GTX 260 not enough with i5-2400 it seems.

[blbeta]

This is just general performance info so others may gauge what their hardware may do. I will be buying a new video card.

Current Rig:
i5-2400 (3.1GHz)
GTX 260 core 216 896MB
8GB RAM
256GB SSD
1680x1050 native resolution

With everything at medium, except shadows and flora at low, I get horrible FPS while fighting most of the time. FPS is ok if I am off by myself. I can get 50+ FPS. Fighting is typically 10-25 FPS.

I wanted to make sure it was an inadequate graphics card issue. Monitoring GPU and CPU while playing show my GPU always at 95%. My CPUs (4 of them) ranged from 20%-70% most of the time. At that point I assumed it was graphics card.

Just to make sure I went to my brother's house who has a similar rig.
Brother's Rig:
i5-2400 (3.1GHz)
GTX 560TI 2GB
8GB RAM
256GB SSD
1920x1080 native resolution

He was high on everything at 1920x1080 and was smooth everywhere it seemed. He didn't have any huge battles, but still stayed between 45-60+ FPS. His GPU was at 99% and I didn't even bother looking at CPU usage as it was so pretty when it is smooth.

[CaptainSmall]

Take in mind that the CPU can still be a bottleneck even if its usage isn't showing 100%....my performance (on an old Q6600) is definitely CPU bottlenecked, however it never claims to be loaded to more than 55%-60%

Since you have the same CPU as your brother, I really really really think you should check his performance in a heavy battle before forking out a new card. I'm thinking...upgrading from a GTX 260 will probably make the smaller battles much smoother but do little for those heavy fights.

Good luck

[blbeta]

You are saying his setup won't even play it ok in big battles? I know it isn't high end, but being that I doubt PS2 uses more than four cores I wouldn't think you could do much better without overclocking.

If they are expecting users to overclock to get decent performance, then we are in trouble.

My problem is even fighting at a small base with only a few people visible I rarely get over 25fps with lower settings and lower resolution. For instance the base west of "The Crown" on Indar. I have had a lot of fights there even inside and one other person shows up and my FPS suck.

[CaptainSmall]

I'm running an old Q6600 with a GTX260 and my performance is horrible in a heavy battle (with an estimated 100+ players, it'll drop to 20-25). However, in moderate outpost fights (around say 20-30 people), I'll still be able to play at 30-40.

I'm not saying that you wouldn't benefit from an upgrade. I'm just finding it odd that the difference between you and your brother's machines are that large given that the GPU is the only difference. If your performance stays the same when you reduce you graphics settings, it usually means that the game is CPU and not GPU bound...in this regards, your computer should stomp over the performance I get and in heavy battles, it should be equal with that of your brother.

[blbeta]

I thought CPU might be an issue too when I saw them say something about the game being CPU bound at the moment. Just the fact that his was butter smooth on High settings @ 1920x1080 when first logging in with all those people at the Warpgate and mine is not on Medium settings (with some low) @ 1680x1050 makes me think mine is GPU bound.

The only difference in our machines that should have an effect on the game is the graphics card. I don't just mean similar parts, but same manufacturer and model numbers.
MB = same
Ram = same
SSD = Mine is actually SATA III his is SATA II but same manufaturer. Eitherway it should have next to nothing to do with FPS
DVD = Same
Case = Same
Power Supply = Both Same manufacturer but different models, again nothing to do with FPS as both are more than powerful enough to run the hardware.

[Levente]

i have 295gtx this is a dual gpu card, and it struggles when theres lot of people at the AMS station or biolab. lot of high detailed objects there. i need a new pc xdddd