| 153 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
9/02/12 8:03:09 PM#101
I'm running with Windows 7, intel core i5, 6GB ram, and intel integrated graphics... and I even get 20 FPS. I'm just happy it runs at all.... I really need a new rig
|
|
|
TheScavenger
Elite Member
Joined: 7/05/12
Those who ask a question, are stupid for 30 seconds. Those who never ask, are stupid for life. |
9/02/12 8:04:17 PM#102
my fps sucks, and lowering resolution to the lowest doesn't change it at all. In fact, I lose 2-3 fps at the lowest resolution. So I keep it at my native resolution (1920x1080). I actually don't gain any FPS on the high performance setting, or if I do it is only 3-4, maybe 5 at most.
Everything on, except reflections are completely turned off. NO other setting gained/lost nearly as much FPS as turning off reflections. I lose around 20 fps with reflections (even if it is just sky/terrain) turned on. About same amount with all reflections on.
I get 30-35 fps outside, 40-50 in interiors. It is playable, but nowhere near 60. I also have the latest Nvidia drivers. And no setting except turning off reflections, gains me any FPS at all...and if it does, its too little to matter. So I just have everything maxed out.
System specs
Geforce 260GTX 896MB Windows 7 64bit 8gig DDR3 ram i7 CPU 3.4 GHz
Dunno why the game has so little fps for me. And in some cases, turning down graphics details (like resolution) just makes me lose FPS...
In any case, the game is playable at 30+ FPS. Never drops below that. Though haven't tried world vs world out. (edit: And 1680x1050, the next res below my native...drops my FPS too. Same amount as all the others lower than my native res. Windowed mode drops my fps by around 5. Windowed fullscreen doesn't drop my fps, but doesn't raise it either)
Current MMOs: Defiance, Guild Wars 2, TERA, SWTOR |
|
9/02/12 8:06:18 PM#103
I get between 60-92ish depending on the area very rarely below. I've occasionally gone down to like 45 in Lions Arch, though.
|
|
|
9/02/12 8:12:00 PM#104
Everything pve works fine for me. On the other hand WVW is a sick embrasssment and I am amazed it doesn't run better (talking top end systems have issues). |
|
|
9/02/12 8:22:53 PM#105
60+ fps even in intense situations, maxxed options, gtx560ti (sli), amd 1100t be, no overclocking. Not a too expensive setup at all, pretty budget. Also have an asus G75 laptop that runs it a above medium settings, and never dips below 60. Pretty damn smooth game, on both pc's I had to put vsync on because of all the tearing.
|
|
|
9/02/12 9:05:27 PM#106
I got i5-2500k , 8gb ram, gf570 and win7 64bit i got evrything in game on max or almost ( i do not got supersample but native ) and even in intensive situations like DEs zerg i got over 100fps, only in WvW i got "steady"25fps but i know they are working on it.
|
|
|
9/03/12 12:56:05 AM#107
Tom's Hardware has a whole section on GW2 benchmarks. It seems the AMD processors just don't run the game as well as their Intel counterparts. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html |
|
|
9/03/12 1:01:39 AM#108
I run it at 60+, everything maxed out besides shadows (and the reason is that I dont see the point of that, I could probably max those as well). AMD Phenomenah II 3,2ghz x6. 8 Gb Ram & 480 GTX. Win 7 64 bits If I were OP I would consider reinstalling windows, I think he have a lot of background crap clogging up his system. You can insrease your PCs gaming power a lot by just cleaning it up and see that it doesnt run any none essiential program in the background. And that is me trying to be helpful, not complaining on OP. |
|
|
9/03/12 1:32:32 AM#109
I5-760 with Nvidia-460 here. Runs fine with 1920x 1080 all max. No complaints. :) Wonder why there seems to be more haters on the internet? Read this by an actual marketing guy to find out why. |
|
|
sargey123
Novice Member
Joined: 7/23/12
"The sacrifice of hiding in the light is living with your shadows." |
9/03/12 2:56:06 AM#110
I bought completly new PC I5 3570k 3.4 Ghz, 8 GB RAM Corsair Venegeance Blue Asus Geforce 560 Ti and yea game works on 30-60 fps on max setting s; |
|
9/03/12 3:06:54 AM#111
A Q9400 and a 5850 are enough to run the game on high-higher settings without any kind of fps drop. I just had to tweak my view distance a bit so in large outdoor areas my GPU could handle the load. Block the trolls, don't answer them, so we can remove the garbage from these forums |
|
|
9/03/12 3:13:35 AM#112
I7 2600k nVidia GTX580 8GB ram SSD intel 510 120gb game run on 1920*1080 with max details smooth on 60 fps ( i set limiter to 60fps )
|
|
|
9/03/12 3:16:56 AM#113
I get around 30-40 FPS on my netbook by turning shadows and post processing off, but keeping high textures and some other nice stuff, but playing in 1366x768 resolution which helps a lot. On my desktop, running at 1080p - 60fps with everything maxed on one 570 and a stock processor. Honestly, this game has the same system requirements as WoW, an 8 year old game. Don't use a calculator to run it of course, but you don't need good hardware. It requires the least hardware of any MMO published in the last 5 years.
|
|
|
kadepsyson
Hard Core Member
Joined: 5/15/06
The doctors say his chances are 50/50...but there's only a 10% chance of that. |
9/03/12 3:17:34 AM#114
40-80 FPS depending on if i'm in a battle or whatnot.
7680 x 1600 resolution. El Psy Congroo |
|
9/03/12 3:33:18 AM#115
Originally posted by TheScavenger Have you tried the latest Nvidia beta drivers? They seems to give a 20% boost to many people. |
|
|
CujoSWAoA
Novice Member
Joined: 10/27/04
"Pablo Picasso said art is a lie that tells the truth." |
9/03/12 3:34:12 AM#116
Game runs smooth as ice for me.
|
|
9/03/12 4:13:25 AM#117
Originally posted by Loke666
Those drivers made the game alittle choppier for me so i reverted to .79 ones. If it's not broken, you are not innovating. |
|
|
9/03/12 4:19:38 AM#118
Originally posted by Torgrim I got a slight improvement myself, but for many with Nvidia 200 cards have gotten a lot better performance. Since they are beta drivers they are somewhat unreliable though. Still, always worth a try for anyone with bad performance and a Nvidia card. |
|
|
9/03/12 5:39:33 AM#119
I get well over 60 fps but I have things set variously on high/med/low or off. I just turned things down and decided what would give me nice graphics and decent fps. If the game is ugly and you are getting bad fps, you might want to take into consideration some of the advice on here to upgrade your computer. It's probably not going to help that I post my specs cause I have what I consider a mid range gaming pc. AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz AMD Radeon HD 6850 4 Gig ram I haven't done any upgrades to it (other than driver updates). At the point it gets to where I have issues with running games, I'll add more memory. I've heard people saying AMD processors have more problems running the game but I haven't had that issue. Maybe because it's 6 core? I dunno. |
|
|
9/03/12 6:13:02 AM#120
first generation i7. mobile radeon HD 5870. ~25 fps in divinity reach, ~50 fps in uncrowded queensdale. Most settings on high, and most settings don't really affect the framerate noticable, except for shaders (set on high) and render sampling (set on native). Even changing resolution does not seem to affect the fps much. It's the same on 1680/1050, 1920/1080, 1920/1200. I have capped the fps at 30 now to avoid the laptop going into highest cooling mode. I'm a bit disappointed at framerates in cities and crouwded areas. And the only way to get noticable better performance is by lowering shaders to low. Changing the render sampling is no option, because that makes the game look absurdly ugly like in the OPs screenshot.
I also have a desktop with the same specs (only in name of course). I have not seen the framerate drop below 50fps here even when I set render sampling to highest. My newest computer with a 2e generation i7 and an HD 6850 also manages to stay above 50fps, unless I increase render sampling beyond native. Wich makes sense since the 6850 is slightly weaker than the 5870. The better i7 processor obviously is no help there. |
|