max with good fps, no way.

[Volume]

Lol is not a demanding game so it shouldn't be presented as any kind of bench mark for gaming. And there is no way a $600 PC could possibly run anything on ultra. There are games where you'll have to put more money in your graphics card(s) alone to max out the graphics settings.

8 gb of ram is pretty much the standard for gaming. A lot of games now a days use up ~1.5 gb of ram and 4 gb barely gives you space for your OS and background programs if you want to play a passibly demanding game. 8 gb of ram is ~$35-50 and is one of the cheapest upgrades to your computer that you can make.

"Running on Ultrra" is not the same as "getting good fps on Ultra"

For $600, you're not goning to be able to play the latest games on max with good fps, no way.

You guys have no concept.

$554.93 minus a $20 rebate, you can get FX 6300, 7850HD, cpu/ram/board/case/etc. I have the build, I could link it if need be.

That said this game is sort of playable on my laptop from like 3 or 4 years ago that has a 1.3 ghz processor (yes, really, core 2 duo SU7300) and a G210M (might be the worst dedicated laptop card ever, I think Intel HD 3000 beats it, any APU can run circles around it)

Like it actually works. Granted, 800x600 window, all lowest, but I can actually play through a mission and not completely fail.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Volume

[Zakalwe]

Sorry, Volume, but that's not going to run games like Far Cry 3 and Arkham City etc.. on Ultra with decent fps. It'll run games like that on medium to high, but not max.

Unless you don't mind 30-40 FPS, which some don't.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Zakalwe

[Aggh]

You guys have no concept.

$554.93 minus a $20 rebate, you can get FX 6300, 7850HD, cpu/ram/board/case/etc. I have the build, I could link it if need be.

That said this game is sort of playable on my laptop from like 3 or 4 years ago that has a 1.3 ghz processor (yes, really, core 2 duo SU7300) and a G210M (might be the worst dedicated laptop card ever, I think Intel HD 3000 beats it, any APU can run circles around it)

Like it actually works. Granted, 800x600 window, all lowest, but I can actually play through a mission and not completely fail.

Kay. Now max out far cry 3 or any actually demanding game. Oh wait. Not possible on that garbage cpu and a mid range gpu.

"Running on Ultrra" is not the same as "getting good fps on Ultra"

For $600, you're not goning to be able to play the latest games on max with good fps, no way.

It is to me. If you're not getting a stable 60 fps (120 if it's a 120 hz monitor) you're not running it on ultra. You're trying to run it on ultra.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Aggh

[Zakalwe]

It is to me. If you're not getting a stable 60 fps (120 if it's a 120 hz monitor) you're not running it on ultra. You're trying to run it on ultra.

You misread what I wrote there...

Look at the context...

EDIT: to clarify, I meant that if you run on ultra with low FPS, you're not truly running it on ultra. IE: I agree with you, locked fps to refresh rate is required for true maxed out graphics.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Zakalwe

[Aggh]

You misread what I wrote there...

Look at the context...

EDIT: to clarify, I meant that if you run on ultra with low FPS, you're not truly running it on ultra. IE: I agree with you, locked fps to refresh rate is required for true maxed out graphics.

I know. I was just implying that people should never say they're running a game on ultra if they're not playing it at good, stable fps :|

Ex on the Blacklight: Retribution forums, every now and then you'll see a guy claiming to be running the game at max settings with an old dual core and a HD 6770 or some other dated setup. And then it turns out they've turned off a bunch of graphically intensive settings and are getting 30-40 fps. Or the people that come into the forums whining about how their computer can handle skyrim better when in fact, it can't and there's no reason why they should be able to do the same on an equally demanding multiplayer game :|

Edited February 3, 2013 by Aggh

[Zakalwe]

I know. I was just implying that people should never say they're running a game on ultra if they're not playing it at good, stable fps :|

Which is what the part you quoted meant...

[Aggh]

Which is what the part you quoted meant...

I got what you were saying, but like I said, running on ultra is the same thing as playing on ultra with good fps imo. You're trying to run it on ultra if it isn't at a good fps, and you shouldn't be saying that you play the game on ultra if you aren't getting good fps :|

[DetergentPod]

For all of you saying that my PC can't run everything on Ultra high with good FPS you're wrong. I played Far cry 3 on Ultra with max FPS and no lag at all. My graphic card is a GTX660, Hex Core AMD processor, 8gb of ram. I even run AC3 on Max setting and max FPS. It only cost me 600 dollars to build this PC. The only thing I didn't buy was a hard drive and disc drive which i took apart from my old pc.

Edit: When people say I can run a game on Ultra or High setting. The message I get is you can turn all your setting to high and ultra and still get a smooth gameplay without any form of lag except ping lag if your internet is bad or server is too far away.

Edited February 3, 2013 by ThePieBoy