Originally posted by thekid1

Originally posted by spacebot
I'm so glad I bought an i5 instead of an amd back when I built my current machine. Sure it was more expensive. But it clearly was better too.

But if you spend the same money on an AMD processor wouldn't the game run just as fast or even faster?

Intel is expensive and they change sockets every two weeks, that's why I stick to AMD.

That's my feeling, too.  I went the Intel route with my last machine, a P4 3.0 HT.  They dumped the socket soon after and the best upgrade I could get was a 3.4 .  Seemed, at least then, they were abandoning sockets like they had cooties or something.

WIth AMD, they're still making AM3 Phenoms.  My system is 3+ years old and I can go from 2.5x4 to 3.4x4 for a little over a hundred bucks.

Originally posted by calranthe

Originally posted by thekid1

Originally posted by spacebot
I'm so glad I bought an i5 instead of an amd back when I built my current machine. Sure it was more expensive. But it clearly was better too.

But if you spend the same money on an AMD processor wouldn't the game run just as fast or even faster?

Intel is expensive and they change sockets every two weeks, that's why I stick to AMD.

Intel is not that expensive, I upgraded all the house pcs to intel I5 early this year I2500k's they really kick ass.

Even tested against my friends more expensive AMD based pc it kicks ass

The cheapest i5 processor is €150!

And that's for a so called "midrange" processor. I never pay over €100 for a processor.

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by thekid1

Originally posted by spacebot
I'm so glad I bought an i5 instead of an amd back when I built my current machine. Sure it was more expensive. But it clearly was better too.

But if you spend the same money on an AMD processor wouldn't the game run just as fast or even faster?

Intel is expensive and they change sockets every two weeks, that's why I stick to AMD.

That's my feeling, too.  I went the Intel route with my last machine, a P4 3.0 HT.  They dumped the socket soon after and the best upgrade I could get was a 3.4 .  Seemed, at least then, they were abandoning sockets like they had cooties or something.

WIth AMD, they're still making AM3 Phenoms.  My system is 3+ years old and I can go from 2.5x4 to 3.4x4 for a little over a hundred bucks.

Yep. my motherboard can take 5 year old processors but also the newest. Perfect for upgrading.

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by alilsneaky

Originally posted by Robsolf

 

That's wierd... it's been the smoothest running game I've played in recent history.

I'm running a 9850 (2.5x4) at stock clock

8 gigs at 800 mhz

ATI  5770  OC'd quite a bit, can't remember the numbers, though.

1080P all settings cranked, but no AA

I'm getting solid FPS; wouldn't be surprised if it never dipped below 15, and hovers +30.

 

What the what?

So under 30 fps (as low as 15 holy cow) is smooth to you?

 

Thank god you added some numbers to your statement.

In really crowded places, I'll take occasional 15 fps dips in 1080P full settings on a 3 year old rig.

My point isn't that my machine pwns, and I wasn't aware that this was a pissing contest.  My point is that GW2 runs smoother on my machine than many other games.  I'm not seeing performance dive bomb that others have experienced.  At all.

I have a 3 core Phenom II myself, what are you on about saying 'pissing contest'

I was looking for performance info for my cpu and  your claim that it runs smoothly on a lower end cpu than mine is a load of horseshit given the numbers you have supplied.

15 fps is not smooth, a minimum fps of 30 is considered smooth enough (ideally you don't want to dip that low for a game to feel really smooth) and it certainly does not take a jesus pc to get that in the vast majority of games.

15 fps IS a performance divebomb, if I experienced it on my 3.5 year old 100 euro cpu and 70 euro mobo and my 150 euro 1 year old gpu (see all reasonably priced budget midrange parts)in games then I'd upgrade.

Point is: your statement of it being 'really smooth' is highly misleading (what hyperbole to pretend 15 fps is really smooth) and without the performance numbers added everyone with a similar cpu to yours would have been very dissapointed had they bought the game based on your advice only to find out it runs like shit.

I know standards for everything are really low in mmo babby land but this takes the cake.

Originally posted by alilsneaky

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by alilsneaky

Originally posted by Robsolf

 

That's wierd... it's been the smoothest running game I've played in recent history.

I'm running a 9850 (2.5x4) at stock clock

8 gigs at 800 mhz

ATI  5770  OC'd quite a bit, can't remember the numbers, though.

1080P all settings cranked, but no AA

I'm getting solid FPS; wouldn't be surprised if it never dipped below 15, and hovers +30.

 

What the what?

So under 30 fps (as low as 15 holy cow) is smooth to you?

 

Thank god you added some numbers to your statement.

In really crowded places, I'll take occasional 15 fps dips in 1080P full settings on a 3 year old rig.

My point isn't that my machine pwns, and I wasn't aware that this was a pissing contest.  My point is that GW2 runs smoother on my machine than many other games.  I'm not seeing performance dive bomb that others have experienced.  At all.

I have a 3 core Phenom II myself, what are you on about saying 'pissing contest'

I was looking for performance info for my cpu and  your claim that it runs smoothly on a lower end cpu than mine is a load of horseshit given the numbers you have supplied.

I didn't come here to give you performance info, I came here to respond to the Badspock's OP.

 

15 fps IS a performance divebomb, if I experienced it on my 3.5 year old 100 euro cpu and 70 euro mobo and my 150 euro 1 year old gpu (see all reasonably priced budget midrange parts)in games then I'd upgrade.

 

Point is: your statement of it being 'really smooth' is highly misleading (what hyperbole to pretend 15 fps is really smooth) and without the performance numbers added everyone with a similar cpu to yours would have been very dissapointed had they bought the game based on your advice only to find out it runs like shit.

Dude.  Look at what I said again.  Since YOU underlined it, I'd have thought you knew what it said.  GW2, "the smoothest running game I've played in recent history".   That means that other games I've played have bigger dropouts and/or lower average FPS rates.  I gave TSW as an example for both issues.

I see no issue regarding GW2 running any worse than other games, and have seen quite the opposite.  That, again, was my point.  I get over 30 FPS thoughout most of the game(aka 30-62 FPS, the threshhold of "smoothness") and it sometimes drops below that in crowded areas.

In comparison, Stangard in LotRO can nearly turn into a slideshow.

 I know standards for everything are really low in mmo babby land but this takes the cake.

I applied the same standard to GW2 as I have other games; the standard being: how it performs on my machine.

Originally posted by alilsneaky

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by alilsneaky

Originally posted by Robsolf

 

That's wierd... it's been the smoothest running game I've played in recent history.

I'm running a 9850 (2.5x4) at stock clock

8 gigs at 800 mhz

ATI  5770  OC'd quite a bit, can't remember the numbers, though.

1080P all settings cranked, but no AA

I'm getting solid FPS; wouldn't be surprised if it never dipped below 15, and hovers +30.

 

What the what?

So under 30 fps (as low as 15 holy cow) is smooth to you?

 

Thank god you added some numbers to your statement.

In really crowded places, I'll take occasional 15 fps dips in 1080P full settings on a 3 year old rig.

My point isn't that my machine pwns, and I wasn't aware that this was a pissing contest.  My point is that GW2 runs smoother on my machine than many other games.  I'm not seeing performance dive bomb that others have experienced.  At all.

I have a 3 core Phenom II myself, what are you on about saying 'pissing contest'

I was looking for performance info for my cpu and  your claim that it runs smoothly on a lower end cpu than mine is a load of horseshit given the numbers you have supplied.

 

15 fps is not smooth, a minimum fps of 30 is considered smooth enough (ideally you don't want to dip that low for a game to feel really smooth) and it certainly does not take a jesus pc to get that in the vast majority of games.

15 fps IS a performance divebomb, if I experienced it on my 3.5 year old 100 euro cpu and 70 euro mobo and my 150 euro 1 year old gpu (see all reasonably priced budget midrange parts)in games then I'd upgrade.

 

Point is: your statement of it being 'really smooth' is highly misleading (what hyperbole to pretend 15 fps is really smooth) and without the performance numbers added everyone with a similar cpu to yours would have been very dissapointed had they bought the game based on your advice only to find out it runs like shit.

 

I know standards for everything are really low in mmo babby land but this takes the cake.

What is considered smooth is largely a matter of opinion. He thinks that staying around 30 FPS, and dipping to 15 FPS in a crowded area is smooth. You do not. It is an opinion. You do not have to agree with it.  The comments of one person should also not be enough evidence for someone with a similar CPU to go out and buy the game. If you dont like "mmo baby land" why are you even on these forums?

AMD Phenom IIx6 1100t Black (4.0 OC'd), AMD HD6970 2gig, 16gb Ram, 120g SSD+ 2tb HDDx2, Win7 Pro.

GW2 60fps Lock with Vsync on all the time except in massive WvWvW zerg where i can see a drop to 40-45.

Originally posted by BadSpock

My performance in game reflects this from Tom's 100%

Seriously making me consider going out and buying a new board and SB i5.

My system runs the game "OK" but I'm honestly at medium on a fair amount of stuff to keep 30-40+ FPS at 1080p.

This is with 8gb Kingston RAM, HD 6870 OC'd and PhenomII x4 OC'd to 4.0ghz!

Very sad.

Yep, unfortunately that's really quite bad for your system, you should be cranking 60+ all the time.

I'd written this in another thread as well and IIRC there was some doubt about it... So I've been watching my FPS more closely since the headstart.

I have an i5 750 and an ATI 8850, both on factory clock (that'd be just 2.66 on the i750) and 6GB RAM. And I'm getting constant 40+ FPS on the "Best Appearance" setting. It fluctuates between 40 and 70 and it's usually 50+ rather than 40+; and it seldom dips below 40. Mind, this is only PVE - the open world and cities - as I haven't been able to step into WvWvW.

The game performs much better than I expected. I can even go for the hardest jump puzzles on "Best Appearance" setting, what more could I ask for? :) 

P.S.: I have V-Sync off, though.

Yeah I'm a bit disappointed by this as well. My computer is able to play every other game on full quality, but GW2 has a hard time in some places. It has to be the CPU because my graphics card is an absolute beast...

Oh well. I suppose it is about time to upgrade again anyway!

Originally posted by BadSpock

My performance in game reflects this from Tom's 100%

Seriously making me consider going out and buying a new board and SB i5.

My system runs the game "OK" but I'm honestly at medium on a fair amount of stuff to keep 30-40+ FPS at 1080p.

This is with 8gb Kingston RAM, HD 6870 OC'd and PhenomII x4 OC'd to 4.0ghz!

Very sad.

Don't see Phenom CPU's there, only the newer FX series. AFAIK the FX series is a 'lesser' than the Phenom. If they're equaly in performance and I look at the 6-core FX compared to my Phenom X6 1090T (non OC'd), I think my performance is better (might be due to GTX460 SLI instead of an ATi card).

That isn't a broad Intel versus AMD comparison.  It's only a Sandy Bridge versus Llano and Bulldozer comparison.  Bulldozer is a broken mess, and Llano is a laptop chip, so they aren't going to hold up well against Sandy Bridge in other games, either, but will probably tend to do at least somewhat better than in GW2.

I'd be interested in seeing how other architectures compare.  Due to architectural similarities, you can largely guess Ivy Bridge from Sandy Bridge, just by adding 5% or so.  Athlon II and Phenom II are both fairly similar to Llano, and you could typically subtract 5% or add 5%, respectively, though there can be considerable variation based on how much use it gets out of L2 or L3 cache.

But Sandy Bridge results don't necessarily tell you that much about older Lynnfield and Clarkdale processors.  Will those crush a Phenom II, too?  How about if we go back further to a Core 2 Duo/Quad?

It also doesn't tell you anything about relative performance on Bobcat or Atom cores, though given how processor-heavy the game is, it's a pretty safe bet that it's unplayable on both.  That's a shame, as GW1 ran very well on an AMD E-350.

But it is starting to look like GW2 has a rather bad case of badly-coded syndrome.  If an FX-8150 or a Phenom II X6 1100T can't really run the game that well even at minimum settings, the problem isn't the processors.  The problem is the game.

Originally posted by Calerxes

 

Thats a terrible frame rate with AA off you should always be above 30fps for a smooth ride.

Anti-aliasing puts essentially no load on the processor whatsoever.  In some cases, it's as simple as the processor telling the video card to turn on anti-aliasing, and then never touching it again.  That's why you can often force anti-aliasing through video drivers.  FXAA post-processing is a little more involved than that, but the added processor load amounts to a rounding error.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Calerxes

 

Thats a terrible frame rate with AA off you should always be above 30fps for a smooth ride.

Anti-aliasing puts essentially no load on the processor whatsoever.  In some cases, it's as simple as the processor telling the video card to turn on anti-aliasing, and then never touching it again.  That's why you can often force anti-aliasing through video drivers.  FXAA post-processing is a little more involved than that, but the added processor load amounts to a rounding error.

Yep... I suspect that my bottleneck is about 65% GPU  (ATI 5770), 35% CPU  (Phenom 9850 BE 2.5x4).

I'll probably upgrade both in the near future(the 965: 3.4x4), but now I'm a little worried to, seeing as how the problem seems to be hit and miss with the AMD chips.

Originally posted by BadSpock

The good folks at Tom's Hardware put GW2 through it's paces - how do things stack up?

On the graphics card end, plenty of great options from both Nvidia and AMD that run the game very well.

But on the processor side - Intel (especially Sandy Bridge) just dominate.

Makes Phenom II owners like myself very, very sad.

Hopefully Anet patches in some better optimization for AMD CPU's!

Read up:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

My computer runs it fine maxed out even though I have a Phenomenah 2 (x6). A good graphics card is a lot more useful than a good CPU while you game.

I have a Nvidia 480 GTX BTW, a bit old but still pretty good as long as you have enough airflow.

But it was a good idea to post it for people who plan to upgrade for GW2. Then again, this might just be some optimization issue that might get fixed any day, the game isnt even really releasing until tomorrow so I wouldnt worry too much if you have a AMD.

A FX-8000 behind a Pentium DC?

what madness is this? 

Thing about "review" sites, they get paid on advertising revenue. Intel is allowed to give websites incentives to bump their products to the top, they just can't give rebates to pc buildiers like Dell, HP ect.

I have a first gen quad from AMD and I was getting 50 fps.

This review was based on performance during a BWE event prior to most of the newer optimizations.

As such, you need to take the review with a grain (or two) of salt.