Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Parachuteprone

V 3.0 performance discussion

238 posts in this topic
Many here were whining because they wanted eye candy

I haven't seen anyone whining here. There are legitimate concerns, of course. There was hope that the old engine was simply not using modern graphics cards to their full capability and that certain effects would come "for free" - and it's true, as far as antialiasing and volumetric clouds are concerned, or normal and specular maps (if applied with moderation).

Shadows, unfortunately, do not fall into this category.

It is also worth of notice that large scenarios (with many combat actors) aren't limited by graphics card settings, but by CPU speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also worth of notice that large scenarios (with many combat actors) aren't limited by graphics card settings, but by CPU speed.

That's the first time I've seen the gaming conundrum put so succintly. Once I've upgraded my graphics card (if necessary) it will be interesting to see if Soviet VU operations challenge my early i5 2500k CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if anyone knows how Intel® HD Graphics 4000's might hold up (i5, 4gb ram, 2.6 to 3.4ghz), thanks

I've just updated the list with corresponding entries. It could actually work, I'm somewhat surprised to say. The integrated graphics react noticeably to fullscreen antialiasing, and I'd recommend to keep shadows deactivated for good frame rates, but with these limitations in mind I managed to squeeze an average frame rate of up to 54 fps out of our benchmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many here were whining because they wanted eye candy, without taking in count that they would need a far better computer to be able to run it now...

Same guys who were asking for Arma 3 or BF3 looking landscape, but can't run them at medium setting.

Similar to what I was thinking when I read this thread, Froggy. (I'm not pointing fingers... unless you like being pointed at)

"This soup is too hot! Damn, the ice cubes in it are too cold!" ;)

To be honest, I can't exclude myself from wanting better graphics. I just didn't realize the implications it would have.

Edit: great site for buying a new IMO - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see them as whining either. Admittedly, I may be experiencing a little techno shock since SB has never required me to upgrade anything; a sharp contrast to yearly upgrades back when I was gaming heavily many years ago. Coincidently I've become uninformed of what hardware is currently the best value so I appreciate this forum and the sticky which helps me predict what video card I must invest in just in case I can't live with ~25fps (tanks gotta have shadows under them).

When I saw the preview screenshots I had a feeling an upgrade might be at hand. I haven't had this kind of feeling since I was purchasing the latest simulators and shooters back in the day. This made me think of how SB may be progressing from niche to mainstream (well, as mainstream as simulators are these days). Either way, I hope 3.0 is a great success for the eSim team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just get a four slot, liquid cooled, 8TB card and you should be fine. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Just get a four slot, liquid cooled, 8TB card and you should be fine. :)

Hahah Gibsonm. Actually I was hoping I could just slave an inexpensive 3dfx card to my existing video card. :debile2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so if I went out to Best Buy right now to get a new computer be it desk or lap, what is the best guts that need to be inside to get the best play out of the game. And my wife can do her stuff (got to put the carrot in front of her on this). Have a Gateway Pen i3-2120, 3.30G, Ram4G, 64Bit right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahah Gibsonm. Actually I was hoping I could just slave an inexpensive 3dfx card to my existing video card. :debile2:

Nothing like a little VooDoo

If you want to daisy chain a few I think I have two in the back of a closet, in a box, under a pile of other old hardware somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so if I went out to Best Buy right now to get a new computer be it desk or lap, what is the best guts that need to be inside to get the best play out of the game. And my wife can do her stuff (got to put the carrot in front of her on this). Have a Gateway Pen i3-2120, 3.30G, Ram4G, 64Bit right now.

What is a GateWay Pen?

The best Guts are the best Guts and you probably won't find them at BB.

I'd go to New Egg or Amazon and put my own together. You got a budget?

I like desktops because you can upgrade them in pieces if you like/need. Need more RAM add it, Graphics sux get a new card, only have i3 drop an i7 in etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so if I went out to Best Buy right now to get a new computer be it desk or lap, what is the best guts that need to be inside to get the best play out of the game.

What can I say. There is but one system listed in our tests that offers "great performance" even at the highest shadow mapping quality. If that's what you're after, there's your solution. But it is a rather expensive setup. CPU and graphic card alone cost about 1,000 Dollar at the moment, and you'd still need a mainboard, a case, a power supply unit, a harddisk and/or SSD, and probably an optical drive/recorder, all of which will cost extra. You could quickly exceed the $1,500.- threshold. I don't know if your pockets are that deep - you only wrote that you wanted "the best guts" to get "the best play".

Sites like Tom's Hardware have periodical reviews and comparisons like this one about graphics cards (and don't forget about the CPU). Going for the latest and greatest is a safe, but costly buying strategy. Typically you want the best value for a given budget, and for that there's nno alternative than to look around for a few characteristics and making some notes about your desired key specifications. Then you'd either ask a computer dealer for a custom made model, or check if there are some decent models by manufacturers that come close to what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My computer is a few years old, but if I need an upgrade so be it.

I have an i7 990x processor running at 4.5GHz (Six core)

12GB DDR3 2000MHz ram

3GB DDR5 GeForce GTX 580 Lightning 3

Two SSD hard drives to lower load times, one for operating system, other for simulators.

Will I be able to max out the settings if I run a screen resolution of

1600x1200 using the scenarios tested in the OP ? ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CPU is adequate of course, and the GTX 580 is quite okay, but as usual there are faster models out there. Have a look at this performance rank chart and draw your own conclusions from it.

I should probably point out that there are many Crossfire/SLI and/or dual processor cards listed at the top. Our own tests are inconclusive about their value in SB Pro. We could not observe a discernible benefit, but that may be due to a CPU speed limitation in the test setup. Given the additional (severe) power consumption penalty and the resulting demands for more airflow to cool these devices, I generally recommend to pick a single GPU card that is fast and which has low 2D/idle consumption (which brings us back to the new GTX 780; unfortunately it is costly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that info Ssnake, I have no problem if it means I have to turn down the shadows a little in order to get good performance.

My card certainly isn't the fastest, but I liked that it came with a lot of Video Ram at the time. We'll see how she goes, and just get a new one if I'm not happy with the performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.hwcompare.com/13171/geforce-gtx-460-se-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti/

This site may help to quickly and directly compare two gfx boards and get a quick overview what to expect in imnporvement when you plan to get a board and wonder how much better it is than your existing one. I compared my existing GTX460 and the - if needed - planned GTX660.

Note that that site calculates the conclusions based on the technical specifications, they do not run actual tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neat site Skybird, thanks for that.

Memory Bandwidth

Theoretically speaking, the GeForce GTX 580 3GB should perform a lot faster than the GeForce GTX 660 Ti overall. (explain)

GeForce GTX 580 3GB 192384 MB/sec

GeForce GTX 660 Ti 144000 MB/sec

Difference: 48384 (34%)

Texel Rate

The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is much (approximately 107%) faster with regards to AF than the GeForce GTX 580 3GB. (explain)

GeForce GTX 660 Ti 102480 Mtexels/sec

GeForce GTX 580 3GB 49408 Mtexels/sec

Difference: 53072 (107%)

Pixel Rate

If running with a high resolution is important to you, then the GeForce GTX 580 3GB is superior to the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, and very much so. (explain)

GeForce GTX 580 3GB 37056 Mpixels/sec

GeForce GTX 660 Ti 21960 Mpixels/sec

Difference: 15096 (69%)

Really glad I got that 580 with 3GB now. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fair few people are worried about their i5/i7 rigs! I'm still plodding along with a Q6600 at a stock 2.4GHz. Who needs things to look pretty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always the danger of making people nervous with benchmark results about a future game. What the tests show, and I think this is the important point, that even if you have an older graphics card you can switch off the shadows and still enjoy Steel Beasts in much the way you could in the last seven years when we didn't have shadows either.

Not that I want to celebrate that, I'm just sayin' ... apparently most people here still had fun with it. ;)

Also, it's worth pointing out that the balance between frame rate, screen resolution and render quality is highly subjective. The numbers will tell you only so much, in the end, it's something that simply must be tried first hand in order to form an educated opinion, and from which you can then draw your conclusions about your own computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And many people are happy if they can run about 25fps avg in medium size battle.

So maybe there is no reason to be worried about performance now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general terms, why not just wait and see how it goes for "you"?

Don't do anything now.

Buy the upgrade.

Run the new version.

If its subjectively speaking "no good" for the sorts of battles you wish to play, then sure buy a new card.

But I see little point in replacing a graphics card (or entire system) that was again subjectively speaking "adequate" / "good" running 2.654 just on what might be.

Sure if you have 286 maybe now is the time to upgrade, but if you don't do multi player and the battles you play are small, then I suspect your current machine may well be fine.

Otherwise you may well be spending money on hardware that will itself be obsolete in 6 months for no real reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Well, I think that the overall life cycle of PC hardware has extended significantly over the past ten years. If you still remember the late 1980s...1990s period where you could see your brand new PC growing grey hair on the way from the shop to your home, I haven't felt much of an issue with my old PC from 2009 until recently. The urgency to buy new hardware has receded substantially.

And, if you are planning to buy a new PC anyway, it doesn't hurt to know what kind of a performance you can expect from the planned hardware, which is one of the justifications for publishing these benchmark tests. Not everybody can, or wants to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added some info for the Radeon HD 6850, for shadowmapping levels 2 and 0, at both 1280x720 and 1920x1080.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this will work and can bump the graphics card up to 780.

i7 990x processor running at 4.5GHz (Six core)

12GB DDR3 2000MHz ram

3GB DDR5 GeForce GTX 580 Lightning 3

Two SSD hard drives to lower load times, one for operating system, other for simulators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The test results in our benchmark yielded an average of just above 30 frames per second, with a low of just above 25 fps.

I have to say that most of our beta testers were apparently happy with even lower

What? Who says that?

They should've been fired and forced to beta test World of Tanks.

If you're a beta tester and said that, you need to punch yourself in the nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now