| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
JackStraw56
   |
Posted - 2011.05.18 19:36:00 -
[31]
Edited by: JackStraw56 on 18/05/2011 19:36:51
ITT, for each computer part, is a person who claims it is the bottleneck.
For me the bottleneck is CPU. My clients use about 1GB ram each at the maximum and I run at most 3 (I have 6gb ram). My graphics card is fairly new and never runs out of ram. I'm using an older Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and CPU seems to be my bottleneck, it's pegged at 100% utilization whenever the clients lag a bit.
If you don't have enough ram, that will be your bottleneck. If you have an old CPU, that will be your bottleneck. If you have really new CPU and lots of RAM then maybe GPU will be your bottleneck.
Check the task manager while running a bunch of clients.
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 19:38:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: JackStraw56
Check the task manager while running a bunch of clients.
Check client settings first. Make sure they don't generate fake FPS that eat up your processor.
--
Thanks CCP for cu |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 19:53:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Akita T on 18/05/2011 19:55:29
Originally by: JackStraw56
ITT, for each computer part, is a person who claims it is the bottleneck.
Well, obviously, given a large set of possible hardware permutations, each of them could be right for some of them, but for a given system, it's pretty clear which is which.
For the OP's system, it's obviously the GPU.
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Check client settings first. Make sure they don't generate fake FPS that eat up your processor.
When you actually play the game, yes, always interval one.
But when simulating multi-client CPU/GPU load using a single account, interval immediate will be "fine enough" to help determine which one of those two is the tighter bottleneck for pure FPS.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Mr Kidd
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 20:43:00 -
[34]
Geforce 9800 gtx+ here
CPU is AMD Phenom, forget the model.
3GB RAM on the system. 512MB on the GPU
CPU hovers 8% - 14% for Eve. I can run two clients with no problems all settings high at 1600x1200. The only caveat is that I do not run antialiasing.
Your system sounds capable of doing it and there's not much difference between our two cards *shrugs*. You've got more than enough system member. Try lowering your in game quality settings.
|
Ehrys Marakai
Caldari
Evolution
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 21:02:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Ehrys Marakai
I push 250fps out of the client on highest settings
250 virtual FPS that noone can see... does it matter even for a second?
Put interval one, enable VSync, you will see better responsibility from all your clients.
Please read entire post, not just skim and highlight bits. What you said was exactly my point.
|
Not-Apsalar
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 21:52:00 -
[36]
8800GTS is old as sin. New videocards are cheap as dirt. Get a 5770 for a little over 100$ and you'll be fine.
|
Opertone
Caldari
World - of - Empire
Cassiopeia.
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 22:30:00 -
[37]
commenting again
EAX effects need to be done in SOUND CARD with SOUND processor and sound memory... otherwise onboard chip will dip into CPU and system RAM, more importantly processor interrupts and requests. Anyone who says onboard chip model bla bla bla can cover it is misguided. Test it - sound on, guristas mission - they spam missiles you zoom in and zoom out - notice FPS drop and stuttering. Even the better on board chips use system resources extensively. Cards have their own stuff, banks, logic, etc. etc.
Although cache does not necessarily mean speed, an AMD with 512 kb of cache can be inferior to an intel with 8 Mb cache. It costs money, but it all adds up to smoother performance.
SSD, if you never had one, pls don't comment - it really is fast, everything is fast, system start up, client loading, screenshots. It really really is fast. Another experience, nothing like you had before. Expensive as **** too - not a primary storage.
Multicore CPU? - i am happy with dual cores.
RAM speed, RAM latency - very relevant.
Overclocking? - no, just say no. You don't want system errors, overheat and malfunction, but nobody is stopping you.
Drivers? As soon as you upgrade video card you should, you ought to do a clean install of OS. Do your own research - video drivers are a bug source of problems. Stumbled dover it three times myself.
One more thing - when system overheats - CPU auto slows down - this is the fundamentals. Use an aluminum chassis - it has better cooling ratio. Slightly bigger case helps to dissipate more heat with less fan work. Hot hardware - number one source of errors and decay.
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 22:30:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Jose Black
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
The bottle neck for multiclient is one thing and one thing only, the effective amount of video memory.
Are you sure about that? At least running two clients at Full HD with just 512 MB doesn't raise any issues for me.
Now enable anti-alias on both clients and enjoy the slideshow.
|
Astroka
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 06:05:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Astroka on 19/05/2011 06:05:50
I had an ATI Radeon HD 4650, Intel Q9300 @ 2.5GHz. Ran fine with no AA, 1440x900 resolution. HDR, shadows, etc. off. Averaged maybe 30 fps. Bloom off.
I upgraded my video card to a Geforce GTX 550 Ti FPB (factory overclocked) and can easily run it with the framerate steady at 60 fps (I have Vsync turned on) with all settings at max (1440x900, 16xQAA, HDR, shadows, bloom, etc.). Video card is a huge player.
Edit: forgot to include, 4GB of 800MHz DDR2 RAM.
Originally by: Ioci
Welcome to the bustedness of EVE.
1 guy can disband a 2000 man alliance and wipe out trillions, that's cool.
Give back a noob 10 mill? No, that's game breaking.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 06:28:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Teh Scout
Originally by: Noemie
Eve client is single threaded so a CPU can run a client nicely, but if you can assign cores to clients, that would mean you could get a quad core and comfortably run 4 clients PROVIDED ...
Your RAM base per client should be in the region of 1.5GB (2GB for safety). With 3GB for Windows (if thats ur poison of choice) that means around 10-12GB RAM and of course a 64bit OS to address all that RAM.
With 4GB, I have no issues running 4 clients.
With the '2 GB per client' number it sounds like the guy is being stupid with separate copies of the client install for each instance, ensuring that none of the data files are shared in memory.
|
LordInvisible
Gallente
Nova Ardour
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 07:22:00 -
[41]
Edited by: LordInvisible on 19/05/2011 07:24:01
Edited by: LordInvisible on 19/05/2011 07:23:28
I was playing with some settings few months ago and i noticed, that real bottleneck with load time is HD. So i decided to turn off my pagefiles, since i have 8GB of DDR3 ram. I usually run 3 clients and they managed to use all the ram I got right to the point, where win7 started to bug me to close some programs, coz it was running out of a available memory.
However, on i7 core [email protected] OCed to 3.36GHz, 8GB DDR3 RAM and single ATI 5850 with 1GB of VRAM I can run 4 clients without any problems if paging files are turned on, thus little more disc activity. I have my clients set up so two main chars have graphics options to maximum (i'm running HD 1080p on both monitors), while two support clients, which are usually behind main ones are set to low graphics details.
Also, EvE has sound?
It works fine without any dps drop even when sh.it hits the fan :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: "For me EvE wasn't that much fun, many ppl refer to it as a nicely designed database front-end and that |
Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 07:24:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Ehrys Marakai
Edited by: Ehrys Marakai on 18/05/2011 13:58:37<snipped for brevity and the 5k character limit>
While it's certainly true that once you have sufficient RAM your bottle neck will move to other components in your system that does not mean that the recommendation for more RAM to increase performance is OGMLOLOL11.
Someone running 32bit windows 7 with 3gb of RAM is going to primarily be ram limited in their performance. anyone with 2gb or less nowadays is going to get their biggest performance increase though increasing their RAM.
From what I've seen windows 7 starts behaving badly around 60% ram utilization at 70% it's pretty much going to start thrashing your hard drive.
RAM is also one of the cheapest upgrades that can be done to a computer that generally pays performance dividends for any applications you might run. Unlike upgrading CPU which often requires new motherboard and RAM to take advantage of and will be of limited use on less CPU intensive apps or GPU which is essentially useless for anything outside gaming and 3d rendering.
The way I describe it is like this. Think of the memory systems in the context of plumbing. Your hard drive is essentially the lake or river from which you're water comes and if you are having to walk out to it every time you want a drink of water you're going to spend most your time walking. Ram is like a reservoir at your house you turn the tap on and it's near instantaneously delivered but you still have to get up out of your chair. Cache is like a glass you keep next to your chair its capacity is limited but it's instantly available. In each case the larger the reservoir at each stage the fewer trips have to be made out to the next.
Now it's a little more complicated than that because data is not fungible like water but the general analogy stands. The closer you can store needed data to your chair the less time is spent fetching it.
This is why fast hard drives are generally the least beneficial component in overall system performance unless you are dealing with truly huge databases or are facing a severe memory bottle neck. With sufficient memory their speed only matters for boot up and the first time a particular bit of data is accessed.
Now once you get a big enough reservoir your bottle neck does shift to other components but only once you get to the point that your trips to the hard disk are limited.
Oh also remember that historically base computer bundles come with half the the ram they really need to function effectively. So you can generally be sure that the first upgrade any non-enthusiast is going to need will be more RAM. Usually followed by a decent video card since those same vendors tend to scrimp and rely on crappy integrated chipsets.
No matter how much you spend you will always have a bottle neck on your system the only question is where it is at any given point in time.
|
Pwnership
Caldari
GRAIL SEEKERS
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 07:33:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Farseer Fehanna
Hi,
I'm not happy with the performance when running multiple clients and I'm thinking about which options I have on upgrading.
Before - Eve client was very very CPU dependant. But after new engine was implemented I guess it started to also get GPU dependant?
Im currently running a Q6600 @ 3.0GHz, but I'm able to stabily run it at 3.6GHz if I put back in some of the (noisy) fans.
However, I'm running a XFX GF 8800GTS GPU which is getting old.
Other than that I have 6GB of "decent" RAM.
Based on your experiences - Will buying a GF 560 GTX increase my performance alot or will there be other bottlenecks?
(I know I should post more system details, but I dont have them currently)
BR
Farseer
That would be a massive step in the right direction. Although the GTX 480 would be a better option than the 560 in a few ways. 560 is a bit slower. But anything is better than that 8800 gts. You will see a massive improvement. Make sure you get a good power supply, the 480 takes about 250watts whereas the 560 only takes about 160-175. still you will need a good PSU. Good luck!
-Pwn
|
Mr Majestyk
Combat and Recon
The Last Chancers.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 07:42:00 -
[44]
I run 3 clients all on max settings except AA turned off.
At the login screen I am at 7% CPU usage at 84% GPU usage:
2600k @4.8 and 6990 @ 1000/1500.
If I turn on AA on any client everything more or less drops to 2 FPS. For some reason I can't turn on AA with more than 1 client running. Also the second GPU isn't used at all. It used to work then I did a driver update at the same time as a patch and never bothered to try to fix it.
As for Ram. I think my client uses 700m-1gb max.
SSD + Junctions = Great
|
Ehrys Marakai
Caldari
Evolution
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 08:03:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Skex Relbore
<also snipped for character limit>
It appears that you haven't read my post in the context of the reply to a previous poster. Which I admit is my fault as I didn't quote them.
I was responding to the "You need 10-12Gb of RAM" post and previous posts which also requested him to have more than 8Gb of RAM. That is just silly, 8Gb is more than enough and I gave an explanation as to how and why, which you even backed up in your own post ;)
I also appreciate your giving a simple analogy for the people who may not understand the technical terms I was posting =D
Originally by: Opertone
EAX effects need to be done in SOUND CARD with SOUND processor and sound memory... otherwise onboard chip will dip into CPU and system RAM, more importantly processor interrupts and requests. Anyone who says onboard chip model bla bla bla can cover it is misguided. Test it - sound on, guristas mission - they spam missiles you zoom in and zoom out - notice FPS drop and stuttering. Even the better on board chips use system resources extensively. Cards have their own stuff, banks, logic, etc. etc.
Then something is poorly wrong with your system. Although you are correct, they are software based and do dip into CPU and RAM. However, this is not enough to cause frame-rate stutter on high-mid/high spec systems. I suggest you purchase a decent motherboard/CPU.
Originally by: Opertone
Although cache does not necessarily mean speed, an AMD with 512 kb of cache can be inferior to an intel with 8 Mb cache. It costs money, but it all adds up to smoother performance.
But one should not upgrade a sufficiently powerful enough CPU just to increase the cache size. For a game like Eve this is pointless and you will get more "bang for your buck" on other system components.
Originally by: Opertone
SSD, if you never had one, pls don't comment - it really is fast, everything is fast, system start up, client loading, screenshots.
I have an SSD thanks. OCZ Vertex2E. Yes, it is fast. So much more responsive you wouldn't believe. However, if you're having to access the disk that often for this to make a noticeable difference to your frame-rate, I suggest getting other components first.
Originally by: Opertone
Multicore CPU? - i am happy with dual cores.
I agree, for gaming dual-core is more than enough. However, multi-boxing would be better with more CPU cores provided you configure each one correctly. (4 clients each with 2 cores)
Originally by: Opertone
RAM speed, RAM latency - very relevant.
Latency, not so much nowadays. Transfer speed, yes. Buying decent RAM will help a lot if you already have budget RAM.
Originally by: Opertone
Overclocking? - no, just say no. You don't want system errors, overheat and malfunction, but nobody is stopping you.
Only a bad over-clocker has this happen to them. A "valid" over-clock will not exhibit these issues. That said, any over-clock above the maximum rating will reduce the life span of the processor (Please note that a lot of Intel chips are simply under-clocked versions of the high performance ones, hence you aren't actually over-clocking, more, returning it to normal speed ;) )
Originally by: Opertone
Drivers? As soon as you upgrade video card you should, you ought to do a clean install of OS. Do your own research - video drivers are a bug source of problems. Stumbled dover it three times myself.
What?! This is ridiculous. Especially seeing as most cards all use the same source driver now, with a few added extras for specific chip-sets. Never had this problem with nVidia since they switched to a unified driver model. Can't speak for ATi though.
|
Farseer Fehanna
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 09:16:00 -
[46]
I see many of you say that I should check my GPU usage, but what software can monitor the GPU usage? I've only seen programs that monitor voltage levels and temperature.
Please enlighten me :)
PS: For NVidia GFX cards.
|
Ehrys Marakai
Caldari
Evolution
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 09:21:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Farseer Fehanna
I see many of you say that I should check my GPU usage, but what software can monitor the GPU usage? I've only seen programs that monitor voltage levels and temperature.
Please enlighten me :)
PS: For NVidia GFX cards.
MSI Afterburner is a good tool. But take care when evaluating GPU Usage. For example, some burn tests will cause your GPU to struggle like hell and overheat quickly, but only show 40-60% usage.
It may be a leap of faith, but I suggest you simply "take our word for it" ;)
|
Solstice Project
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 10:35:00 -
[48]
Assign every client to it's own cpu.
I would advise anybody who uses multi-core-CPUs to set the client
to one CPU only, because it gives you some speed.
Worked that out on my notebook, especially (but not only) in power-savings-mode.
So ... there's a high probability you won't notice a difference anyway.
I can't tell if this is connected to turbo-boost, (seems obvious)
but on the other hand, the client is single-threaded so it's a gain either way.
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:16:00 -
[49]
Wow, 250+ FPS? How am I not getting that kind of performance out of my 4-core Q6600 with 2 460GTX's in SLI and 8gb of 800mhz RAM running Windows 7 64bit? I usually get around 60FPS while playing (granted, this is running ALL settings at their highest). Any ideas?
~Gnosis~ |
Agent 42
Gallente
The. Unit.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:35:00 -
[50]
I run a
Core i7 2600k 3.5Ghz
8GB ram
gtx 580
I have a 2560x1600 screen and I was running two clients max setting without shadows (only because they're ugly). I was getting lag with AA 16Q turned on for both of them so I dropped them down to 4x and now they run smooth. In other words my gpu is a bottleneck. Most likely it was pixel performance. I would say yeah, upgrade your gpu but try lowering AA as well.
And yes EVE looks magnificent on a high res ISP screen.
|
Adrie Atticus
Tactical Vendor of Services and Goods
Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:48:00 -
[51]
Originally by: J Kunjeh
Wow, 250+ FPS? How am I not getting that kind of performance out of my 4-core Q6600 with 2 460GTX's in SLI and 8gb of 800mhz RAM running Windows 7 64bit? I usually get around 60FPS while playing (granted, this is running ALL settings at their highest). Any ideas?
Because you have Vsync enabled, the FPS is limited to 60. I can also assume that your monitor pushes out 60Hz, which means it can draw images at the rate of 60 FPS. If you go above the monitor refresh rate, you'll end up getting screen tearing which only ruins your day. Stable 60 FPSis alot better than fluctuating 70-100 FPS.
Then again, 120Hz monitors have dropped in prizes like a stone so you might want to consider one of those if your only goal is to spend $400 on a monitor to say that "I RUN GAEMS AT 120FPS".
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:49:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Adrie Atticus
Originally by: J Kunjeh
Wow, 250+ FPS? How am I not getting that kind of performance out of my 4-core Q6600 with 2 460GTX's in SLI and 8gb of 800mhz RAM running Windows 7 64bit? I usually get around 60FPS while playing (granted, this is running ALL settings at their highest). Any ideas?
Because you have Vsync enabled, the FPS is limited to 60. I can also assume that your monitor pushes out 60Hz, which means it can draw images at the rate of 60 FPS. If you go above the monitor refresh rate, you'll end up getting screen tearing which only ruins your day. Stable 60 FPSis alot better than fluctuating 70-100 FPS.
Then again, 120Hz monitors have dropped in prizes like a stone so you might want to consider one of those if your only goal is to spend $400 on a monitor to say that "I RUN GAEMS AT 120FPS".
Ah, well, that explains it then. No, I really don't want to buy a $400 monitor just to say I can run at a high FPS...I just bought a new one at 60hz for $200 and I'm very pleased with the way it looks. I just wanted to know how people with similar systems are getting such high FPS rates...now I know, so thanks for that. 
~Gnosis~ |
OverlordY
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:52:00 -
[53]
Im not sure what eve is bound to.
I was in the mass testing on SISI. GPU and CPU usage did not pass 46%, yet FPS was at 2 FPS dureing the massive 400 people shooting POS test.
Conclusion is just horrid programming by CCP
|
Ehrys Marakai
Caldari
Evolution
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:53:00 -
[54]
Originally by: J Kunjeh
Originally by: Adrie Atticus
Originally by: J Kunjeh
Wow, 250+ FPS? How am I not getting that kind of performance out of my 4-core Q6600 with 2 460GTX's in SLI and 8gb of 800mhz RAM running Windows 7 64bit? I usually get around 60FPS while playing (granted, this is running ALL settings at their highest). Any ideas?
Because you have Vsync enabled, the FPS is limited to 60. I can also assume that your monitor pushes out 60Hz, which means it can draw images at the rate of 60 FPS. If you go above the monitor refresh rate, you'll end up getting screen tearing which only ruins your day. Stable 60 FPSis alot better than fluctuating 70-100 FPS.
Then again, 120Hz monitors have dropped in prizes like a stone so you might want to consider one of those if your only goal is to spend $400 on a monitor to say that "I RUN GAEMS AT 120FPS".
Yep, much better to run at stable 60 than a high frame-rate (unless your monitor supports it). The reason I don't have vsync enabled is because I suffer from mouse lag with it enabled. Which ruins my day because the interface makes me feel physically ill (everything is out of sync and delayed in a visually undetectable way, but it all just "feels" wrong. Hard to describe =p )
Ah, well, that explains it then. No, I really don't want to buy a $400 monitor just to say I can run at a high FPS...I just bought a new one at 60hz for $200 and I'm very pleased with the way it looks. I just wanted to know how people with similar systems are getting such high FPS rates...now I know, so thanks for that.
|
Ehrys Marakai
Caldari
Evolution
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:55:00 -
[55]
Originally by: OverlordY
Im not sure what eve is bound to.
I was in the mass testing on SISI. GPU and CPU usage did not pass 46%, yet FPS was at 2 FPS dureing the massive 400 people shooting POS test.
Conclusion is just horrid programming by CCP
This is your network waiting for packets from the eve server.
Damn post timer, can't believe I have to wait two minutes to give a one line response =/
|
Jason Markus Hainsworth
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:56:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Farseer Fehanna
Hi,
I'm not happy with the performance when running multiple clients and I'm thinking about which options I have on upgrading.
Before - Eve client was very very CPU dependant. But after new engine was implemented I guess it started to also get GPU dependant?
Im currently running a Q6600 @ 3.0GHz, but I'm able to stabily run it at 3.6GHz if I put back in some of the (noisy) fans.
However, I'm running a XFX GF 8800GTS GPU which is getting old.
Other than that I have 6GB of "decent" RAM.
Based on your experiences - Will buying a GF 560 GTX increase my performance alot or will there be other bottlenecks?
(I know I should post more system details, but I dont have them currently)
BR
Farseer
The 8800 series are still very powerful cards. I have an 8800GT 1GB which runs beautifully with 4 clients on XP with 4GB of ram. The card series can run even the most current graphics demanding games at the maximum settings with a high frame rate. I think your limit will come down to Video Memory on the card rather than the actual clocks on the card. Although IMO Eve is not really that graphics intensive. I won't be replacing my card for at least another few years when games actually start to bottleneck on it.
|
Thor79
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:57:00 -
[57]
Originally by: RaTTuS
RAM is all you need,
lots of it...
also who can tell before the next patch as things will change...
BS
I have two computers that run EVE, a Core 2 Duo @3ghz, and a Core 2 Quad @2.6ghz, both with the same amount of ram (8GB), but the Duo system has a much more powerful video card (both run ATI). On the Duo I can run 1 client with no issues, 2 clients, however, runs laggy. On the Quad I can run 4 clients without issues, 5 clients, however, runs a little laggy (tolerable if I have one client minimized).
This example points to this game being very CPU dependent, and multi-core dependent. True that ram is important, the more you have the better, but it will not enable you to run how ever many clients you want on the system. You need to have the gpu and especially the cpu to support it. At least 4 cores is preferrable.
|
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Caldari
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 14:58:00 -
[58]
I haz i9 16 GHz with 4 TB of DDr 5 Million...
meh, OK, so cba to troll.
Hardware bottlenecks are a subjective thing. Every person has their own theory, their own problems. All kit has a fine balance. The OP says he's on a 6600 right, and sure, upgrading to a 5xx from NVidia will give his computer some love, the CPU will -then- become the bottleneck.
Oh, and for the ****** who said a "gaming edition" OS, srsly, I'll have some of what you're smoking.
And, interesting, I see no-one mentioned mobo. Chipset can make a nice little difference from time to time.
-=-=-=-=-
Reformed Carebear.
Much bear, zero care.
-=-=-=-=- |
Ehrys Marakai
Caldari
Evolution
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 15:01:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Jason Markus Hainsworth
Originally by: Farseer Fehanna
Hi,
I'm not happy with the performance when running multiple clients and I'm thinking about which options I have on upgrading.
Before - Eve client was very very CPU dependant. But after new engine was implemented I guess it started to also get GPU dependant?
Im currently running a Q6600 @ 3.0GHz, but I'm able to stabily run it at 3.6GHz if I put back in some of the (noisy) fans.
However, I'm running a XFX GF 8800GTS GPU which is getting old.
Other than that I have 6GB of "decent" RAM.
Based on your experiences - Will buying a GF 560 GTX increase my performance alot or will there be other bottlenecks?
(I know I should post more system details, but I dont have them currently)
BR
Farseer
The 8800 series are still very powerful cards. I have an 8800GT 1GB which runs beautifully with 4 clients on XP with 4GB of ram. The card series can run even the most current graphics demanding games at the maximum settings with a high frame rate. I think your limit will come down to Video Memory on the card rather than the actual clocks on the card. Although IMO Eve is not really that graphics intensive. I won't be replacing my card for at least another few years when games actually start to bottleneck on it.
The GT and the GTS are very different in terms of power, the latter being less powerful and of course graphics memory will play a part (with the special post-processing effects, AA and AF)
I had an 8800GT which run Eve beautifully on a Q6600, but upgraded to a GTX260 after I started going sub-60 on some FPS games in native.
Buying a 560 or a 480 is a sound piece of advice.
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 15:03:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Farseer Fehanna
I see many of you say that I should check my GPU usage, but what software can monitor the GPU usage? I've only seen programs that monitor voltage levels and temperature.
Please enlighten me :)
PS: For NVidia GFX cards.
Just get GPU-Z.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |