62 replies to this topic

[fwip]

It's kind of funny how people try to correct DarkPulse when he obviously knows far more about it than they.

Source: BS in computer engineering, plus being a nerd for far too long.

[DarkPulse]

Crown, on December 09 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

I'm on an old AMD processor and my box runs Hawken just fine, I don't think it's an argument of the capabilities of the processor. I think you're forgetting that this isn't a game like Crysis or Far Cry 2, this game uses U3 Engine and to be honest it's not CPU or GPU intensive -at all-; therefore it's safe to assume that someone who's running a box beyond the recommended shouldn't have the kind of problems he's having. This was never a question of the clients hardware to begin with.

It's not too intensive, no. A system a few years old should have no trouble running it.

But the game definitely has a problem with most AMD rigs right now (Especially if they're older or weaker AMD CPUs) and so it needs some tuning there. The hardware the OP has, realistically, should run it in the 40-50 FPS range with everything maxed out or pretty close to it, or if he was willing to sacrifice rez he could probably get it up to the golden 60.

[fwip]

As another data point, my system is running an AMD Phenom x4 at 2.2GHz and a Radeon 4870, which are both over 4 years old now. The game is playable, but obviously not smooth. It's pretty clearly CPU-bottlenecked, too.

Edited by fwip, December 10 2012 - 10:36 AM.

[OverWolf]

Not quite sure why peeps have a problem with Pulse, here.

Hell, as a gamer (albeit I'm not nearly as avid of one as I have been in the past) I have this kind of weird pride in my rig setup even if it's not the best.  I'll say right now that it's entirely AMD and, yes, while I'm expecting optimizations to get me up to at LEAST a constant 40-50 FPS that is all I'm expecting.  It's enough for me to play the best I know I should play without suffering the crippling hindrances ~30FPS brings.  And y'know what_ Playing at ~30FPS has been an impromptu training regime of sorts.  I found that after trying to play the game in lag hell (only in intense combat scenarios and Prosk) has significantly improved my performance when above 30FPS.  Sure, it's irritating, but there's a benefit to that, too, I suppose, for all varieties of players.

For a gamer my technical knowledge with computers is fairly limited, but while DarkPulse is, indeed, saying that Intel's giving AMD a run for their money, I'm taking it all as a free lesson in "how things work."  I personally haven't upgraded my rig more because the games I play seriously are few and far between, and while Hawken is one of the more serious ones, if I see the competitive scene get off the ground I'll be pumping up my rig to snatch that "golden 60 FPS" so both the game's performance and my performance will truly be at their optimal.  

Plus, recall that one post that mentioned AMD's lack of cooperation with the devs to optimize the game for players with their rigs.  Of course, it's liable that things have changed since the time of that post but, just pointing that out.

Even if he's more-or-less saying, "I don't recommend AMD rigs for serious/optimal gaming," he's at LEAST doing so in a reasonable, constructive manner (he's not even INSULTING you unless you do so first for God's sake) not outright saying, "AMD SUCKS LOL U NUBLET INTEL PWNS U FUZZY BUNNY GO DAI IN A HOL" which I unfortunately have seen too many times.

It's your rig, your game-time, it's your life, it's your GPU, your CPU, your motherboard, your preferences.

Do what feels right for what YOU need.

Edited by OverWolf, December 10 2012 - 10:48 AM.

[DarkPulse]

fwip, on December 10 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

As another data point, my system is running an AMD Phenom x4 at 2.2GHz and a Radeon 4870, which are both over 4 years old now. The game is playable, but obviously not smooth. It's pretty clearly CPU-bottlenecked, too.

GPU as well. That GPU is about to be four generations old. In fact, it's closer to minimum spec, I think...

Quote

Graphics Card: 512MB Graphics card supporting DirectX 9.0c and Shader Model 3.0 ( nVidia 9800 GTX/ AMD HD 5670 )

It's actually below that. You're lucky it runs, but yes, probably wouldn't be a bad idea to at least consider a GPU upgrade next spring. Full system would be even better, though.

OverWolf, on December 10 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Even if he's more-or-less saying, "I don't recommend AMD rigs for serious/optimal gaming," he's at LEAST doing so in a reasonable, constructive manner (he's not even INSULTING you unless you do so first for God's sake) not outright saying, "AMD SUCKS LOL U NUBLET INTEL PWNS U FUZZY BUNNY GO DAI IN A HOL" which I unfortunately have seen too many times.

It's your rig, your game-time, it's your life, it's your GPU, your CPU, your motherboard, your preferences.

Do what feels right for what YOU need.

Correct. I would feel, personally, the little extra money spent on an Intel system (and an nVidia GPU, though that's less due to hardware and more due to AMD being slow as hell on their driver updates compared to nVidia) is worth it because your system will last longer. I'm not planning to upgrade this system until 2014 or 2015, at least in the CPU department. (Depends on if Broadwell is indeed BGA-only, and what the rumored specs on 2015's Skylake are.) Some people don't, and some people don't have the option, and that's fine. They should get the best their budget allows, of course.

But if neither of those is no object, in an apples-to-apples comparison, the AMD CPUs are inferior for gaming compared to the Intel ones. They're not BAD, they're just not as good. If this doesn't bother you, then fine, save a little money and get the AMD system, just don't be surprised when you try to turn everything up and your framerate suffers, while those on Intel rigs have better performance. AMD CPUs will do better in games which are much more reliant on a strong GPU (example: Battlefield 3) but UE3 is more CPU hungry than GPU; its performance on AMD systems does suffer accordingly.

Like I said, the devs can only do so much tuning until eventually the problem is due not to the lack of tuning, but to the differences between Intel and AMD microarchitecture. AMD processors will (eventually) be more reliable at running Hawken, but it's going to be a few years until it approaches the level of current Intel CPUs - they're about two generations behind them, soon to be three (as there will be no Steamroller-based CPUs until 2014).

Right now, your best bets for CPUs if you must stick with AMD are the FX-8350 or the FX-6300. Anyone who will not or cannot switch to an Intel system, those would be the CPUs I would recommend for best Hawken performance.

[fwip]

DarkPulse, on December 10 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

GPU as well. That GPU is about to be four generations old. In fact, it's closer to minimum spec, I think...

Quote

Graphics Card: 512MB Graphics card supporting DirectX 9.0c and Shader Model 3.0 ( nVidia 9800 GTX/ AMD HD 5670 )

It's actually below that. You're lucky it runs, but yes, probably wouldn't be a bad idea to at least consider a GPU upgrade next spring. Full system would be even better, though.

Haha, yeah. I'd really like to, if I can get enough cash together. Trying to educate myself on some Intel offerings...

(Oh, and the CPU-limited comment was from testing; my GPU doesn't work nearly as hard as my CPU, at least at the moderate settings I'm playing at).

[DarkPulse]

fwip, on December 10 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

Haha, yeah. I'd really like to, if I can get enough cash together. Trying to educate myself on some Intel offerings...

(Oh, and the CPU-limited comment was from testing; my GPU doesn't work nearly as hard as my CPU, at least at the moderate settings I'm playing at).

Well, that's why I advised waiting until Spring. Intel's Haswell-core processors will come out sometime then, and you'll get more of a bang for the buck compared to the current Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge offerings.

Unless you do stuff like movie encoding or 3D modeling, anyway - then you'd be better served with the Sandy Bridge-E or Ivy Bridge-E platforms (That do have like six cores and such).

[OneMoar]

darkpulse WOULD be correct if the case was as follows

1. hawken was stressing out the CPU (this means loads in-excess of 80% across all the cores even on my system it doesn't strike 1
2.if the game was not capable of using more then 2 cores UT3 can use up to 12 the fault lies with the hawken devs here strike 2
3.assuming the above is true a Phenom II when clocked toward 3.8Ghz/2600~nb is not gonna bottle neck ANY gpu currently on the market PERIOD

the ugly truth here is that its the devs fault for using  Nvidia's crappy apex phys x engine its Intentionally written to be 30% slower on NON-Geforce hardware which is anti-competitive and total fuzzy bunny I have tested this my self by replacing my 6870 with a 550TI and down clocking the TI it still pulls ahead of the 6870 despite being the slower card in every benchmark(and every other game that I OWN) find STRIKE YEEEEEEEEEROUT

Nvidia have been going around lately throwing money at up and coming devs/games trying to make sure it runs as terrible as possible on anything but there hardware you would think after the last lawsuit they would learn alas most people don't notice they just blindly point there finger at amd(protip Planetside 2 also uses APEX and it has the same issues with cpu Utilization being lower then it should )

AMD ARE slower then intel but no-ware near as bad as DarkPulse says it is the difference is about 15FPS(AT MAX) in just about every game out currently with AMD still Capable of in-excess of 60FPS with pretty much any title provided you're GPU don't suck fuzzy bunny

DarkPulse realllly needs to stop posting every time some user comes in with a AMD chip screaming about how much slower the "inferior amd chips are" when the real culprit is the Devs having no backbone to stand up for fair market he not helping anybody by spouting his haf-correct fuzzy bunny

Edited by OneMoar, December 10 2012 - 04:09 PM.

[Lethal_Kebab]

OneMoar - how I wish that were true... I must admit, it doesnt make sense to me that my CPU is the bottleneck when its at 35% max, then again, i am using an nvidia 550ti x 2 and still unplayable. The only "unplayable" threads ive seen have had one consitent component, that is, an AMD CPU....

i hope there are some optimisations that the devs can do to help out...

by the way, can you provide a link to the " UT3 can use up to 12", i cant see to find that on the net anywhere...

[DarkPulse]

OneMoar, on December 10 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

darkpulse WOULD be correct if the case was as follows

1. hawken was stressing out the CPU (this means loads in-excess of 80% across all the cores even on my system it doesn't strike 1
2.if the game was not capable of using more then 2 cores UT3 can use up to 12 the fault lies with the hawken devs here strike 2
3.assuming the above is true a Phenom II when clocked toward 3.8Ghz/2600~nb is not gonna bottle neck ANY gpu currently on the market PERIOD

Oh, look who's back.

1) CPU bottlenecking is what happens when your CPU is not able to keep up. I obviously can't load it up to check right now, but I'm pretty sure if I could, I'd be able to get 100% utilization or very close to it on my CPU. I will test this come open beta. When your CPU is not physically able to process enough information, its CPU usage drops, because it simply cannot get any more data pushed around within that timeframe. A game that does not use a large amount of CPU time is almost always indicating a CPU bottleneck.

2) UE3 uses, at most, four threads - one main thread solely for rendering, one sub-thread that handles physics, lighting, etc., and if you have room for two more threads, two helper threads that divide up more "intense" sub-thread stuff into their own threads. Thus, anything over four threads (which means either a pure quadcore or a HyperThreaded dualcore) is basically useless for UE3. Screaming about hex-cores and octo-cores mean literally nothing to the engine, because the engine will never, ever come close to using 12, 8, or even 6 threads. In fact, I can't even think of a game engine that scales across that many cores.

3) If the CPU is bottlenecked, the card being bottlenecked is 100% guaranteed. Why_ Because the CPU also needs to talk to the GPU, and if the CPU is so loaded down it has no spare time/cycles to talk to the GPU, then performance will inevitably suffer. This is why you don't pair a modern GPU with a 6 year old CPU - because the CPU will not be able to talk to it nearly fast enough. Pure GPU bottlenecks happen when the card is too old, but in that case, the CPU is ripping along at 95% usage and turning details down will improve framerates so it's easier to tell that your GPU is bottlenecked.

OneMoar, on December 10 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

the ugly truth here is that its the devs fault for using  Nvidia's crappy apex phys x engine its Intentionally written to be 30% slower on NON-Geforce hardware which is anti-competitive and total fuzzy bunny I have tested this my self by replacing my 6870 with a 550TI and down clocking the TI it still pulls ahead of the 6870 despite being the slower card in every benchmark(and every other game that I OWN) find STRIKE YEEEEEEEEEROUT

Ahaha. Ahahahahahahaha. Any sense of credibility you had just went out the window.

Now the devs are using an engine that was, deliberately and willfully on purpose, written to annoy people who use AMD videocards_ That's not the problem. The problem is the CPU. PhysX can be either CPU-based or GPU-based, and in fact, testing in CB3 seemed to indicate that GPU PhysX support is actually busted. I've got a GTX 690 and I was still getting bad framerates when PhysX effects were used, something that does not happen in any other PhysX-enhanced game I own or played.

Also, keep in mind that PhysX is pretty much the standard physics engine on any UE3 game. The devs didn't "choose" it - since they used UDK, they make use of what comes with it. That means PhysX.

As for the 550 Ti beating the 6870_ Hell if I know what's going on there. It definitely shouldn't; I dug up a review using an Unreal Engine 3 game (Bulletstorm) and the 550 Ti lost handily to the 6850; the 6870 wasn't even on the list. It's entirely possible there was performance improvements in future drivers, but it should not really beat it. It's not the same class of hardware. (A 560 Ti would be a different story and would outdo a 6970.)

PS: That was four "strikes." Can you count, ump_ Or shall we be more accurate and call them "balls_"

OneMoar, on December 10 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Nvidia have been going around lately throwing money at up and coming devs/games trying to make sure it runs as terrible as possible on anything but there hardware you would think after the last lawsuit they would learn alas most people don't notice they just blindly point there finger at amd(protip Planetside 2 also uses APEX and it has the same issues with cpu Utilization being lower then it should )

I love how you blame AMD instead of admitting that AMD processors are as good as 2-3 gen old Intel processors. (News flash: the game runs about equally on current, top AMD processors as it does on Intel Core 2s and early, Nehalem-based i-series, which means - wait for it! - it's the fact that they have inferior processing capability!)

OneMoar, on December 10 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

AMD ARE slower then intel but no-ware near as bad as DarkPulse says it is the difference is about 15FPS(AT MAX) in just about every game out currently with AMD still Capable of in-excess of 60FPS with pretty much any title provided you're GPU don't suck fuzzy bunny

Generally true... for their better ones. Difference being 15 FPS max_ I don't think so.

We'll use a roughly equal price comparison, because if I included Intel's top-of-the-line offerings, this would be a slaughter (and would also include Sandy Bridge-E). The FX-8350 is $219.99 on Newegg; we'll compare it to the $214.99 Core i5 3570K.

• Skyrim: FX-8350, 77 FPS average (99%: 27ms). i5 3570K, 104 FPS average (99%: 18.3ms). Difference, 27 FPS.
  
• Arkham City: FX-8350, 70 FPS average (99%: 24.9ms). i5 3570K, 84 FPS average (99%: 19.9ms). Difference, 14 FPS.
  
• Battlefield 3: FX-8350, 84 FPS average (99%: 15.1ms). i5 3570K, 88 FPS average (99%: 14.6ms). Difference, 4 FPS.
  
• Crysis 2: FX-8350, 86 FPS average (99%: 21.4ms). i5 3570K, 88 FPS average (99%: 20.4ms). Difference, 2 FPS.
  
• Civilization V: FX-8350, 52 FPS average. i5 3570K, 72 FPS average. Difference, 20 FPS.

Skyrim, Arkham City, and Civilization V are very CPU-hungry games, while Battlefield 3 and Crysis are more GPU-hungry. Thus, on those games, AMD processors will perform nearly identically because the GPU is more of the deal-maker. On the other three engines, however, they depend a lot more on CPU number crunching as opposed to GPU complexity - and in those games, AMD simply suffers.

These are, however, all above 60 FPS (except for Civilization V), but in every single test, no matter how slight, the AMD processor loses every time. The Intel chips produce more frames, and it takes them less time to render 99% of all frames. The difference is small in the GPU-dependent games, but things add up on the CPU-dependent ones, especially in Arkham City (an average of 5ms faster) and Skyrim (an average of 8.7ms faster).

OneMoar, on December 10 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

DarkPulse realllly needs to stop posting every time some user comes in with a AMD chip screaming about how much slower the "inferior amd chips are" when the real culprit is the Devs having no backbone to stand up for fair market he not helping anybody by spouting his haf-correct fuzzy bunny

Uh, no. What AMD needs to do is increase Instructions Per Clock and singlethreaded performance, if they want to compare to top Intel processors.

As I said before, a current, modern, top-of-the-line processor from AMD now, is about as good as an Intel Core 2 or a Nehalem-era Core i7. These are 3-4 generation old Intel CPUs (soon to be 4-5). AMD will not be rolling out Steamroller until 2014, so any further major gains in AMD performance will, for the most part, have to wait until then - by which time they will be 5-6 generations older than current Intel tech.

Can the devs improve performance on AMD CPUs_ They definitely can, and they definitely should. But eventually it will hit a wall, right around that 60-70 FPS mark. The Intels can scoot past that with ease. Or to put it another way, the Intels will have much more room to tolerate slowdown compared to the AMDs.

I've never said they're bad for gaming, simply not as good. If budget is your concern, or you don't want to do a total system rebuild, your current best AMD options are the FX-8350, or the FX-6300. But unless you got one of the later Phenom IIs (965 or higher) or one of those processors, you're going to suffer increasingly diminishing returns.

Thus, when it comes down to recommending processors, except for extremely small budgets, you're better off getting an Intel as it will simply last longer for gaming.

Edited by DarkPulse, December 10 2012 - 05:17 PM.

[OneMoar]

here we go again
Counter-point 1 no fuzzy bunny Sherlock but thats not the case here not by a mile the game isn't loading up the cpu to any-ware near max load on both sides of the fence its not running out of throughput its just not using it effectively

2. as of the release of UDK-UE3  can use 12 Threads(threads != multi core usage) and there are plenty of games that will scale to 6 cores Dirt 3/Dirt showdown Metro 2033 Battlefield 3 Skyrim ...

3 any developer they willingly chooses  to use Nvida's Physx is asking for trouble and YES ITS OPTIONAL there is absolutely no reason to use physx for ANYTHING then other to make things slightly easier and hellishly slow (in both cpu AND GPU mode)

4. I swear you have the worst taste in benchmark/review sites I have ever seen its like you punch into google "8350 benchmarks" but don't read them -.-
per-frame latency's don't mean much when you factor in the rest of the system
the bottom line is that AMD chips provide more then enough power to run this game with whatever gpu/res combo @60FPS and beyond  
just because the chips ARE not from intel and ARE NOT as fast is no excuse for bad coding and questionable vendor "tweaking and "advice"

Edited by OneMoar, December 10 2012 - 06:42 PM.

[Manoloco]

Im on the fence about upgrading my i5 750, with Haswell not so far from launch.

I would get an i5 3570 (k or not k), if i decided to.

regarding GPU im on a Radeon 7950

8GB RAM.

If it werent for Hawken i would definitely be go straight to Haswell and jump Ivy Bridge, i defintely prefer upgrading during the tocks and avoid the ticks during processor upgrades, but the 750 has been so good that i skipped Sandy Bridge.


about the AMD/Intel comparison: i loved my Athlon XP, it was a great processor for gaming at a really good price, much better than Intel offerings at the time, right now, its the other way around.

let me try to summarize what i have read from you guys:

There should be optimizations that let the game run much better than now: i think yes, and i think the devs are or will be working on it in the short term

Intel is a better gaming processor in this gen from mid-high end_: yes

AMD CPUs mentioned will work good with future optimizations, but not better than their Intel competitors at the same price range: Yes

I am definitely not an Intel fan, i just buy what is better for my uses in my budget at the time i decide my adquisition.

i do think i could have been happier with a GTX 670 instead of an HD 7950 regarding GPU, but at the moment of purchase, the price on the 7950 was much better compared to a 670, and the difference in performance isnt near the difference of the performances of the CPUs mentioned.

btw any help on my decision on upgrading or not my i5 750 for Hawken would be greatly appreciated, will there be a noticeable difference in fps (regarding minimum fps with a lot of players on screen).

Edited by Manoloco, December 10 2012 - 07:01 PM.

[Soma1509]

I think it's clearly evident that AMD CPU's, as they stand right now, are overall inferior to Intel CPU's. Are they as terrible as most people make them seen_ Absolutely not. Anyone who knows a thing or two about PC's should know this by now. As an AMD owner myself, who has just recently upgraded to an FX-8320 by the way, I'm not afraid to admit that I have an inferior system compared to what's available in the market at this time.

If only Intel and the most popular motherboard manufacturers would combine their almighty powers to make something much more amazing than what EVGA did with their SR-2 motherboard [SR-X was a bit disappointing for what it stood for, so I don't count that board], then I would be all over it like a fat kid loves cake. My dream system doesn't quite exist yet, at least not for the consumer market, and it probably won't exist for quite some time. How I would kill to have a 128-core system, happily rendering videos and 3D Models, running Folding@Home, and crunching numbers for my sheer amusement. Anyway, my PC is a bit of an all-rounder, and if I wasn't so poor you bet your little behind that I would've gone for an LGA 2011 system right now.

What I don't understand is why people continue to beat a dead horse. Without hopefully not sounding much like a kissass, there's already more than enough evidence here to prove that just because the latest AMD CPU offerings have more cores and a higher frequency, it doesn't mean that they should be performing at $300, $500 or even $1000-level Intel CPU's. Again, as an AMD platform owner, I know of this first-hand.

Although to be fair, my framerates in most UE3 games I own have seen a significant performance increase between +15 to +40 FPS, especially with the Batman Arkham series. At the time I managed to squeeze in some last-minute gameplay before this last Beta session closed, my framerate dips became less frequent. And Blacklight: Retribution, when using DirectX9, is now at a healthy framerate between 90-120 FPS average during an online match, which brings me to the real problem at hand:

As it has been also mentioned by several people here [myself included], Hawken needs some work in the performance department. For some reason, the game is hardlocked to 90 FPS during ALL online matches, and as of right now there's nothing that can be done about it. Whether or not that's an engine limitation is beyond me, because seriously: If a game such as BL:R uses UE3, the same engine as Hawken, then why doesn't it have a 90 FPS lock during every match_ There are times I see peak framerates as high as 200 FPS while playing ONLINE!

Borderlands 2, which also uses UE3, creates an online session whenever you start playing the main campaign, hence why you're able to invite friends easier on Steam. That game, with the current hardware that I own, has a healthy average framerate between 90-120 FPS [sometimes even higher when inside a building] with all settings at maximum quality and FXAA disabled; it dips as low as 40 FPS whenever there's an intense fighting session [thank PhysX for that]. Once again, no 90-FPS hardlock.

I have confidence that Unreal Engine 3 can handle much higher framerates because I've seen it first-hand. Why is Hawken so different_ If this was done intentionally due to instability issues, then maybe I can understand. But otherwise, and I think I speak for everyone here, it's quite frustrating to have good-enough PC's here, Intel or AMD, only to walk away slightly dissapointed due to mysterious framerate restrictions put in place which, from what I can see here, is affecting a significant amount of people.

With all of that "criticism" said, I highly anticipate the Open Beta in less than two days!

[DarkPulse]

OneMoar, on December 10 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

here we go again
Counter-point 1 no fuzzy bunny Sherlock but thats not the case here not by a mile the game isn't loading up the cpu to any-ware near max load on both sides of the fence its not running out of throughput its just not using it effectively

Wrong. Once again, I'm very sure if I could load the game right now on my PC, I would get a near 100% usage rate.

A program like a game, by default, takes as many cycles as the CPU will allow it to, unless the CPU runs out of room to talk - then it takes less CPU. I tested this by loading up an old classic - the original Unreal Tournament - and it still loaded up 100% of one of my four cores.

Simply put, if the CPU is not reaching near-100% usage, then there is usually some kind of bottleneck.

Tetsuro, on December 10 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

2. as of the release of UDK-UE3  can use 12 Threads(threads != multi core usage) and there are plenty of games that will scale to 6 cores Dirt 3/Dirt showdown Metro 2033 Battlefield 3 Skyrim ...

Battlefield 3 was a wash as I showed you, though - even a dualcore CPU kept that game happy (albeit with nearly twice the average frame latency, making it more jittery). Skyrim did not scale to eight cores very well, because it still turned in lower perofrmance of any Intel CPU except for the Nehalem-based i3-655K; the i7-3960X (a Sandy Bridge-E part) has six true cores, shows twelve with Hyperthreading, and walloped the FX-8350 by 31 FPS; the i5-3570K, much more reasonably priced, is only 4 FPS off this mark, showing that the extra two real cores (four virtual) basically don't really matter. I can't find very reliable benchmarks for the other three in terms of that, but there is still really no game that pulls multiple threads.

And yes, I know the difference between cores and threads. I've still not seen any UE game use more than four threads. Furthermore, I follow Unreal Engine pretty closely, and I'm pretty damn sure I'd know if UDK uses 12 threads or not. Where'd you get this info_

Tetsuro, on December 10 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

3 any developer they willingly chooses  to use Nvida's Physx is asking for trouble and YES ITS OPTIONAL there is absolutely no reason to use physx for ANYTHING then other to make things slightly easier and hellishly slow (in both cpu AND GPU mode)

No, PhysX is the base physics engine for UE3 and thus UDK. Could the devs rip it out and put something else in_ Sure - but then it costs money and development time, neither of which are something a small team like Adhesive has much of.

It's not quite as easy as "Download this from the internet and slap it in." Especially when PhysX is already nice and tightly ingrained in UE3 and UDK.

Tetsuro, on December 10 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

4. I swear you have the worst taste in benchmark/review sites I have ever seen its like you punch into google "8350 benchmarks" but don't read them -.-
per-frame latency's don't mean much when you factor in the rest of the system

Except that the time 99% of frames render in is a direct contributor to FPS. The quicker the better. (That's what she said.)

Tetsuro, on December 10 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

the bottom line is that AMD chips provide more then enough power to run this game with whatever gpu/res combo @60FPS and beyond  
just because the chips ARE not from intel and ARE NOT as fast is no excuse for bad coding and questionable vendor "tweaking and "advice"

Sure, they are powerful enough to run it if you give them a good videocard - but only "just." The FX-8350 benchmarks I put up in my previous post were all with a rather nice, current-gen videocard - a Radeon 7950. Older videocard_ Slower performance.

It's better to have "excess" rendering power than "enough" rendering power. With a 7950, a FX-8350 will just get to that 60-70 FPS threshold if maxed out. Anything older and slower will not.

Also, I absolutely love how incredibly boneheaded you are to think that the devs would willfully and purposely sabotage their game so that it runs like fuzzy bunny on non-Intel, non-nVidia platforms. You think they WANT to lose money or something_

Manoloco, on December 10 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Im on the fence about upgrading my i5 750, with Haswell not so far from launch.

I would get an i5 3570 (k or not k), if i decided to.

regarding GPU im on a Radeon 7950

8GB RAM.

If it werent for Hawken i would definitely be go straight to Haswell and jump Ivy Bridge, i defintely prefer upgrading during the tocks and avoid the ticks during processor upgrades, but the 750 has been so good that i skipped Sandy Bridge.

Ivy Bridge is the current tech; Haswell is next spring. I'd advise you to wait for them to come out, then make the leap. Bonus: Whatever cooler you're using on your current CPU (if you got an aftermarket cooler) should work on the new socket, too. (You will need a new motherboard, of course, but everything else should transfer over - not DDR4 yet, etc.)

Will you see an improvement if you leap up_ Yes, you will; you're going from Nehalem up to four generations (Westmere -> Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge -> Haswell) so I'd estimate that you'd see a raw 20-40% speed boost, clock-for-clock.

Soma1509, on December 10 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

As it has been also mentioned by several people here [myself included], Hawken needs some work in the performance department. For some reason, the game is hardlocked to 90 FPS during ALL online matches, and as of right now there's nothing that can be done about it. Whether or not that's an engine limitation is beyond me, because seriously: If a game such as BL:R uses UE3, the same engine as Hawken, then why doesn't it have a 90 FPS lock during every match_ There are times I see peak framerates as high as 200 FPS while playing ONLINE!

Yes, it's an engine-side limitation. Basically, having some kind of hard, engine-level cap like that means that you can ensure replication checks are still performed and synchronized correctly.

It's certainly possible to disable the check, but then that means it's probably using client-side hit detection or something, as opposed to server-side, or using some kind of additional replication checks (which can be theoretically more costly than just setting a straight-up cap.)

[Manoloco]

Thanks for the advice DP, but i meant if i will see significant improvement from nehalem to ivy bridge, of course there is improvement but i was wondering if its worth the upgrade (specially if my min fps with a lot of players on screen will improve considerably or marginally)

i could overclock the 750 too, the hyper 212 is keeping the cpu around 35ºC (average of the 4 cores) on idle (7% load), im pretty sure there is a lot of room for OC there, that could help wait for haswell.

I guess i will see this 12/12/12 if theres enough optimization for the 750 to hold up unti q2 2013

Edited by Manoloco, December 10 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[Crown]

DarkPulse, on December 10 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Crown, on December 09 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

I'm on an old AMD processor and my box runs Hawken just fine, I don't think it's an argument of the capabilities of the processor. I think you're forgetting that this isn't a game like Crysis or Far Cry 2, this game uses U3 Engine and to be honest it's not CPU or GPU intensive -at all-; therefore it's safe to assume that someone who's running a box beyond the recommended shouldn't have the kind of problems he's having. This was never a question of the clients hardware to begin with.

It's not too intensive, no. A system a few years old should have no trouble running it.

But the game definitely has a problem with most AMD rigs right now (Especially if they're older or weaker AMD CPUs) and so it needs some tuning there. The hardware the OP has, realistically, should run it in the 40-50 FPS range with everything maxed out or pretty close to it, or if he was willing to sacrifice rez he could probably get it up to the golden 60.

Actually, taking a closer look at your posts I realise that this argument is kind of out of whack. They've gone way off topic from what the original post started off as.

Adhesive still needs to fix the irrational slow down with AMD's, but as long as you agree with me on that point I'm fine. As for these other guys, you should listen to Dark; he/she actually appears to know what they're talking about unlike many of you.

[Saint_The_Judge]

Again, all this arguing is irrelevant, given all of us agree on one point: game desperately needs optimization. Focus is not AMD, focus is Hawken.
Greets.

[DarkPulse]

Manoloco, on December 10 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Thanks for the advice DP, but i meant if i will see significant improvement from nehalem to ivy bridge, of course there is improvement but i was wondering if its worth the upgrade (specially if my min fps with a lot of players on screen will improve considerably or marginally)

i could overclock the 750 too, the hyper 212 is keeping the cpu around 35ºC (average of the 4 cores) on idle (7% load), im pretty sure there is a lot of room for OC there, that could help wait for haswell.

I guess i will see this 12/12/12 if theres enough optimization for the 750 to hold up unti q2 2013

Well, with Ivy Bridge it'd be more like 15-30%. Still a boost, but if you can live with your current performance for a few more months, you're better served waiting for Haswell.

Crown, on December 11 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Actually, taking a closer look at your posts I realise that this argument is kind of out of whack. They've gone way off topic from what the original post started off as.

Adhesive still needs to fix the irrational slow down with AMD's, but as long as you agree with me on that point I'm fine. As for these other guys, you should listen to Dark; he/she actually appears to know what they're talking about unlike many of you.

Oh, I fully agree - it should definitely not run this bad on AMD processors, and the devs do have some work to do. I just don't like people popping in and saying "My AMD can run any game at 60 FPS!" because I can guarantee them I'll find them a game that doesn't - and the games that they can do at 60 FPS, an Intel can usually go considerably higher.

All along I've not said AMD processors are bad gaming processors; they're simply not as good as Intel's and are inferior in that aspect. It doesn't mean I'm trashing them (that would be if I devolved into the LOLOLOL AMD SUX territory); just pointing out the benchmarks and bang-for-buck value is firmly in Intel's favor, and that while the game will improve, it may not ever be at parity with an Intel-based rig, assuming they are both from similar points in time. That's pretty much all.

[Crown]

DarkPulse, on December 11 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Manoloco, on December 10 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Thanks for the advice DP, but i meant if i will see significant improvement from nehalem to ivy bridge, of course there is improvement but i was wondering if its worth the upgrade (specially if my min fps with a lot of players on screen will improve considerably or marginally)

i could overclock the 750 too, the hyper 212 is keeping the cpu around 35ºC (average of the 4 cores) on idle (7% load), im pretty sure there is a lot of room for OC there, that could help wait for haswell.

I guess i will see this 12/12/12 if theres enough optimization for the 750 to hold up unti q2 2013

Well, with Ivy Bridge it'd be more like 15-30%. Still a boost, but if you can live with your current performance for a few more months, you're better served waiting for Haswell.

Crown, on December 11 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Actually, taking a closer look at your posts I realise that this argument is kind of out of whack. They've gone way off topic from what the original post started off as.

Adhesive still needs to fix the irrational slow down with AMD's, but as long as you agree with me on that point I'm fine. As for these other guys, you should listen to Dark; he/she actually appears to know what they're talking about unlike many of you.

Oh, I fully agree - it should definitely not run this bad on AMD processors, and the devs do have some work to do. I just don't like people popping in and saying "My AMD can run any game at 60 FPS!" because I can guarantee them I'll find them a game that doesn't - and the games that they can do at 60 FPS, an Intel can usually go considerably higher.

All along I've not said AMD processors are bad gaming processors; they're simply not as good as Intel's and are inferior in that aspect. It doesn't mean I'm trashing them (that would be if I devolved into the LOLOLOL AMD SUX territory); just pointing out the benchmarks and bang-for-buck value is firmly in Intel's favor, and that while the game will improve, it may not ever be at parity with an Intel-based rig, assuming they are both from similar points in time. That's pretty much all.

Well, Intel is better, but needlessly so in my opinion; at least for home computing

I'll take an example from one of your points:

You said before that Intel have a higher instructions per cycle, this is a good thing but when it comes to day to day activities on a home computer I can hardly see why you'd need more than what AMD can provide.

Well, that's what I'd say if you were using an OS like Linux, but Windows is bloated and extremely inefficient in when you compare how much each system does to do one thing like say for instance: open a folder. In fact from those comparisons you could actually say Linux is ten times more efficient than Windows doing simple tasks and not be exaggerating at all.

This of course has nothing to do with Hawken, I just like pointing this out when people argue about hardware and what's required to do certain things.

[DarkPulse]

Crown, on December 11 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Well, Intel is better, but needlessly so in my opinion; at least for home computing

I'll take an example from one of your points:

You said before that Intel have a higher instructions per cycle, this is a good thing but when it comes to day to day activities on a home computer I can hardly see why you'd need more than what AMD can provide.

Well, that's what I'd say if you were using an OS like Linux, but Windows is bloated and extremely inefficient in when you compare how much each system does to do one thing like say for instance: open a folder. In fact from those comparisons you could actually say Linux is ten times more efficient than Windows doing simple tasks and not be exaggerating at all.

This of course has nothing to do with Hawken, I just like pointing this out when people argue about hardware and what's required to do certain things.

Fully agree. Day-to-day stuff like Windows, it doesn't really matter what you use. (I mean, technically it will still be a little slower, but it doesn't matter too much.) It's mostly a gaming distinction.

Actually, if we're going to go pure generic routes, AMD's Fusion APUs are some of the best things money can buy. You get a pretty good processor and the best-in-class IGP all in one go. It's just not an ideal solution for gaming, but it's great for ultraportables or people who dabble in older games and the like (I believe it's a Radeon 6XXX-class GPU in there_). Haswell may shake this up with HD 4000, but I know the IGPs in Intel CPUs are getting totally reworked for Broadwell, too.

And yeah, OS architecture is OS architecture. Unfortunately, unless something like Wine provides 100% DirectX API compatability (and if it ever does, I'm switching), Windows is going to be around unless devs take a serious stance to treat OpenGL and DirectX equally... something Microsoft is very desperate to not let happen, as well as things like the DRM industry.