25 replies to this topic

[Turtleboy]

Your system is not capable of running 60 frames on med/high settings_  Well mine isnt either.  Phenom 2x4 3.45ghz, gtx 4601gb, 1920x1080

dont feel bad, this game is just demanding

[Manoloco]

FlyingBear, on December 29 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

machmanx, on December 29 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

FlyingBear, your temps are fine.  Software programs tend to over-exaggerate actual temps by about 5-10 C , and even so, the danger zone is around 90-100C.  IF you're computer was in danger of overheating, most computers have built-in overheat protection right on the motherboard to prevent your CPU from turning to toast.

Don't touch the BIOS or windows swap because only Hawken is experiencing these issues.

While I've figured out that the temps aren't as terrible as I thought (only shortening the lifespan if they are that high), I've decided to go ahead and look into some hardware changes, and this is partially because I've already been looking into this as a result of playing Planetside 2 as well.

My recent exploration into CPU comparison and understanding the different Architectures has made me realize that I'm going to need that motherboard upgrade and a CPU upgrade if I want to stay in a comfortable range of performance for a few years. Good news is I can fit the upgrades I'm looking for within the Christmas cash I got. I'm looking at possibly getting one of the FX series AMD CPUs (and its just a preference due to familiarity, I'm aware some people would rather go for Intel).

Dont upgrade to any AMD CPU if you plan on doing any gaming, an Intel i5 3570 (3570k if you plan on overclocking) will be far superior in any game you throw at it, dont choose a processor because of familiarity with the brand, just choose what is best for your use, and right now there are no better processors for gaming than Intel.

Any other work that is not gaming the i5 will perform very good too, so dont worry about it.

I miss the competitivity in the times of the Athlon XP, i had one (an XP 1800+) and it was better in price and performance to Intel similar offers, right now, sadly, Intel has a very big lead.

My i5 750 (first generation core i processor, lynnfield, bought like 3 years ago), performs better than many current AMD offerings

Edited by Manoloco, December 30 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[FlyingBear]

[ADH]TJ, on December 30 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

Type stat unit in the console (F5), and you should get some numbers that show CPU vs GPU time.

Ah thanks for this. Anything that can let me monitor through in-game functions will certainly come in handy.

Gunhed, on December 30 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

http://www.cpu-world.com/
Maximum operating temperature _ 55°C - 63°C
As your CPU overheats..it starts to drop calculations to reduce heat buildup..I think this might be the issue

I presumed just as much, I noticed at peak temperatures was when I really started to hurt on Seige and Missile Assault maps (dropping to 5-10 fps), which means even if I could get the appropriate cooling I'd still be stuck at 15-20 fps.

Manoloco, on December 30 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Dont upgrade to any AMD CPU if you plan on doing any gaming, an Intel i5 3570 (3570k if you plan on overclocking) will be far superior in any game you throw at it, dont choose a processor because of familiarity with the brand, just choose what is best for your use, and right now there are no better processors for gaming than Intel.

Any other work that is not gaming the i5 will perform very good too, so dont worry about it.

I miss the competitivity in the times of the Athlon XP, i had one (an XP 1800+) and it was better in price and performance to Intel similar offers, right now, sadly, Intel has a very big lead.

My i5 750 (first generation core i processor, lynnfield, bought like 3 years ago), performs better than many current AMD offerings

I'm aware of the i5 series, I've had the 2500k recommended and the 3750k has shown up in some of my searches as well. They do benchmark higher than the CPU I'm looking at, but they aren't within the budget. My particular choice is primarily on Price/Performance, and then from there find a price I can handle (and don't get me wrong, the 3750k does occur in the searches I'm using for good price/performance ratios, but it still breaks the bank for me). I'm going to need a motherboard upgrade whether I go intel or amd due to still being on an AM2 socket, not sure what that is going to cost me. To add to the fun I'm still on DDR2 memory and it would be a waste to try and stick to DDR2 when I will inevitably need another motherboard upgrade if I ever want DDR3 (and that's assuming I would even find an AM3+ socket motherboard that still takes DDR2 memory).

I do intend to upgrade such that I won't need another for several years, but I do have my limits, only so much I can afford on a College budget.

Edited by FlyingBear, December 30 2012 - 11:25 AM.

[machmanx]

If you don't want to upgrade for another few years, then you should go the Core i processor route.  The FX series is a blunder in AMD processor history.  (Does anyone sense coincidence with the fact that the Nvidia FX series was a blunder as well_ So AMD PURPOSELY named those processors FX__)  Performance wise even a Core i5 will outlast an FX series by a year or two.  Your graphics card should be fine for now.  But seriously, when it comes to gaming, upgrading every few years WON'T CUT IT!  Keeping up with the latest games require upgrades from every 6 months to 3 years.  Otherwise you'll be running into issues like you are now every time a game gets released.  Honestly that's not a headache that I want to deal with.  Programmers aren't miracle workers...they can't just make their game magically work on lower spec machines nor do they care to.  Otherwise the easiest way to go is to get a console and a GameFly subscription.  No hassle, no upgrade, done!  But this is the price you pay for being a gamer, it's just how it is.

Turtleboy, your specs match mine, and you have framerate issues_  That doesn't sound right.  Try the same suggestion I gave FlyingBear in this very thread about installing new drivers.

[FlyingBear]

machmanx, on December 30 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

If you don't want to upgrade for another few years, then you should go the Core i processor route.  The FX series is a blunder in AMD processor history.  (Does anyone sense coincidence with the fact that the Nvidia FX series was a blunder as well_ So AMD PURPOSELY named those processors FX__)  Performance wise even a Core i5 will outlast an FX series by a year or two.  Your graphics card should be fine for now.  But seriously, when it comes to gaming, upgrading every few years WON'T CUT IT!  Keeping up with the latest games require upgrades from every 6 months to 3 years.  Otherwise you'll be running into issues like you are now every time a game gets released.  Honestly that's not a headache that I want to deal with.  Programmers aren't miracle workers...they can't just make their game magically work on lower spec machines nor do they care to.  Otherwise the easiest way to go is to get a console and a GameFly subscription.  No hassle, no upgrade, done!  But this is the price you pay for being a gamer, it's just how it is.

Some of my favorite games and the majority of games I play give me little to no issue with my hardware, even as poor as my current CPU seems to fare. It will always be the gameplay of a game that makes it great for me, which is why you will not see me playing Children's Online Daycare or Battlefield. Before my current processor I had another Athlon series at 2.8 ghz. I don't even think it was dual core and I never had such issues with any game I played. Dev's aren't expected to be magic workers but I at least remember a time when a game's performance wasn't an afterthought. And with that being said the only games I'm having issue with are ones that clearly still a work in progress. So maybe the time I'm thinking of was one when Dev's didn't let players try out betas or see the development stages of their games. And as fantastic as it is that gamers themselves can influence development it is not an excuse to presume we would accept the condition of a beta-phase game as a finished product. And this rant isn't aimed at Hawken, I'm a little more upset with Planetside 2, a game that's already "released"  and quite clearly needed another month or two in the beta stage.


It is on rare occasion that I take interest in a game that would push my hardware to its limits. There is only one game I have ever purchased as a full game that I regret buying due to performance, and it was clearly not properly optimized since the console version struggled in the same manner (seriously, a Lake that I can't even travel to doesn't deserve to eat up so much of my graphical power whenever I face it). My upgrade decision is simply to keep me at an effective fps in the few demanding games I take interest in. I'm certainly not helpless when it comes to tweaking, if I can get a consistent 30fps or higher then I'm comfortable.

Edited by FlyingBear, December 30 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[machmanx]

Ha, I used to have an Athlon XP 3200+, which is a single-core processor.  Back in those days we never distinguished processors by their core, heh.  Ran a Geforce 6800 GT back then (most expensive video card I bought but lasted me good ) .  Ah well, multiple cores is the way to go these days.

You certainly make some good points.  Well, I just wanted to tell you about the clear performance difference between both the Core i processor and Athlon FX.  If you have a Microcenter near you they have some awesome FX CPU + MB combo deals.  U should check them out.  Also noticed your current processor is a 125W TDP.  By upgrading you'd get better performance-per-watt.

Edited by machmanx, December 30 2012 - 03:33 PM.