Will this work on GTX 660, i5-4570 @ 3.2 GHz ?

[McLovin']

Just wondering before making the purchase...

8g RAM

[Corn-fed simpleton]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Greyskull1000:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Syrnyk:

Don't tell him it "smashes" the game... With a gtx 660 Ti, i5 3570k and 8Go of RAM, I get 30 fps on a mix of low/medium/high and resolution scalling at 60% for 1920x1080. That's not "smashing", that's barely handling it.

something wrong with your rig then meng

So tell your settings, your fps ! I would be happy to know how you get better perf that 90% of players !

[Caduryn]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย BradParbs:

Nope

What nope?

[threat vector]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Syrnyk:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Greyskull1000:

something wrong with your rig then meng

So tell your settings, your fps ! I would be happy to know how you get better perf that 90% of players !

I run it all on high no scaling and res 1920x1080. fps isn't an issue if the game is playable. its all relative anyway. The only issue I have is server lag which i reckon is the issue that 90% of players are having. so not sure what your issue is meng, try to get the rat to spin the little wheel a bit faster or something

[Corn-fed simpleton]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Greyskull1000:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Syrnyk:

So tell your settings, your fps ! I would be happy to know how you get better perf that 90% of players !

I run it all on high no scaling and res 1920x1080. fps isn't an issue if the game is playable. its all relative anyway. The only issue I have is server lag which i reckon is the issue that 90% of players are having. so not sure what your issue is meng, try to get the rat to spin the little wheel a bit faster or something

It depends on what you call playable after all. 20 fps isn't playable for me for example. Search for some bench from people with 970 or such gigs. They all get ~25-30 fps on high WITH res scalling at 1080p... I guess everyone needs to make their rats go a little faster ! But if you really get better perf than cards that should be 4 times better than yours, great for you ^^

[Caduryn]

No ideo how on Earth 20fps are "not playable".....if stable 20fps looks pretty smooth to me.

[Corn-fed simpleton]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย caduryn:

No ideo how on Earth 20fps are "not playable".....if stable 20fps looks pretty smooth to me.

20 fps look pretty smooth... This is gold man. But good if it suits you !! For me, "smooth" = 40+ fps

[Cherry Bee]

It should work, but expect less than 30 FPS on medium settings.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย caduryn:

No ideo how on Earth 20fps are "not playable".....if stable 20fps looks pretty smooth to me.

20 FPS literally gives me a headache after a while. I have to take frequent breaks with this game. If I could get it to stay at 40 or higher I'd probably be fine.

[Generic-Raider]

17-30fps every thing low as well as res scale no skyeffects
aka pixel game

[Caduryn]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Syrnyk:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย caduryn:

No ideo how on Earth 20fps are "not playable".....if stable 20fps looks pretty smooth to me.

20 fps look pretty smooth... This is gold man. But good if it suits you !! For me, "smooth" = 40+ fps

So.....Movies are never "smooth" for you.....?

[Corn-fed simpleton]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย caduryn:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Syrnyk:

20 fps look pretty smooth... This is gold man. But good if it suits you !! For me, "smooth" = 40+ fps

So.....Movies are never "smooth" for you.....?

OMG not that example again... Movies and video games are completely different things when it comes to fps. You're not interacting in a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ movie, you're passive for god sakes. I'm tired of explaining that to people who spread ignorance and can't even see the difference between 20 and 60 fps in game. Read, please read http://www.quora.com/Why-do-movies-look-smooth-at-24-fps-but-video-games-look-terrible-at-24-fps-Is-it-because-of-motion-blur
And again, good for you if 20 or 60 or 100 fps makes no difference, your life must be so much simpler... But go see an eye doctor quickly !

[Caduryn]

Your the one saying 20fps is "un-playable", wich is just wrong.

Maybe your hyper-sensitive.

[Jea Kimsteed]

...Funny. Thats exactly the video card, ram, and processor I have, and I'm running the game on max settings with no problems. Decent fps, very low lag, surprisingly few glitches. Only complaint is that I cant really multitask when I'm playing ark, so...no youtube or netflix for me at the same time. Does okay with a VOIP program, though. *shrugs.* I'd say try it, OP, and if nothing else, when they finish optimizing it when they are more than like two weeks into the early access (beta testing), you'll be able to play it.

[threat vector]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Jeakimsteed:

...Funny. Thats exactly the video card, ram, and processor I have, and I'm running the game on max settings with no problems. Decent fps, very low lag, surprisingly few glitches. Only complaint is that I cant really multitask when I'm playing ark, so...no youtube or netflix for me at the same time. Does okay with a VOIP program, though. *shrugs.* I'd say try it, OP, and if nothing else, when they finish optimizing it when they are more than like two weeks into the early access (beta testing), you'll be able to play it.

That's it, if we have similar specs and we are telling OP that the game is playable then I don't see what the big deal is? Yes I said the 660TI "smashed it" which might have been a slight exaggeration but I have been paying on high settings without an issue and it looks fantastic. After the hoo ha of this thread I went and tried it out on medium settings and it runs even better for a visual cost of course but yeah all good.

[threat vector]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย caduryn:

Your the one saying 20fps is "un-playable", wich is just wrong.

Maybe your hyper-sensitive.

LOL

[philkill]

My brother playes Ark with a GT 650 1 GB so i think it will work, but not on epic ;)