Codesco Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Can this run warframe at 60fps at high settings? http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MwhJYJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 -Amaterasu- Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Codesco Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor No In benchmarks it does better than an AMD Fx-6300, but that isnt saying much. Did you do research or did you just look at "Dual-Core"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 -Amaterasu- Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I looked at the I3 part I have a quad core I7 and still don't run this game at a perfect 60 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Codesco Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Cores and the name dont equal performance all the time, yes a 6700k will run better than this because its in the same generation. What generation processor do you have? If you arent sure tell me the name of it. a skylake i3 can beat a haswell/haswell refresh i5 sometimes. Also the games performance isnt all based on the processor, mostly the GPU, Edited February 2, 2016 by Codesco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 [DE]Grzegorz Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) I looked at the I3 part I have a quad core I7 and still don't run this game at a perfect 60 There's like 6 generations of these things... My 2500K coupled with 970 does just fine on high-ish details, keeping over 100FPS most of the time. Though there are certain tiles where my performance just plummets for whatever reason. Edited February 2, 2016 by Mofixil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 InoxMaximus Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Cores and the name dont equal performance all the time, yes a 6700k will run better than this because its in the same generation. What generation processor do you have? If you arent sure tell me the name of it. a skylake i3 can beat a haswell/haswell refresh i5 sometimes. Also the games performance isnt all based on the processor, mostly the GPU, is an Intel Core i7 950 any good ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Codesco Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 is an Intel Core i7 950 any good ? Decentish, a AMD Fx-6300 (A crappy gaming cpu that goes for about $100) beats it in almost all categories. Also a Intel i5 4460 beats it also but the 4460 is also a different generation. There's like 6 generations of these things... My 2500K coupled with 970 does just fine on high-ish details, keeping over 100FPS most of the time. Though there are certain tiles where my performance just plummets for whatever reason. Alright, I was going in beetween a 950 or a 380 (Equivalent to a 960) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Tali Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 you would be better of with Intel Core i5 or you could take a i7, but an i5 would do fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Codesco Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 you would be better of with Intel Core i5 or you could take a i7, but an i5 would do fine. In the same gen yes, bu my budget wont allow it sadly :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 -Amaterasu- Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Cores and the name dont equal performance all the time, yes a 6700k will run better than this because its in the same generation. What generation processor do you have? If you arent sure tell me the name of it. a skylake i3 can beat a haswell/haswell refresh i5 sometimes. Also the games performance isnt all based on the processor, mostly the GPU, This is the one I have http://ark.intel.com/products/80807/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_40-GHz Not saying it won't run it well just saying don't expect a perfect 60 on high settings Edited February 2, 2016 by -Amaterasu- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 dadaddadada Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 In benchmarks it does better than an AMD Fx-6300, but that isnt saying much. Did you do research or did you just look at "Dual-Core"? The i3 has hyperthreading to 4 threads and a respectable 3.7 ghz, which should be just fine for warframe. From what i can tell from previous testing, in scenarios with very very big numbers of enemies and effects flying around, warframe benefits from fast cores more than many cores due to a peculiar CPU bottleneck that causes the main rendering thread to max out at 100% (i think its driver overhead), causing framerate to fall even if the average cpu usage and gpu usages are not even close to max. I would still suggest to invest in a processor with 4 physical cpus. If no hyperthreading or overclocking are available due to budget, make sure those 4 cores are clocked as high as possible. Not to mention if DE fixes that to allow better distribution or they decide to support dx12, possibly in that case having more physical cores can have advantages. That HDD is a good choice, but i would suggest adding a very small ssd (120gb even less) for the OS and some programs you use often. Experience only from that factor can increase drastically when it comes to loading times and live streaming of contents into memory avoiding stalls that can happen in any game, warframe included. This is the one I have http://ark.intel.com/products/80807/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_40-GHz Not saying it won't run it well just saying don't expect a perfect 60 on high settings Just a question. When you get dips what's the usage on your gpu? do dips happen even at low graphics settings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Urlan Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Not on higher settings but the graphics card so far is the biggest concern for Warframe. You will still get stable fps at medium settings or with some but not all of the graphic settings turned on at normal resolutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 -Amaterasu- Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Just a question. When you get dips what's the usage on your gpu? do dips happen even at low graphics settings? Only ever play on high graphics if I lower them I have no problem with High FPS although when it does drop there is usually a large ammount of explosions going or things of that general nature although I have a feeling I may just need to update my graphics drivers CPU Runs between 33 and 50% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 dadaddadada Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Only ever play on high graphics if I lower them I have no problem with High FPS although when it does drop there is usually a large ammount of explosions going or things of that general nature although I have a feeling I may just need to update my graphics drivers CPU Runs between 33 and 50% Interesting. If you mind, could you please run this test: - graphics options to minimum, possibly lowering screen resolution too - make sure no vsync nor framerate caps are active - get in a VERY busy relay - then check your gpu usage and your average framerate via whatever tool you like (ex msi afterburner) The idea is to exclude any graphics bottleneck to check if pure cpu usage can dip your framerate below whatever you feel acceptable. Myself i did run tests for an i5 and in relays with baro framerate could go to like 40 and gpu usage staying at no more than 30%. Edited February 2, 2016 by dadaddadada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Rydian Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) I looked at the I3 part I have a quad core I7 and still don't run this game at a perfect 60 Sounds like you need a better video card, 'cause my i5 runs everything maxed at 1080p fine. In fact I just tested and I'm generally getting 120-170 FPS depending on the tile I'm in. The i7s are not explicitly more powerful for gaming. Their main difference is hyperthreading, and I can't think of a single game off the top of my head that gets a tangible benefit out of that. And of course, CPU isn't everything to begin with, gotta' have a nice GPU to back it up which is where a lot of differences come in. EDIT: Whoops, forgot specs. i5-6500, GTX 970. Edited February 2, 2016 by Rydian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 FreshNinja007 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Can this run warframe at 60fps at high settings? http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MwhJYJ Yes it can. I'm using an AMD Phenom II Quad-Core 840 with Nvidia GTX 560 Ti. 60+ FPS fully maxed with zero issues other than the usual 'recent hotfixes caused performance drops for everyone on certain situtations' issue. That system is fine, despite everyone else telling you to spend more money. I've actually created a much better system recommendation here. I had to gimp on a few things but not sacrifice the important core components (power supply, CPU, GPU). The RAM can be easily swapped out to better stuff once your budget allows for it if you feel you need it. I kept it within your budget of ~$600 USD. You should use DDR3 memory instead of DDR4 memory. That CPU isn't capable of utilizing DDR4 memory yet. Only the new 'Skylake' Intel CPUs that haven't even been released yet are going to fully utilize it. Better to just get more DDR3 memory instead for the same or cheaper price. Despite what people tell you, 'future proofing' is a myth and a lie to get people to spend more money on components that will be obsoleted at a slightly slower rate than stuff that is significantly cheaper. For your budget -SSD is optional and too expensive still compared to traditional hard drives; it usually isn't a bottleneck in the vast majority of games. -DDR4 is a waste of money. Stick with DDR3 until you get the budget to later upgrade to the new-stuff Intel Skylake CPUs and be willing to pony up the hundreds of dollars when it is released (about the cost of your entire system just for the CPU). If your system can't fully utilize the benefits of DDR4 then just wait on it. -Power supply is important and crucial. A low-quality power supply will detrimentally affect your system and cause major issues later on down the line. This is not something that you want to skimp money on. -Upgraded from i3 to an i5 with a better clock. Despite that ~200 Mhz difference, that ends up being 'boost' clock which requires fiddling in BIOS settings to use ALL the time. You'll also be limited by that dual-core architecture rather than a good quad-core architecture. Hyperthreading isn't needed and will only be USELESS for gaming (or provide no benefit). -If you can reuse an existing case and/or hard drive, then you can cut those costs out of my recommended build and save a bit more money. The i3 has hyperthreading to 4 threads and a respectable 3.7 ghz, which should be just fine for warframe. From what i can tell from previous testing, in scenarios with very very big numbers of enemies and effects flying around, warframe benefits from fast cores more than many cores due to a peculiar CPU bottleneck that causes the main rendering thread to max out at 100% (i think its driver overhead), causing framerate to fall even if the average cpu usage and gpu usages are not even close to max. I would still suggest to invest in a processor with 4 physical cpus. If no hyperthreading or overclocking are available due to budget, make sure those 4 cores are clocked as high as possible. Not to mention if DE fixes that to allow better distribution or they decide to support dx12, possibly in that case having more physical cores can have advantages. That HDD is a good choice, but i would suggest adding a very small ssd (120gb even less) for the OS and some programs you use often. Experience only from that factor can increase drastically when it comes to loading times and live streaming of contents into memory avoiding stalls that can happen in any game, warframe included. An SSD is not required for most games. It HELPS somewhat but it isn't required. The overwhelming majority of bottlenecks tend to happen at the CPU and/or GPU parts of gaming. The new generation of SSDs is coming out in a few months and it would be wise to hold off until then. Hyperthreading is useless for gaming. Hyperthreading is useless for gaming. Hyperthreading is USELESS for gaming. It seems Intel's PR and marketing have even misinformed otherwise reasonable people into believing otherwise. WarFrame's multi-threaded rendering options are limited and strong single/primary CPU core experience is favorable for optimal performance in WarFrame and most other MMO games. DirectX 12 is not going to be some magic bullet that fixes all the problems. It'll always come down to developer/driver support and optimization. Considering how DX10/11 was supposed to make everything perfect, it hasn't always come down to that and it varies from game to game and developer to developer. Sounds like you need a better video card, 'cause my i5 runs everything maxed at 1080p fine. In fact I just tested and I'm generally getting 120-170 FPS depending on the tile I'm in. The i7s are not explicitly more powerful for gaming. Their main difference is hyperthreading, and I can't think of a single game off the top of my head that gets a tangible benefit out of that. And of course, CPU isn't everything to begin with, gotta' have a nice GPU to back it up which is where a lot of differences come in. EDIT: Whoops, forgot specs. i5-6500, GTX 970. I'm on a GTX 560Ti and my GPU barely hits close to 99% utilization even when fully maxed out in settings. I'm fairly certain that this game (like most) will come down to a CPU bottleneck. The GTX 970s have their own host of major issues stemming from any games that require utilization of on-board GPU RAM beyond the 3.5GB barrier. I'm still amazed that people are still using these terrible video cards instead of demanding a refund (and possibly joining in one of many ongoing class-action lawsuits against Nvidia for false advertising). My next system build is going to be Intel Skylake and AMD's new hotness (when it is released), but that's just me. Edited February 2, 2016 by FreshNinja007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 dadaddadada Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 An SSD is not required for most games. It HELPS somewhat but it isn't required. The overwhelming majority of bottlenecks tend to happen at the CPU and/or GPU parts of gaming. The new generation of SSDs is coming out in a few months and it would be wise to hold off until then. Hyperthreading is useless for gaming. Hyperthreading is useless for gaming. Hyperthreading is USELESS for gaming. It seems Intel's PR and marketing have even misinformed otherwise reasonable people into believing otherwise. WarFrame's multi-threaded rendering options are limited and strong single/primary CPU core experience is favorable for optimal performance in WarFrame and most other MMO games. DirectX 12 is not going to be some magic bullet that fixes all the problems. It'll always come down to developer/driver support and optimization. Considering how DX10/11 was supposed to make everything perfect, it hasn't always come down to that and it varies from game to game and developer to developer. I'm not sure if you are talking in general or to me in particular. I stated how ssd can benefit in the case of a videogame. Loading times and streaming (if used), nothing less nothing more. A suggestion. Obviously cpu and gpu are the worst offenders, cmon. Hyperthreading is arguably useless for gaming if you have a quad core threading to 8 or 6-core threading to 12. But a dual core threading to 4 can make the difference between 'the game kinda working' and 'suffering massive freezes' (as i personally enjoyed in the past). In all cases, 4 physical cores is definitely better than 2 and 2 threaded. Anyway, no point in making the text bold and repeating it three times like if i said that hyperthreading is fundamental and absolutely crucial to gaming or something. "WarFrame's multi-threaded rendering options are limited and strong single/primary CPU core experience is favorable for optimal performance in WarFrame and most other MMO games." Well i did in fact already say that warframe favors stronger cores instead of more cores. What are you trying to tell me with this? Was that only for stating the low amount of user options available? Dx12 is going to be a 'magic bullet' in the case of warframe because if decently implemented can potentially drastically improve cpu load distribution on multiple cores for driver commands (one of the main features of dx12 and vulkan over dx11), which at least in my tests is exactly the main issue with warframe when it comes to cpu bottlenecks in situations with a high count of enemies and tennos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 -Amaterasu- Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Sounds like you need a better video card, 'cause my i5 runs everything maxed at 1080p fine. In fact I just tested and I'm generally getting 120-170 FPS depending on the tile I'm in. Been looking into it I know my Graphics card is extremely outdated (still using the GTX 660m my computer came with) but Overclocking helps Interesting. If you mind, could you please run this test: - graphics options to minimum, possibly lowering screen resolution too - make sure no vsync nor framerate caps are active - get in a VERY busy relay - then check your gpu usage and your average framerate via whatever tool you like (ex msi afterburner) The idea is to exclude any graphics bottleneck to check if pure cpu usage can dip your framerate below whatever you feel acceptable. Myself i did run tests for an i5 and in relays with baro framerate could go to like 40 and gpu usage staying at no more than 30%. Just went into a "busy" (as busy as it's gonna get) relay and my frames were ~70 although even when baro was here they never dropped below 55 As for my GPU it was at 40% but I always have a lot of stuff running in the background so it's not all warframe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 FreshNinja007 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) I'm not sure if you are talking in general or to me in particular. I quoted your post, so I was responding directly to you. I stated how ssd can benefit in the case of a videogame. Loading times and streaming (if used), nothing less nothing more. A suggestion. Obviously cpu and gpu are the worst offenders, cmon. Your sentence was poorly structured and difficult to understand. You also made several incorrect presumptions about loading assets into RAM and how WarFrame utilizes system RAM and GPU RAM. An SSD will not help WarFrame much, especially considering the Original Poster's limited budget of ~$600 USD. A much more prominent performance increase will objectively occur with more money spent on the core components of CPU and GPU and RAM rather than an SSD. The SSD ecosystem is still vastly overpriced compared to traditional mechanical hard drives. Hyperthreading is arguably useless for gaming if you have a quad core threading to 8 or 6-core threading to 12. But a dual core threading to 4 can make the difference between 'the game kinda working' and 'suffering massive freezes' (as i personally enjoyed in the past). In all cases, 4 physical cores is definitely better than 2 and 2 threaded. Anyway, no point in making the text bold and repeating it three times like if i said that hyperthreading is fundamental and absolutely crucial to gaming or something. I repeat something so that people will stop parroting marketing terms as fact. Hyperthreading is artificial PR garbage that hurts gaming more than it helps. It is far better to look for non-gimmicky ways to improve gaming. "WarFrame's multi-threaded rendering options are limited and strong single/primary CPU core experience is favorable for optimal performance in WarFrame and most other MMO games." Well i did in fact already say that warframe favors stronger cores instead of more cores. What are you trying to tell me with this? Was that only for stating the low amount of user options available? This was stated in response to your hyperthreading blurb. HyperThreading is useless for gaming. See how that works? Do you understand it yet? HyperThreading is useless for gaming. So when you post about having more cores you should be sure to mention that HyperThreading is useless for gaming. Sometimes it requires repetition in order to get people to understand a point being made. Dx12 is going to be a 'magic bullet' in the case of warframe because if decently implemented can potentially drastically improve cpu load distribution on multiple cores for driver commands (one of the main features of dx12 and vulkan over dx11), which at least in my tests is exactly the main issue with warframe when it comes to cpu bottlenecks in situations with a high count of enemies and tennos. This is absolutely false; if you were involved in the Direct X programming ecosystem or actually knew what OpenGL/Vulkan/Kronos/etc were up to, then you'd know that the DX12 hype is not going to pan out as well as people are hoping. What DX12 games have you tested that would lead you to conclude that WarFrame would benefit from a DX12-exclusive build? The list of games is surprisingly small, so out of that list which ones have you tested? What were your testing specs and the methodology used? You have around 4-5 games total that actually have DX12 support already enabled. WarFrame and most games on the market will significantly benefit from being able to be run on as many computers as possible in order to make the most money possible by being able to be run on more than just one operating system. Your otherwise unique viewpoints would be far easier to take seriously if you weren't shilling so hard for a corporation that has shown open contempt and hostility towards their most loyal fans time and time again. Edited February 3, 2016 by FreshNinja007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Rydian Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 The GTX 970s have their own host of major issues stemming from any games that require utilization of on-board GPU RAM beyond the 3.5GB barrier. I'm still amazed that people are still using these terrible video cards instead of demanding a refund (and possibly joining in one of many ongoing class-action lawsuits against Nvidia for false advertising). Probably 'cause neither I nor anybody else I know of that has these cards knows what this issue even is. Your post is the first I've heard of this existing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 carnaga Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) Can this run warframe at 60fps at high settings? http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MwhJYJ Yes Thought this guy runs older generation of the cpu (i3-4170) and with GTX 950. Regarding benchmarks R9 380 4GB Video Card outperforms GTX 950 and is relatively close for GTX 960. And performance wise notice that he has nvidia physx enabled. While recording he gets ~5fps drop with Nvidia Share. Watch both videos @ HQ 1080p60 Video from 2015 (Max settings) Video from 1.2.2016 (same guy with same specs but @1440p) Edit: You may want to check he's other videos regarding the performance of i3 + GTX 950 such as ARK survival Evolved and FarCry 4 before doing decisions of purchasing the rig. Edited February 3, 2016 by carnaga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Codesco Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Yes Thought this guy runs older generation of the cpu (i3-4170) and with GTX 950. Regarding benchmarks R9 380 4GB Video Card outperforms GTX 950 and is relatively close for GTX 960. And performance wise notice that he has nvidia physx enabled. While recording he gets ~5fps drop with Nvidia Share. Watch both videos @ HQ 1080p60 Video from 2015 (Max settings) Video from 1.2.2016 (same guy with same specs but @1440p) I was thinking about to down grade to a 950 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 carnaga Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) I was thinking about to down grade to a 950 Not a bad decision :) you get physx and it runs great with Warframe as you saw. The performance difference is small and in some cases / benchmarks we talk about ~10-20fps difference. And depending of the situation, you get higher fps on 950 XD Edited February 3, 2016 by carnaga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Codesco Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 http://pcpartpicker.com/p/R8Njt6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 xethier Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 That'll run warframe just fine. but i'd switch to an SSD rather than an HDD. i'd find a slightly better mobo. double the ram, and get a higher wattage power supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Codesco
Can this run warframe at 60fps at high settings?
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/MwhJYJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
39 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now