Sm4sh3D Apr 6, 2014 @ 5:59pm
Did they improved performance?
So I got this at launch and it ran like a$$, you pretty had to have the latest sandy bridge to make this game run decently.
Got myself a new rig even if it's a notebook (i7 4700MQ/ GTX 760M), is this thing worth a second download?
Showing 1-15 of 25 comments
< >
Cypher Apr 6, 2014 @ 6:27pm 
Yes, the performance has improved greatly. For what it's worth, I play on a Core 2 Duo 3.0 GHz with a GTX 275 and 4GB of RAM.
mastermind meme Apr 6, 2014 @ 7:03pm 
Improved, still bad
ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Apr 6, 2014 @ 7:18pm 
an notebook i5 is enough to run the game, that isn't the issue. the actual issue is the video card.

you would most likely have to run ns2 on all low settings. the GTX 760M is abit on the weak side in terms of video cards. in your case its also best to use direct x 11.
Last edited by ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex; Apr 6, 2014 @ 7:20pm
Sm4sh3D Apr 6, 2014 @ 8:17pm 
Originally posted by xG:D >>Stickz<<:
you would most likely have to run ns2 on all low settings. the GTX 760M is abit on the weak side in terms of video cards. in your case its also best to use direct x 11.

the gpu is fine, from what I remember the game was just terribly cpu demanding.
100% Recycled Awesome Apr 6, 2014 @ 8:32pm 
Originally posted by xG:D >>Stickz<<:
an notebook i5 is enough to run the game, that isn't the issue. the actual issue is the video card.

you would most likely have to run ns2 on all low settings. the GTX 760M is abit on the weak side in terms of video cards. in your case its also best to use direct x 11.

Meh. GPU is all relatively minor in this game. You need a meaty CPU more than anything else. I went from a 9800GTX+ to a GTX 560 and got a meager 1 FPS more. I then moved from a Core 2 Dual 2.8ghz to an i5 4670K and got 130 more FPS on the same settings. That to me screams that GPU is a very minor part of the equation comparatively.
ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Apr 6, 2014 @ 8:48pm 
Originally posted by Sm4sh3D:
the gpu is fine, from what I remember the game was just terribly cpu demanding.

gtx 760m
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+760M

gts 450
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTS+450

the gtx 760m is almost equivalent to the gts 450. this is the games recommanded specs. this means you can run all low settings and it will likely be playable without lagg.

Originally posted by 100% Recycled Awesome:

Meh. GPU is all relatively minor in this game. You need a meaty CPU more than anything else. I went from a 9800GTX+ to a GTX 560 and got a meager 1 FPS more. I then moved from a Core 2 Dual 2.8ghz to an i5 4670K and got 130 more FPS on the same settings. That to me screams that GPU is a very minor part of the equation comparatively.

anything above 60fps is pointless. this is the maximum amount of frames that can be displayed on a typical 60 hertz monitor. you don't need a cpu that outputs 130fps lol

the i7 4700MQ can out perform 60fps by a long shot. this is not an issue for him period.

all these people complaining about horrible cpus, one day i'm gonna downclock my amd processor to 2.6ghz-2.8ghz just to prove a point. (currently at 4.4ghz)
Last edited by ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex; Apr 6, 2014 @ 8:57pm
mastermind meme Apr 6, 2014 @ 8:57pm 
Originally posted by xG:D >>Stickz<<:
Originally posted by Sm4sh3D:
the gpu is fine, from what I remember the game was just terribly cpu demanding.

gtx 760m
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+760M

gts 450
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTS+450

the gtx 760m is almost equivalent to the gts 450. this is the games recommanded specs. this means you can run all low settings and it will likely be playable.

Originally posted by 100% Recycled Awesome:

Meh. GPU is all relatively minor in this game. You need a meaty CPU more than anything else. I went from a 9800GTX+ to a GTX 560 and got a meager 1 FPS more. I then moved from a Core 2 Dual 2.8ghz to an i5 4670K and got 130 more FPS on the same settings. That to me screams that GPU is a very minor part of the equation comparatively.

anything above 60fps is pointless. this is the maximum amount of frames that can be displayed on a typical 60 hertz monitor. you don't need a cpu that outputs 130fps lol

the i7 4700MQ can out prefrom 60fps by a long shot. this is not an issue for him period.

all these people complaining about horrible cpus, one day i'm gonna downclock my amd processor to 2.6ghz-2.8ghz just to prove a point. (currently at 4.4ghz)
You dont NEED 130 fps and you cant distinguish EVERY FRAME but the more fps the more smooth it looks.
ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Apr 6, 2014 @ 9:01pm 
Originally posted by best aruond:
You dont NEED 130 fps and you cant distinguish EVERY FRAME but the more fps the more smooth it looks.

umm incorrect. if your monitor can't display more than 60fps how are you gonna look at 130fps? granted you might want slighly above 60fps so it doesn't drop bellow 60, but anything above 65-70fps is overkill.
Last edited by ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex; Apr 6, 2014 @ 9:06pm
mastermind meme Apr 6, 2014 @ 9:09pm 
Originally posted by xG:D >>Stickz<<:
Originally posted by best aruond:
You dont NEED 130 fps and you cant distinguish EVERY FRAME but the more fps the more smooth it looks.

umm incorrect. if your monitor can't display more than 60fps how are you gonna look at 130fps? granted you might want slighly above 60fps so it doesn't drop bellow 60, but anything above 65-70fps is overkill.
"If your monitor cant" I just take issue with people who say that you cant tell the difference between anything over 60. Obviously its overkill and even though its at the point where you literally cant distinguish each frame it still looks smoother and most people who say these things have not even had this much fps (proceed to tell me how badass your build is and how you know what you're talking about)
Sm4sh3D Apr 6, 2014 @ 9:14pm 
Originally posted by xG:D >>Stickz<<:
Originally posted by Sm4sh3D:
the gpu is fine, from what I remember the game was just terribly cpu demanding.

gtx 760m
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+760M

gts 450
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTS+450

the gtx 760m is almost equivalent to the gts 450. this is the games recommanded specs. this means you can run all low settings and it will likely be playable without lagg.

>using G3D Mark as a valid benchmark
>comparing Fermi to Kepler

dude, every single engine is different, you need to check how the gpu works game by game.
I can pretty much max out Bioshock Infinite, you won't be able to do the same with a GTS450. Not with a decent framerate at least.

Now ofc it's a mobile gpu, it's not even nearly close to the desktop 760 but that's not the point, I can lower the res if needed or do without ambient occlusion, I will survive.

ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Apr 6, 2014 @ 9:23pm 
Originally posted by best aruond:
"If your monitor cant" I just take issue with people who say that you cant tell the difference between anything over 60. Obviously its overkill and even though its at the point where you literally cant distinguish each frame it still looks smoother and most people who say these things have not even had this much fps (proceed to tell me how badass your build is and how you know what you're talking about)

honestly, if i turned all my settings to low right know, i would get above 130fps easy. its not any smoother than holding above 60fps on all high with ambient occlusion off.

my build
fx 8350 4.4ghz OC
his r9 270x turbo OC
8gb of ddr3 1600 ram
raid 0 solid state (120gb x2)
ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Apr 6, 2014 @ 9:34pm 
Originally posted by Sm4sh3D:
>using G3D Mark as a valid benchmark
>comparing Fermi to Kepler

dude, every single engine is different, you need to check how the gpu works game by game.
I can pretty much max out Bioshock Infinite, you won't be able to do the same with a GTS450. Not with a decent framerate at least.

Now ofc it's a mobile gpu, it's not even nearly close to the desktop 760 but that's not the point, I can lower the res if needed or do without ambient occlusion, I will survive.

had an amd 4850 awhile back from my old computer build. loved it, used the damn thing till it died. managed to play afew days of ns2 on it and got around 80fps on direct x 9 all low settings.

i think this very is relevant to this conversation due to the fact the benchmarks are very simular to that of the gts 450.

just trying to bring things back down to perspective when going from a desktop to laptop graphics processing unit.

the desktop 760 would be closer to the perfromance of my overclocked desktop video card. while the gt 760m will be closer to that of the desktop gts 450 or amd 4850.
Last edited by ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex; Apr 6, 2014 @ 9:40pm
100% Recycled Awesome Apr 6, 2014 @ 9:52pm 
Originally posted by xG:D >>Stickz<<:

anything above 60fps is pointless. this is the maximum amount of frames that can be displayed on a typical 60 hertz monitor. you don't need a cpu that outputs 130fps lol

My point is that a significant boost in GPU netted a paltry 1 FPS more where a big boost to FPS was massive in performance gain.

I usually start the game around 120~150 FPS and end late game around 70~80. I set my settings so that I don't have the major performance issues at the end of the game. Plus it's just easier to see things with certain things like shadows off.

My Core 2 Dual was struggling to get 40 FPS everything off/low in the beginning where my i5 4670k can easily start the game at 170 wikth medium/low. The game is highly CPU bound and boosting GPU won't make a noticable difference.
Sm4sh3D Apr 6, 2014 @ 10:02pm 
Originally posted by xG:D >>Stickz<<:

just trying to bring things back down to perspective when going from a desktop to laptop graphics processing unit.

the desktop 760 would be closer to the perfromance of my overclocked desktop video card. while the gt 760m will be closer to that of the desktop gts 450 or amd 4850.


it's not, check some benchmark and find out that the 760m is almost 2x faster than a GTS450

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-760M.92068.0.html
Last edited by Sm4sh3D; Apr 6, 2014 @ 10:03pm
Cypher Apr 6, 2014 @ 10:18pm 
Originally posted by xG:D >>Stickz<<:
anything above 60fps is pointless. this is the maximum amount of frames that can be displayed on a typical 60 hertz monitor.

That's not always the case. It's greatly dependent on the monitor and it's display method (plasma, liquid crystal, cathoid relay) not to mention how the game is programmed. Some games are just built real rough around the edges and "frames per second" may mean a lot more to the game than just "video frames". I can't even begin to count the number of game's I've played that felt smoother at over 60 fps than they did at 60 fps with or without vertical sync.
Showing 1-15 of 25 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Apr 6, 2014 @ 5:59pm
Posts: 25