36 replies to this topic

[JohnnyGrey]

I'm downloading the game as we speak, so hopefully I'll be able to chime in later today.

My specs are listed below, so I'll be able to chime in my results based on this fairly recent hardware. I played the game roughly 20 minutes at my friend's house last night, and he's running a Phenom II quad core at stock clocks paired with a GTX 560 Ti, and gameplay/menu navigation seemed pretty smooth, but it did seem like his settings were turned down a bit. He did mention "I don't think my system is powerful enough."

My specs:
Core i5 3570K @4.5ghz
2x4gb Samsung 30nm RAM @1866mhz 9-9-9-24 1.4v
EVGA GTX 660 Ti 3gb Superclocked
Auria 27" IPS @2560x1440

I'll probably leave anti-aliasing off for this game, as at these resolutions, it's not needed. But if necessary, I will enable it for the sake of testing.

[Thundercnut]

just did osme further testing and im seeing frame rates from 15 to 20 fps on max settings and 20 to 25 on minimum settings.....

[TerranCmdr]

I will run checks when I get home today, but I have been experiencing drops in framerates as well.  Just from my naked eye, it seems I'm getting 40-50fps normally, with drops down to 15-20 during high intensity battles, and sometimes dropping below 10.  My graphics are set at High, and PhysX is turned off.

My specs are as follows:

Processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1090t 3.2Ghz
RAM: 8GB 1600 DDR3
GFX: MSI HD 6950 1GB, factory overclocked
OS: Win 7 latest update

Like I said, I'll do some actual framerate tests when I get home, but I see no reason I shouldn't be able to run this game at Ultra.  The only thing I can guess is that my processor is holding me back.  As has been said in another thread, AMD chips are designed with multi-core use in mind, which isn't necessarily helpful with most games.

[JohnnyGrey]

Other than some input lag in the menu's, the gameplay is running smooth as butter. I have the settings maxed in-game, and am playing at 2560x1440 flawlessly.

I did have the game crash a few times when trying to join a match.


My specs:
Core i5 3570K @4.5ghz
2x4gb Samsung 30nm RAM @1866mhz 9-9-9-24 1.4v
EVGA GTX 660 Ti 3gb Superclocked
Auria 27" IPS @2560x1440

[mechjeb]

JohnnyGrey, on December 19 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

Other than some input lag in the menu's, the gameplay is running smooth as butter. I have the settings maxed in-game, and am playing at 2560x1440 flawlessly.

I did have the game crash a few times when trying to join a match.


My specs:
Core i5 3570K @4.5ghz
2x4gb Samsung 30nm RAM @1866mhz 9-9-9-24 1.4v
EVGA GTX 660 Ti 3gb Superclocked
Auria 27" IPS @2560x1440

your chiming in here is pointless since you're using an nviidia GPU, while this thread is about issues with AMD GPU's.

[mechjeb]

TerranCmdr, on December 19 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

I will run checks when I get home today, but I have been experiencing drops in framerates as well.  Just from my naked eye, it seems I'm getting 40-50fps normally, with drops down to 15-20 during high intensity battles, and sometimes dropping below 10.  My graphics are set at High, and PhysX is turned off.

My specs are as follows:

Processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1090t 3.2Ghz
RAM: 8GB 1600 DDR3
GFX: MSI HD 6950 1GB, factory overclocked
OS: Win 7 latest update

Like I said, I'll do some actual framerate tests when I get home, but I see no reason I shouldn't be able to run this game at Ultra.  The only thing I can guess is that my processor is holding me back.  As has been said in another thread, AMD chips are designed with multi-core use in mind, which isn't necessarily helpful with most games.

As my tests on the end of the first page have proven, it's not the CPU...in fact, most of the time the CPU is executing things in enough time to allow for 100-200fps or more on my machine.   The issue is the game takes too long to draw a frame on AMD GPU's; longer than it should.  for example, if it takes 50ms to draw a frame, and there's 1000ms in a second, that means you can only draw 20 frames in that second.  

As I have clearly shown in my tests, the CPU and GPU can both be under the same load.....and deliver a different frame rate, while neither the CPU/GPU are maxed out at all.  This is a clear sign of an issue not from inadequate hardware, but rather a problem with the game code itself.  In fact, it's 2 problems.  bad performance and not enough utilization of resources.

[TerranCmdr]

Thanks for that, sorry for not reading your whole post on the previous page.

[JohnnyGrey]

mechjeb, on December 19 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

your chiming in here is pointless since you're using an nviidia GPU, while this thread is about issues with AMD GPU's.

Suppose you got a point. Guess I forgot it was an AMD specific thread when I was posting. My bad.

[mechjeb]

BUMP

[Stealth_303]

bump in the night

[WAVER]

I have phenom 2 x6 2,7Ghz but Nvidia card and it works on ultra, after last patch even with particles on.

[nokari]

WAVER, on February 25 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

I have phenom 2 x6 2,7Ghz but Nvidia card and it works on ultra, after last patch even with particles on.

That's nice, but you should note that this topic is specifically about AMD/ATI cards, not Nvidia...

[defekt]

I'm on an AMD/ATi system and I can run the game @ 1920x1200 on low detail settings at a playable level (~25fps).  I also run SweetFX to claw back a bit of prettiness.

Let’s face facts: AMD are pretty crappy when it comes to offering technical expertise to developers so expecting a small indie dev to brute force ATi cards into performing well isn’t realistic.  There is a good reason why everything AMD is on the decline – which is not something that anyone should feel smug about because a market without strong competition doesn’t benefit the consumer, i.e., everyone ends up paying more for less.

[Jintonic]

defekt, on February 26 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

1920x1200 on low detail settings at a playable level (~25fps).  

playable 25_ mb lower that resolution_

[machmanx]

Don't forget about Nvidia's "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" program.  They are actually paying Meteor to optimize the game towards their graphic cards.  This means that stuff like shaders are specifically tuned towards better performance on Nvidia cards + they run a lot more tests on these cards too.  They even provide support to these guys to help them build a good game.

So where does this leave AMD_  Well Nvidia doesn't block AMD from helping out.  But since Meteor is getting paid by Nvidia, it will be like 1 dev working on AMD related optimizations while at least 4 devs are working on nVidia optimizations.  Perhaps when they get a lighter workload they will put more resources towards AMD graphics.  Until then AMD graphic users will have to wait longer

On the flip end of things, AMD could technically make their graphic cards more compatible with Nvidia-style instructions.  And to top it all off, I think AMD is waiting for this game to be out of beta before properly committing towards in-house optimizations for the game.  So all this could take a while.

[phanteh]

There may be posts more recent than this, but this is the top result on Google...

So, I started playing Hawken shortly after it went open beta. I really enjoy the gameplay and started spending some money on it. I was playing on a 5870, and performance was choppy at best. Feeling the pinch in other games as well, I upgraded to a 7870. I can now play every game I own on near-max settings with silky smooth frame rate.

Apart from Hawken.

I realise they're part of the Nvidia program, but this has to be the first Nvidia optimized game I've come across that runs so badly on AMD hardware. If there had been some kind of acknowledgment / sticky alerting me to this, I may well have swayed towards an Nvidia card, but there's nothing. No stickys, no official word (that I can find), nothing.

I don't consider myself an AMD fanboy (and I've bemoaned the lack of response from AMD on this issue on their forums), but this lack of communication is only going to hurt Meteor in the long run; a large portion of their target audience is using AMD hardware, after all.

[NightfallGemini]

Chiming in as another AMD/ATi user here. I'm running a 4770 and while it's a bit of a dinosaur, it still seems to do the job on some of the more intense games I've got (granted, the heaviest thing I play is Skyrim, so take that as you will). It routinely does well on everything except for Hawken which will start absolutely smooth, but then slowly crawl to a halt until it's unplayable about 20 minutes into a session. It's almost absolutely some sort of vmem leak issue.

While I admit I do like nVidia (the AMD 4770 was a steal at the price I got it), I don't like the idea of having to shell out for a new card when I already have hardware that absolutely *should* be able to run this game on High if not Ultra (sans PhysX, obviously).