How is Everquest 2 Performing for You? [Archive]

TSR-DanielH

02-19-2009, 08:33 PM

In order to help people make hardware decisions and to share performance tips, let's all post our system specs and performance information. To make sure that the results are somewhat consistent, we should all take benchmarks in the same area using the same settings. I have posted some general guidelines below on what I think would be a good test.Test Settings --Take the airship from Sinking Sands the Moors of Ykesha-Get off the airship and onto the docks so you're right on top of the first fan grate-Look directly North-East and zoom in until you're in first person-Set your graphics settings to 'High Quality' and then hit F11 to access the performance monitor-Wait around 2 minutes for the fps to normalize-Post your information in this threadYour information and results -Processor:Ram:Graphics Card:Operating System:Screen Resolution: Frames Per Second:Let everyone know what kind of performance you're getting in Everquest 2!

TSR-DanielH

02-19-2009, 08:42 PM

My test using my work computer:Processor: Intel C2D E6850Ram: 3GBGraphics Card: 8800GTOperating System: Vista BusinessScreen Resolution: 1440x900 0xAA/AFFrames Per Second: 38 fpsI could probably get better performance if I wasn't running all my work applications and a dual monitor setup. I'll run the test at home as well once I get some more RAM. A broken fan and some timing manipulation made my last set of RAM die a violent death.

Chondrichtheyia

02-20-2009, 12:26 AM

Processor: C2D E8400 - OC @ 3.6GHzRam: OCZ 2x2GB PC8000 DDR2Graphics Card: HD4850 512MB - OC @ 685/2280; Catalyst 9.1Operating System: Vista Home Premium 64bitResolution: 1680x1050 (full screen mode); 4xAA; 8xAFFrames Per Second: 40I feel that resolution should be mentioned since it has a huge impact on performance.NOTE: Some other graphics settings I tried out, ceteris paribus.Very High: 36Extreme: 13Extreme (with shadows off): 33

Smirk

02-20-2009, 01:23 AM

Processor: C2D E8400 @ 4GHzRam: 4gbGraphics Card: ASUS GTX280 using forceware 182.06 atmOperating System: Vista home premium 64bitResolution: 1920x1200, 4xAA, 16xAFFrames Per Second: 56 fpsi tried the same view but with the settings i usually play in out of raids, extreme quality with no shadows and all model detail sliders maxed = 36 fpsand as the above poster i tried very high settings too resulting in 48 fpsextreme quality with shadows goes right down the shi.. erm yeah 6 fps :p

TSR-DanielH

02-20-2009, 04:18 PM

<cite>Chondrichtheyia wrote:</cite><blockquote>I feel that resolution should be mentioned since it has a huge impact on performance.</blockquote>Ah, good thinking, I forgot to include that in the original post. I updated the form and my response to include screen resolution.

Wingrider01

02-21-2009, 10:03 AM

Processor: C2D E8400Ram: 4gbGraphics Card: MIS 260 OCV2 W/ 896 Meg 665 CoreOperating System: Vista Ultiamte 64bitResolution: 1680x1050, 4xAA, 8xQAFFrames Per Second: 68 fps

FahlenCryptwalk

02-22-2009, 10:23 PM

Benchmarked a couple different computers here:--- Dell Dimension XPS M1330 Laptop ---CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 @ 2.50 GHzRAM: 4 GBVideo: nVidia GeForce 8400M GS w/ 128 MB dedicated (1648 MB available)OS: Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 32-bitResolution: 1280 x 800FPS: 30--- Dell Studio 17 Laptop ---CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo T5800 @ 2.00 GHzRAM: 3 GBVideo: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 w/ 256 MB dedicated (1529 MB available)OS: Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 32-bitResolution: 1280x800FPS: 22--- Custom built desktop ---CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+RAM: 2 GBVideo: nVidia GeForce 9600 GT w/ 512 MBOS: Windows XP SP3Resolution: 1280x1024FPS: 29

vochore

02-26-2009, 10:52 PM

main comp specs are in my sig...1680x10504xaa16xaf 35 fps

Elrood

03-01-2009, 08:29 PM

AMD Athalon 64 3800+ 2.41 GHz3 GB RAMNVIDIA GeForce 7600 GSWindoes XP Service Pack 31680 x 1050 resolution0xAA/AFFPS: 25With 2xAA/2xAFFPS: 17

Samant

03-02-2009, 08:32 PM

Your information and results -Processor: AMD Phenom(tm) 9500 Quad-Core Processor 2.2 GHzRam: 4.00 GBGraphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT (x2)Operating System: 64-bit Vista Home PremiumScreen Resolution: 1680 x 1050 60 HzFrames Per Second: 13Ran this at 6:30 pm EST with 44 people in zone. Zoning on this system is alot slower then my back up computer that is a PC3200 w/ 1gb of ram and 256mb Diamond stealth... Usually takes me about a minute or more to zone and the other computer does it in 20-30s.

Iamfr

03-08-2009, 08:55 PM

Processor: Intel P4 1.8GHzRam: 1GB Graphics Card: nVidia GeForce 6200 256MB PCI by PNY (I fried the 1st one from EVGA on Spore, and is under lifetime warranty, but I felt bad because the game was well above specs)Operating System: WinXPScreen Resolution: 1024x768 60HzFrames Per Second: Trial Accounts can't get to town to see everyone clog up the fps. My low end system runs about 10fps running around Timours Maw and while questing. I can only get up to 22 fps if go outside where no monsters are and look up at the sky. 2fps is not common if I'm speeding through town. More Commentary: 7yr old box, 4yr old intel motherboard and the capacitors are still good! (1st one blew out the RJ11 port). EQ2 is actually slower than WoW, possibly because the graphics are much better here. But WoW won't fix ninja looters, pvp & instance items obsoletes crafting, faction reps/broken quest chains/incomplete content are promised to never be fixed "just buy the next one", so I'm never going back there. And because they blew me off with cut/paste responses from India, not even if they change. /Ignore WoW /pththththhhh! It is very fun learning about how marketing makes just about every new product a low end model that's slower than the top of the line, and how so many PC's are over priced by about 40%. Competition in both markets are sure to inspire better software, hardware, and ensures customer service always has a job. /YeahEvilMarketing!

Stinky123

03-09-2009, 10:52 PM

Processor: Phenom II 940 Black OC to 4 GHZRam: 4 GB Graphics Card: BFG Nvidia 295 plus Nvidia 8800GTX for second monitor operationsOperating System: Vista 64-bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200 (max everything on Extreme)Frames Per Second: 32 FPS (this is "ok") However the annoying thing here is in other games such as AoC, LOTRO, etc I get WAY higher FPS (around 125+)Second SystemProcessor: Athlon x2 7000+Ram:4 GBGraphics Card:Nvidia 9800 GTX+Operating System: Vista 64-bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: 22

Albrig

03-12-2009, 03:47 PM

Processor: Core i7 920 (3.2Ghz)Ram: 12 Gb DDR3 (1600)Graphics Card: nVidia Geforce 285 1GbOperating System: Vista 64bit, SSD + HighPoint RocketRaid 3520 PCI-EScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: [with my custom config that looks like 'EXTREME DETAIL': 81-109fps]: in some places it has gone over 130fps (like Thundering Steppes, for reasons I simply do not understand).The config will work well in both full groups and x2 Raid - not tested for x4, but I'm fairly confident that 40fps solid can expected (without a Torch on your character, with the above PC system).The config can be copied from the Look and Feel thread.Amazing job SoE. Amazing job you did on the game engine. I am flabbergasted. Truly appreciate whatever the hell you did that you seem to be taking in your stride and not making a parade out of it.You sexy thing you.

Iamfr

03-13-2009, 03:25 AM

That 2nd intel system is sick! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" /> Very cool.

Rothgar

03-13-2009, 04:25 AM

Processor: Intel Q6600 2.4ghz (OC'd at 3.1ghz)Ram: 4gb Corsair XMS2-6400Graphics Card: ATI Sapphire HD 4850Operating System: XP 32bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: 43 fps<hr />Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 6400 2.13 ghzRam: 2gbGraphics Card: nVidia 7800 GTOperating System: Vista 32bitScreen Resolution: 1280x1024Frames Per Second: 28 fps<hr />Dell M170 LaptopProcessor: Intel Pentium M 2.00 ghzRam: 2gbGraphics Card: nVidia GeForce Go 7800 GTXOperating System: XP 32bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: 27 fps

Kanlei

03-13-2009, 08:05 AM

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 8400 3.0 ghzRam: 2gb @800mhz MushkinGraphics Card: nVidia 9800gtx+ SSCOperating System: XP homeScreen Resolution: 1440x900Frames Per Second: Extreame Quality 42fps

Tabbakh

03-13-2009, 08:54 AM

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHzRam: 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1000Graphics Card: GeForce 9800 GTX+Operating System: Vista 64Screen Resolution: 1680x1050Frames Per Second: 40

Ronny

03-13-2009, 09:06 AM

Processor: AMD Athlon 64x2 3800+ Ram: 3gb Graphics Card: Ati X1900XT 512 mb Catalyst 9.1 Operating System: XP home Screen Resolution: 1280x1024 Frames Per Second: 17 Interestingly if I set the graphics to extreme performance it only goes up to about 25. So not much gain. While I guess my system isn't the best, it still seems as if I should be getting more. Could swear that my FPS has gone down lower than it used to be in the last 2-3 months (without me changing any settings). Only thing that has changed is my Catalyst version, which I have continually updated. Could that be it?

CuCullain

03-13-2009, 09:39 AM

Processor: AMD X2 64 4200+ (OC 2.64Ghz)Ram: 2GiG DC ModeGraphics Card: GEForce 8600GT 512MB 4xAF 8XQAAOperating System: Xp Home Full PatchxScreen Resolution: 1680x1050 60hzFrames Per Second: 27-28

Zerebro

03-13-2009, 09:54 AM

What's EQ2's WEI? I mean, Vista has this index, what is EQ2's? There are many factors influencing FPS, imho it is only a trend you can see here, nothing more, nothing less. Neither with WEI, but since we're measuring the lengths of our eehm noses, why not add it here too? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bodracoran

03-13-2009, 10:01 AM

Processor: e8400 overclocked to 4ghzRam: 8gb ddr2 @ 1000mhz latency: 5-5-5-15Graphics Card: 8800gt 512mbOperating System: Windows Vista 64bitScreen Resolution: 1600x1200 0af/aaFrames Per Second: 52The game has improved performancewise since the launch of kunark enormously for me. Keep up the good work guys!

Powers

03-13-2009, 10:31 AM

<cite>TSR-DanielH wrote:</cite><blockquote>-Take the airship from Sinking Sands the Moors of Ykesha</blockquote>I'd post my results but you picked a location not everyone can go to.Powers &8^]

MrWolfie

03-13-2009, 02:23 PM

Processor: Intel Core 2 6600 @ 2.40GhzRam: 2GBGraphics Card: GeForce 8800 GTSOperating System: XP Pro SP3Screen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: 34

Terrius

03-13-2009, 04:28 PM

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.22GHz RAM: 4GB Graphics Card: Radeon™ X1800 512mb OS: XP 64bit Res: 1680x1024 FPS: 19 with mouse cursor on the screen 23 without O.o Dang mouse cursor I knew it was out to get me!

Andric_D

03-13-2009, 04:28 PM

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 3.0 ghz o/c @ 4ghzRam: 8gb DDR2 1066Graphics Card: radeon 4870 1gb o/c 750/4000Operating System: Vista 64Screen Resolution: 1680x1050Frames Per Second: 53

MageChild

03-13-2009, 05:01 PM

OK, I have 2 systems I am breaking down for you all. The first one is my laptop, the second is my desktop.1) HP 8510w Mobile Workstation.Processor: Intel Core2 Duo CPU T7300 @ 2.00GHzRam: 2GB PC5300Graphics Card: NVidia QuadroFX 570MOperating System: Windows XPProScreen Resolution: 1680x1050 @ 60HzFrames Per Second: 33Just for grins, I loaded Extreme and my resolution tanked (under 3 fps), until I turned off the shadows, which took my FSP back to 24.2) Custom Build Desktop.Processor: AMD Athlon64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ 2.71GHzRam: 4GB PC6400 Graphics Card: eVGA NVidia GeForce 8800GT 512Operating System: Windows XPPro 64-bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1080 @ 60HzFrames Per Second: 25I went and loaded Extreme again, and dropped down to 7 fps, turned off Shadows and went back up to 17 fps.****EDIT****I updated my system components and thought I should update this as well.2) Custom Build Desktop Rebuild.Processor: AMD Athlon64 X2 7750 Black Edition OC from 2.70GHz to 3.10GHzRam: 4GB Patriot PC6400 5-5-5-12Graphics Card: eVGA NVidia GeForce 8800GT 512 OC @ 677/932/1626Operating System: Windows XPPro 64-bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1080 @ 60HzFrames Per Second: 34I went and loaded Extreme again, and dropped down to 10 fps, turned off Shadows and went back up to 28 fps.I am using ProfitUI for my UI modI also want to add that I was able to temporarilly OC my RAM to 1066 from 800 and it improved my FPS to 38, so RAM speed does have an effect!

Geckoman

03-13-2009, 07:28 PM

Processor: Intel i7 920 2.66GHzRam: 12GB DDR3 triple channelGraphics Card: EVGA 8800GTX Operating System: Windows Vista 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200 60HzFrames Per Second: High Quality - 53FPS / Extreme Quality w/shadows - 14 FPS w/o shadows 46 FPS

maddawg138

03-13-2009, 10:52 PM

Processor: Q6600 (OC to 3.1GHz)Ram: 4GB OCZ Dual Channel PC8500 DDR2 Nvidia SLI-Ready @ 800MhzGraphics Card: EVGA Nvida Geforce 9600GT 512MBOperating System: Vista Ultimate 64bitScreen Resolution: 1680x1050 @59hzFrames Per Second: 47 when the airship wasnt there and 40 when it was thereAlso using Profit UI

Araxes

03-13-2009, 11:45 PM

Good idea for a thread!Here's mine:Processor: Intel E8500 Wolfdale Core2Duo 3.2GHzRam: 4GB G-Skill DDR2 800Graphics Card: EVGA GeForce 9800GTOperating System: Windows Vista 64-bit Home PremiumScreen Resolution: 1440 x 900 (4x FSAA and 4x AF)Frames Per Second: 42 (Full Screen) / 37 (Maximized Window)Shadows: CPU, Average number, Torch and Character onlyServer: Antonia BayleTime: 10:35pm ESTJust to note ...and I don't want to derail this nice thread so I'm just making note of it for any developers to read ...Although while running this test I achieve better FPS in Full Screen ... while actually in motion the game performs far better in Windowed mode, although it appears not to be a rendering issue, per se. Full Screen produces a strange 'trudging through water' effect intermittently, where it seems as if animations are going in slow motion at times. This is nowhere to be seen in Windowed mode gameplay, all other factors remaining the same. It seems independent of graphical setting which leads me to believe its an OS-processor-game conflict of some type.Ara

Taharn

03-14-2009, 01:20 AM

i7 920, O.C. to 4.0 - ProcessorASUS P6T Deluxe - MoboThermalight Ultra 120 Extreme 1366 - Heatsink12 GB of DDR3 Corsair Dominator 1866 mhz - RAMXFX GTX 295 - Video CardM1 Killer Nic - Network CardAntec 1200 CaseScreen Resolution 1920x1200Frames Per Second - High Quality 62 FPS / Extreme Quality W/Shadows 34 FPS / W/out Shadows 51 FPS

Loendar

03-14-2009, 02:57 PM

Processor: Intel i7 920 (stock speed)Ram: 6GB DDR3 tri-channel 1333mhzGraphics Card: 2x EVGA GTX 280 SSC (4-way AFR SLI mode, despite no support ;p)Operating System: Windows Vista 64-bit UltimateScreen Resolution: 1680 x 1050 (4xS AA - 8x AF)FPS: High Quality 52 FPS

TheOrder20

03-15-2009, 05:25 PM

Processor: Intel Quad Core Q9650 at 3.00GHzRam: OCZ 4GB DDR3 1033MHz (Supposed to be at 1600MHz but can't get it too)Graphics Card: EVGA Nvidia Geforce GTX285 Super Clocked Edition 1GBOperating System: Windows XP Home SP3Screen Resolution: 1920 x 1200 Fullscreen 8xAF/0xAAFrames Per Second: 40 fps steadyI can't seem to get my Ram to go at the 1600MHz speed, setting it in the bio just causes it to beep when it boots up. But for EQ2, that probably wouldn't make any difference.

Arrowheart

03-16-2009, 07:38 AM

Processor: Intel E4500 2.2 @ 3.0GHZRam: 4GB Crucial DDR2-800 @ 4-4-4-12Graphics Card: EVGA 7900GTX 512MB PCI-EOperating System: XP Pro 32bitScreen Resolution: 1024x768 @ 85hz No AA / No AF (windowed mode) Frames Per Second: 40 fps

Gkar

03-17-2009, 02:37 AM

Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+ (2 CPUs), ~3.2GHzRam: 8GB DDR2 800Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 4870 1gOperating System: Windows XP 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1680 x 1050 (32 bit) (60Hz)Frames Per Second: High Quality - 30-35FPS / Extreme Quality w/o shadows 20-25 FPS

Albrig

03-18-2009, 08:29 PM

I've done a few tests with an E8600 and the Core i7.Core i7 should be performing far in advance of the E8600 and it's not and the reason I think this might be is L2 and L3 Cache.Core i7 has a unified L3 cache that is shared across 4 cores (2 threads per core). If EQ2 is using two of them, that's 8Mb L3 Cache that could be used (specifically by an application).Core2Duo is not unified L2 Cache (as far as I can tell). Each core would get 3Mb L2 Cache.My thinking is if L3 cache (far faster than L2) is being used by EQ2's executable application, on the Core i7, it should be performing at a monumental level over the E8600. Although I am seeing better, smoother performance, I'm not seeing what I know the Core i7 is capable of with EQ2's CPU reliance.Am I right in saying that EQ2 is only using Core2Duo's L2 Cache (or any L2 Cache only CPU) and largely ignoring L3 on the Core i7? Is there any indication SoE could provide to optimize the code for L3?

Albrig

03-18-2009, 08:54 PM

<cite>Taharn wrote:</cite><blockquote>i7 920, O.C. to 4.0 - Processor12 GB of DDR3 Corsair Dominator 1866 mhz - RAMXFX GTX 295 - Video CardScreen Resolution 1920x1200Frames Per Second - High Quality 62 FPS / Extreme Quality W/Shadows 34 FPS / W/out Shadows 51 FPS</blockquote>i7 920 3.2Ghz here (and I know you have water-cooling there), yet my performance is the same as yours (my W/shadows: Very High Quality, is 41fps and it doesn't move over 1fps either way).I haven't tried Extreme Quality because... it doesn't work. It seems to configure to a rather bizzare mid-detail setting. I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong.I've already done tests in the past with HDD and SSD (HDD mechanical Intel Matrix X58; SSD PCI-E Highpoint RR3520): SSD PCI-E will get your a further 10fps to your performance (and it will be smoother still).My guess is you are already using some kind of SSD (or hardware raid controller) with EQ2 running solely from it with those numbers. Make sure you get SLC and either Intel or Mtron if that isn't the case, because you appear to be loaded).* >10fps difference when I switch from SATAII mechanical to PCI-E SSD (checked and double-checked).

Albrig

03-20-2009, 03:06 PM

<cite>Jemia@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can't seem to get my Ram to go at the 1600MHz speed, setting it in the bio just causes it to beep when it boots up. But for EQ2, that probably wouldn't make any difference.</blockquote>DDR3 Triple Channel makes a significant contribution to EQ2 over both CPU frequency and DDR2. It's pretty noticeable.

astrobh0y

04-01-2009, 08:59 PM

Processor: Intel i7 920, 3.980 MHz (at 65 celcius under 100% load)Ram:6 Gig ddr3, OCZ 1600MHzGraphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 (with 9.3)Operating System:Vista Ultimate 64-BitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Hard drive: WD Raptor 150g, 10kFrames Per Second:55 fps Extreme quality with all shadows and all model detail sliders maxed = 6 fpsRunning Age of conan dx10 with an average over 30 fps in main hubs.Edit; The fun part is that I can use 8x AA when running with high settings with an pleasent game experince. Guess how it looks with everything maxed out <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Edit2: Ive played around with my overclock. Processor: Intel i7 920, 4.080 MHz (at 65 celcius under 100% load)Ram:6 Gig ddr3, OCZ 1750MHzHyperthreading;enable and disable.Frames per scond: 55 fpsExtreme quality with all shadows and all model detail sliders maxed = 6 fpsWhen I play the game with custom settings (everything maxed excpet shadows) I can play the game without the fps droping below 30 fps. So what I can see is that the game dosent bother with Hyperthreading or faster Ram.

XarmaxusJr

04-06-2009, 02:00 PM

Im having a problem with loading in to the game.It gets to the "waiting for entities" and then wont go any further anyone know how that can be fixed??? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" />

AKShockwa

04-06-2009, 11:40 PM

Processor: Intel Pentium 4 2.93 GHzRAM: 1.25 gb of some type of RAM I don't know what kindGraphics Card: Intel Integrated 82915g/gv/910gl Express Family Chipset (WORST CARD EVER)Operating System: Vista ( Don't know specifics)Screen Resolution: 1280x1024Hard Drive: No IdeaFrames Per Second: Are you ready? Can you handle it? 4 FPS! Ah yea you guys are all jealous of how slow this is.Everything on as low as it can go, with a few exceptions but those are second to as low as it can go..Yea it sucks.

Hammert2009

04-20-2009, 10:53 AM

Processor: Intel C2Q Q9450 OC'd to 3.2Ghz per core 1600FSB 3200DQR(400x8)Ram: 6GB(3x2GB) DDR2 800 4-3-3-10 2t Timings - on 1:1 ratio with CPUGraphics Card: EVGA nVidia GTX280 10% OCMotherboard: EVGA 780i FTW Operating System: Windows Vista Ultima 64bit Hard Drive(Vista OS): WD Raptor 74GB ~60% full - 10000RPM - 16MB CacheHard Drive(that I have EQ2 on): WD Caviar Black 500GB ~30% full - 7200RPM - 32MB CacheScreen Resolution: 1680x1050Frames Per Second(Tweaked Extreme): AVG 35 FPS 4xAA - W/O shadows W/O flora - All other sliders maxedFrames Per Second(Tweaked Very High): Avg 60 FPS 8xQAF - W/O shadows - W/ medium density floraI use a dual Monitor setup, play in windowed mode in primary monitor, keep internet, hardware monitors, and e-mail up on second monitor.I'm reading that some people are experiencing performance increases in EQ2 when they increase their ram speeds so I might try bumping my OC up to 3.6Ghz(450x8 - 1800FSB - 3600QDR) and bump my ram up to 900mhz to keep my 1:1 ratio, but I'm not sure if my mobo can handle an 1800FSB and I'm currently very stable at the current OC (Wish I would have sprang for the Q9650, the 8x multiple on the Q9450 is really limiting).I might try just unlinking my ram and running it at a faster speed on a 2:3 or 3:4 ratio(I'd love to try 1:2 and push my ram to 1600mhz, but I think that might fry it, lol). The OC on my ram is rather conservative atm, I was able to get 3-2-3-8 2t at 900mhz on a different mobo and it was still stable(24hrs prime95 blend, 24hrs memtest86+) at stock voltage, so I think I should be able to push the ram to something like 1200 on 5-5-5-15 with a minor increase in voltage, I'll make a new reply If I get a noticable improvement with ram speed increase.I'm also thinking of boxing, with the second EQ2 client running on the second monitor. My primary monitor has a native resolution of 1680x1050, my secondary has 1280x1024, I'm sure I'm going to have to drop settings to get the client to the point they are both playable, I'll edit this reply with whatever settings and performance I get when I try this(prolly 2-3 weeks)

sparti

04-26-2009, 11:56 PM

Processor:Intel R Core Tm2 Quad 2.66 ghz Ram:4 gigsGraphics Card:2x Nvida 8800 Ultra in Sli Operating System: Vista 32Screen Resolution: 1920 1200 Frames Per Second: it off and on sometimes i get 40 to 80 then i drop to 5fps then crashok i been noticeing this alot since Tso came out my system is only about year and half old and it blow the spec for this game out of the water. But since Tso came out i cashing alot and i have no clue why i used to have it happen alot then once vista Sp1 came out i was running the game in Hq and raiding in hq with no problems. But since LU51 i am crashing about every 2 to 4 hours of game play in and that just when i am soloing. i did a raid today in the low setting games looks like crap btw at that setting and i still get a crash. but this is starting to get to me alot and i been with soe since eq1 beta and i love all there games. I been playing eq2 now for about 4 and half years and i love the game but i shelled out alot of cash on my new system and i play any other game on the market with ease and have max settings and enjoy it but this game that has been out for 5 years now if not more. And still cant get there bugs or what ever it is make ppl crash right there something wrong i know this game is a Hog but come on it not that heavy or is it. Also thinking of going to vista 64 and bumping my ram to 6 gigs wonder if it help or not like to get some feed back on this if i can. But why am i crashing ever couple ours is there a memory link or is it my pc or the game i would like some help on this

rrr67212

04-27-2009, 09:05 PM

Processor Pentium 4 3.00 GHzRam:3 GBGraphics Card:Nvidia GeForce 8500 GT with 1024 MBOperating System: XP with SP3 Screen Resolution: 1280 x 1024Frames Per Second: 10

M0rticia

04-28-2009, 07:19 AM

Processor: Intel i7 940 (EVGA mobo)Ram: 12 gigsGraphics Card: Dual EVGA Nvidia GTX 280'sOperating System: Windows Vista Home Premium 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1680 x 1050 (60Hz)Frames Per Second:I play with all settings maxed out and typically get 50+ when I am not in cities. In cities I drop to about 30-35.

Scanna

04-29-2009, 07:08 PM

Ancient 3.5 year old Intel iMac.Processor: 2 Ghz Core 2 DuoRam: 2 gigGraphics Card: ATI 1600Operating System: XP SP2Screen Resolution: 1440x900Frames Per Second: 15

kellan123

05-05-2009, 04:55 PM

Processor: Intel E6850, dual core, overclocked to 3.3GHzRam: 4GBGraphics Card: (2) Nvidia 7800 GTX in SLIOperating System: Vista 64Screen Resolution: 1680x1050Frames Per Second: 27 (29 without shadows)

Tallarain

05-11-2009, 01:26 AM

Processor: Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz Ram: 4 GB DDR3-SDRAM PC3-8500 (OCZ Reaper-X)Graphics Card: XFX ATI Radeon 4890 1GB Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1920 x 1200Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1TBFrames Per Second: 29 fps with the 'new' video cardnote: new numbers after I changed O.S. and vid card.

Lethe5683

05-13-2009, 11:16 AM

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 Wolfdale 3.33GHzRam: 8 GB DDR2 PC 1333 (4x 2gb DIMMs)Graphics Card: SAPPHIRE TOXIC Radeon HD 4870 1GBOperating System: Window Vista 64-bitScreen Resolution: 1360 x 768 @ 80HzFrames Per Second: 60 (vsync enabled)

Poss

06-01-2009, 08:22 AM

Processor: Intel Core2Duo E8400 3GHz running at 4GHzRAM: 2x2048MB PC-6400(800MHz running at 880MHz)Graphics Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 4870X2 2GB GDDR5OS: Windows Vista 64Resolution: 1680x1050 16x Anistropic Filtering and 16x Antialiasing(checked without both AA and FSAA but was no difference in fps)FPS: 43

Valhakar

06-17-2009, 08:51 AM

I am a little bugged that my performance is so "low". I expect its the AMD processor, seems the Intel processors are a little better at getting pummeled by single thread code.Processor: AMD Phenom(tm) 9550 Quad-Core ProcessorRAM: 6 GB Samsung DDR2 @400 MhzGraphics Card: ATI Radeon HD4890 OCX 1GBOS: Vista Home Premium 64 bit SP1Resolution: 1680x1050FPS:High Quality - 41 w/o ship, 35 with shipExtreme Quality CPU Shadows - 11Extreme Quality GPU Shadows - 20Extreme Quality No shadows - 24

Ldarax

06-17-2009, 11:36 AM

Processor: Intel C2D 8400 @ 3.2 Ram: 4GBGraphics Card: Nvidia 8´98700 GTX+Operating System:Vista 64 BitScreen Resolution: 1680x1050 16AA/16AF WindowedFrames Per Second:38 at high performance

Patrillium

07-07-2009, 10:27 AM

Processor: Intel P4 3.20GHzRAM: 4GBGraphics Card: Radeon 3850Operating System: XP Professional SP2Screen Resolution: 1280x1024FPS: Averaged between 7 and 20. 30 when I wasn't moving <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" />Note: Very High Preformance Setting...<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" />

MurFalad

08-14-2009, 05:59 PM

Processor : AMD PhenonII 955 X4 @3.2Ghz4Gb DDR3 RamGraphics card : Radeon 4870 1GbOperating system : Windows 7 64bit RC (Ultimate edition)Screen resolution : 1600x1280 @ 75Hz 4xAA@ Quality extreme everything (*) = 14 FPS CPU shadows, 30 FPS GPU shadows@ Quality very high = 45 FPS@Quality High = 49 FPS@Quality Balanced = 59 FPS@Quality High performance = 63 FPS@Quality V High performance = 71 FPS@Quality Extreme Performance = 68 FPS (Odd this was lower...)(*) maximum refresh on water gave me incorrect water reflections had to switch that manually to "every frame" for correct reflections.Also had to manually switch to GPU shadows in all(One thing Patrillium, have you tried switching off font smoothing, I've heard it can sometimes improve performance)

Blinx123

09-21-2009, 09:55 PM

System: See my signature.Minimum frames: 19 FPSAverage: 30Maximum frames: 50 FPSSettings: Custom (like Extreme, but with GPU shadows "low". CPU shadows used for interior)I'm going to settle for a more recent SP3 this week + I'm finally using my Ramdisk, to utilize the 8GB of RAM.

ElsaRat

09-24-2009, 04:24 AM

Processor: 2.8ghz Intel Core2DuoRam: 2GB of Dual Channel DDR2 800mghz RAMGraphics Card: nVidida Quadro NVS 285 PCI-Express with dual VGA out Operating System: Windows XPScreen Resolution: 1680 X 1050Frames Per Second: 14This modest system built for $340 makes the game quite playable. Be sure to go to full screen before doing the test; that can make a big difference. This was after update 53 by the way. Perhaps someone who's already done the test could go back and repeat it to see if that changed anything?PS. Ooops made a mistake; I didn't have the resolution set correctly for full screen mode and my fps was less than I thought. I'm still pretty happy though.

Tro

09-25-2009, 08:47 AM

<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>Processor : AMD PhenonII 955 X4 @3.2Ghz4Gb DDR3 RamGraphics card : Radeon 4870 1GbOperating system : Windows 7 64bit RC (Ultimate edition)Screen resolution : 1600x1280 @ 75Hz 4xAA@ Quality extreme everything (*) = 14 FPS CPU shadows, 30 FPS GPU shadows@ Quality very high = 45 FPS@Quality High = 49 FPS@Quality Balanced = 59 FPS@Quality High performance = 63 FPS@Quality V High performance = 71 FPS@Quality Extreme Performance = 68 FPS (Odd this was lower...)(*) maximum refresh on water gave me incorrect water reflections had to switch that manually to "every frame" for correct reflections.Also had to manually switch to GPU shadows in all(One thing Patrillium, have you tried switching off font smoothing, I've heard it can sometimes improve performance)</blockquote>Disabling font smoothing gave me a fairly significant boost to FPS. If you really don't need it I would get rid of it..

Thoronve

09-29-2009, 05:59 PM

Processor: 2.40 gigahertz Intel Core2 Quad Q6600Ram: 4GBGraphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTOperating System: Vista SP2 32-bitScreen Resolution: 1680x1050 32-bit colors (60 MHz) nVidia Driver 14 jul 09 - 8.15.11.9038nHancer: AA 4x-MultiSampling; AF 8xSmooth Fonts:onFrames Per Second: 35 (or 37 - see below) ; 33 with GPU Shadows (3x resolution)-------I recently had an 8800GTX (768MB) which failed, and that was pretty sweet - slightly better I'd say - and for some reason I notice that my Dell SB X-Fi card gives choppy/warbling sound when loading into Guild Hall, or running through new areas (I guess an issue loading textures)I also did some experimentation around noon Norrath time (for max shadows) - With all other settings at High Quality I raised each setting to max and noted the FPS.With only Complex Shader Distance raised from 50 to 150: 29 ; 27 (shadows).With only Complex Shader Distance raised from 50 to 300: 24 ; 23 (shadows).With only texture resolution raised fom High to Max: 30 ; 29 (shadows).With only Environment Cube Map update raised fom periodic to each frame: 30 ; 29 (shadows).The rest of the settings made little or no difference, and obviously Complex Shader Distance is the biggest hitter to FPS.The last drop in FPS surprised me as no water is visible from that view - although of course there's the ocean a LONG way down... I noticed another peculiarity. As required, I was in first person view, so i couldn't see the airship behind me (although I could see it's shadow on the dock when GPU shadows were on). Every time the Airship was behind me I got a drop of 2-3 FPS, and it recovered when it left.This got me thinking - if I can't see it, why is there a drop? It must be rendering behind me (to cast the shadow). I had changed my maximum view distance to '60', and can back up quite a way from my toon if I need to. However I rarely use this. What if I reduce the maximum view distance - maybe that will effect what is rendered behind me?I changed this to a maximum of 10 (a nice comfortable distance) and lo, and behold... my frame rates improved by 2-3 FPS both with GPU shadows AND when only at High Quality! - So with this change I can get 37 FPS.For those who've changed the maximum view distance, this might get back a couple of FPS....

Laedarr

10-02-2009, 06:27 PM

IbuypowerCore2Duo Wolfdale E8600 (3.33ghz)Radeon 4780 1 Gig Vid Card4 Gigs Corsair with heat spreader RAMWindows Vista24 in Acer monitor 1600x1200 @65 hzExtreme Quality w/ everything maxed out 22-24 FPSExtreme Quality w/o shadows 45-48 FPSExtreme Performance with everything turned down 130 FPS (lol)

Rannc

10-09-2009, 10:28 PM

When performance of this game is improved you won't need to post criteria like this:"Wait around 2 minutes for the fps to normalize"and also will not need to post a thread like this.I am pretty sure the development team must already be aware the game needs major performance improvements. At least, I sure hope so.

Tro

10-13-2009, 01:09 PM

They have been working on updating the graphics engine with an emphasis on improving game performance. They are making fantastic progress.. Interesting reading below:<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=454116" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=454116</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=444895" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=444895</a>

Tro

10-15-2009, 08:27 AM

Processor: Intel E8400 C2D @ 3.0GHZRam: 4GB DC MushkinGraphics Card: MSI GTX 260Operating System: Win XP SP3Screen Resolution: 1680x1050 Frames Per Second: 39

motx

10-30-2009, 05:01 PM

<img src="http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4230/eq2000014.jpg" />after messing around, i realized that fps varies highly in this area based on small movements, so i wanted a totally standardized placement of the screen.....thus the pointy end of the arbor became top middle as an exact placementjust did a fresh install of windows7 home premium, but vista 64 was identical result, in high quality with profit ui installed, rest stock settings of game, it was just installed. Built the system about a yr ago cept for windows7 and the vid card, all air cooled(xigmatik 1283 cooler on the cpu), motherboard is a gigabyte ep45-ud3p, thermaltake 850w power supply, westerndigital 640gig black caviar hard drive, used old pc case, all the stuff bought from newegg was about $1000.Processor: intel e8500 @ 4.28(450X9.5)Ram: 8gigs ddr2 OCZ reaper 1066 @ 1080Graphics Card: MSI gtx 275 twinfrozr oc (700/1510/1224)Operating System: windows7 64 home premiumScreen Resolution: 1920x1200 in high quality (no aa, 16x af)Frames Per Second: 62 fps

Doomeous

11-01-2009, 12:12 PM

Windows Vista 64Processor: intel E8600 @ 4.6ghzRam: 8gigsGraphics: 4870X2 (no crossfire, crossfire cuts fps in half so cat AI off)Resolution: 1920 x 1200 high quality (no AA, no Aniso)fps 64Machine #2 Asus W90 laptopVista 64Processor: X9100 @ 3.55ghzRam: 6gigs DDR2Graphics: 4870X2 (no crossfire, crossfire cuts fps in half)Resolution: 1920x1050 high quality (no AA, no Aniso)fps 40

Keikoku

11-01-2009, 07:43 PM

Processor: E6600 Core2Duo 2.4GHzRam: 4GBGraphics Card: Nvidia GTS 250 1GBOperating System: Windows 7 64 Bit ProfessionalScreen Resolution: 1440x900Frames Per Second: 26

Slam

11-04-2009, 03:06 AM

Processor: Pentium D 3.0GHzRam: 4GB installedGraphics Card: EVGA (nVidia) 7950GTOperating System: Vista Home Premium SP2 / 32 bitScreen Resolution: 1680 x 1050Frames Per Second: 19

Gaige

11-04-2009, 05:19 AM

Processor: i7 860 @ 3.8GhzRam: 8GB DDR3 2000Graphics Card: XFX 5850 775/1125Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64Screen Resolution: 1920x1200 - 4x AA/16x AnsioFrames Per Second: 62

Swede

11-04-2009, 03:53 PM

And how is your comp performing Gaige?

Poss

11-04-2009, 06:24 PM

New OS so here are new numbers..Processor: Intel Core2Duo E8400 running at 4GHzRAM: 4GBGFX: Radeon 4870x2 2GBOS: Windows 7 64bitResolution: 1680x1050FSAA 16x and Anistropic filter 16xHigh quality with GPU shadows: 45fpsExtreme quality with GPU shadows: 31fps

brightwhite

11-07-2009, 12:16 AM

Based on my research in this thread I've found a PC that looks great except for one thing:<ul><li>Intel Pentium Core 2 Quad Processor 8200 </li><li>8GB DDR3 SDRAM </li><li>750GB SATA Hard Drive </li><li>18x DVD-RW Drive </li><li>SuperMulti Drive with Labelflash technology </li><li>ATI Radeon HD 4350 with up to 512MB video graphics </li><li>Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium </li><li>10/100/1000 (Gb) LAN</li></ul>The Vista Home Premium. From what I can tell by this thread it would be preferable to get 64 bit Vista.How big of an issue is this please? Should I go ahead with this system even tho it's Home Premium orkeep looking until I find one with 64 bit Vista?Thanks in advance,

motx

11-07-2009, 11:27 AM

<cite>brightwhite wrote:</cite><blockquote>Based on my research in this thread I've found a PC that looks great except for one thing:<ul><li>Intel Pentium Core 2 Quad Processor 8200 </li><li>8GB DDR3 SDRAM </li><li>750GB SATA Hard Drive </li><li>18x DVD-RW Drive </li><li>SuperMulti Drive with Labelflash technology </li><li>ATI Radeon HD 4350 with up to 512MB video graphics </li><li>Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium </li><li>10/100/1000 (Gb) LAN</li></ul>The Vista Home Premium. From what I can tell by this thread it would be preferable to get 64 bit Vista.How big of an issue is this please? Should I go ahead with this system even tho it's Home Premium orkeep looking until I find one with 64 bit Vista?Thanks in advance,</blockquote>i'm not trying to derail this thread, no offense taken if this is moved..my xp pro 32 only recognizes 3.25GBvista home premium comes in both 32 bit and 64 bit versions, 32 bit will limit you're system to only recognizing 3.25GB(i think) of ram. 99.9 % of home pc users will never use more than 16 gigs of ram imho. these are the ram limitatons to the best of my knowledge.vista 64 bit versions upper ram limits... Vista Basic: 8GB Home Premium: 16GB Vista Business, Enterprise and Ultimate: 128GBwindows 7 32 bit 3.25GB(i think) max, upper RAM limits for the different 64 bit editions of Windows 7... Starter: 8GB Home Basic: 8GB Home Premium: 16GB Professional, Enterprise, Ultimate: 192GB

brightwhite

11-07-2009, 03:00 PM

ohhh so if that system comes with 8GB of RAM it's Vista Home Premium might already be a 64 bit ! thanks muchly (again sorry for semi derailing thread hehe)

Gaige

11-07-2009, 03:04 PM

<cite>Swede@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>And how is your comp performing Gaige?</blockquote>Really well, I like it a lot.

motx

11-07-2009, 06:40 PM

<cite>brightwhite wrote:</cite><blockquote>ohhh so if that system comes with 8GB of RAM it's Vista Home Premium might already be a 64 bit ! thanks muchly (again sorry for semi derailing thread hehe)</blockquote>this may not be true, but very likely...............,this is because you can build a pc with 32 bit and have 8GB of ram, but it won't use it all, 4 of 8 installed will just be unused. the system i'm on now is a dual boot with xp pro 32 and windows7 home premium, when in xp pro 32 it only uses 3.25GB of the 8 installedi would clarify with the builder what you are getting exactly!

Omgidomms

11-12-2009, 11:57 AM

Processor: i7 920 @ 3.8GHZRam: 6GB HyperX 1800MHZGraphics Card: GTX 295Operating System: Win 7 x64Screen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second:60-80 with GPU shadows, ~30 with CPU shadowsExtra: Everything in EQ2 at max except texture resolutions on surfaces (high), models and lod models are at max. cloth simulation and flora off cause of preferences (flora doesn't blend well with GPU shadows).AF at 16, AA at 8

Alienor

11-12-2009, 01:40 PM

Processor: Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo P7350Ram: 4GBGraphics Card: 9600M GTOperating System: Vista Home 32Screen Resolution: 1280x800Frames Per Second:14

evercrak

11-13-2009, 07:46 AM

BTW the limit is 3gig on vista 32!My mother bord is tosted building a new comp will post my new fps later on.This is my old pc:Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @2,4Ram: 4GB (windows only see 3gig)Graphics Card: 8800 gts 512Operating System: Vista Home 32Screen Resolution: 1650x1050HD: Raptor 150gigFrames Per Second:19

evercrak

11-13-2009, 09:16 AM

on the new pc!But Win7 64 is not instaled yet.(this is the old Vista installed only switch the hardweare)Processor: Intel i5 750 @2,66Ram: 4GB (windows only see 3gig)Graphics Card: 8800 gts 512Operating System: Vista Home 32Screen Resolution: 1650x1050HD: Raptor 150gigFrames Per Second:36Will post when i have win7 installed.

evercrak

11-13-2009, 07:21 PM

Processor: Intel i5 750 @2,66Ram: 4GB Graphics Card: 8800 gts 512Operating System: Windows 7 64-bitsScreen Resolution: 1650x1050HD: Raptor 150gigFrames Per Second:50

Doomeous

11-16-2009, 04:36 AM

Upgraded my system to Core I7Processor: I7-960 @ 4.6ghzRam: 6gigsGraphics Card: HD 4800X2Operating System: Win7 pro X64Screen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: hits around 73-75fps with exact high quality.Extreme quality with gpu shadows is 50fps.My char is standing dead center of the first fan. Right on top of the middle of the rotation looking NE dead ahead level.

Sydares

11-17-2009, 03:28 AM

Processor: Intel Extreme QX6850 Quad Core @ 3.00 GHZRam: Patriot 4x2GB DDR2 @ 800mhzGraphics Card: ATI 4870 1GB - Catalyst 9.10Operating System: Windows 7 (64-Bit)Resolution: 1680x1050 0xAA 0xAFFrames Per Second: 25Seems distressingly low.

Scanna

11-17-2009, 12:22 PM

<cite>TSR-DanielH wrote:</cite><blockquote>Processor:i7-920Ram:6 gigGraphics Card:ATI Radeon 4890. 1 gigOperating System:Vista PremiumScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second:45</blockquote>

Alienor

11-25-2009, 03:54 PM

Processor: Athlon AM2 4200 @2.1GHz Ram: 6GB Graphics Card: Radeon 4770 OS: Win7 64 Screen Resolution: 1680x1024 Frames Per Second:16 Sometimes I think I need another game....

Todra_B

12-02-2009, 12:14 PM

New PC has shipped!CPU: I7 920 @ 3.367 Ram: 6gb 1600 ddr3 MushkinGPU: 2 nvidia 275 896mb sliOperating system: Win 7 64 ultimateScreen: 1920x1200Case: HAF 932 (BIG!), hds 2xWD 500gb 7200rpm, no raid. Motherboard: EVGA X58 LE Edition SLI (Intel X58 Chipset) , Power: 1000W Corsair HX , Sound : Razer Barracuda AC-1, CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U12P Will I get 60+fps on High Quality?Will it be playable at Extreme Quality?It better cause I don't like running at extreme performance on my 3ghz pentium 4 at 6-14 fps.

Gaige

12-02-2009, 01:41 PM

<cite>Doomeous wrote:</cite><blockquote>Processor: I7-960 @ 4.6ghz</blockquote>What kind of cooling are you using for that speed 24/7?

Dohon

12-03-2009, 11:03 AM

Processor: Intel I7 920@ 4.00GHzRam:6GBGraphics Card:285GTXOperating System:Windows 7 Ultimate 64Screen Resolution: 2560x1600Frames Per Second:57fps

tullebukk

12-08-2009, 05:26 PM

Processor: I7 965 3.2GHzRam: 6gbGraphics Card: Nvidia Geforce GTX 295 Operating System: Win7 64bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1080Frames Per Second: 50

Dohon

12-10-2009, 01:32 PM

<cite>TSR-DanielH wrote:</cite><blockquote>In order to help people make hardware decisions and to share performance tips, let's all post our system specs and performance information. To make sure that the results are somewhat consistent, we should all take benchmarks in the same area using the same settings. I have posted some general guidelines below on what I think would be a good test.Test Settings --Take the airship from Sinking Sands the Moors of Ykesha-Get off the airship and onto the docks so you're right on top of the first fan grate-Look directly North-East and zoom in until you're in first person-Set your graphics settings to 'High Quality' and then hit F11 to access the performance monitor-Wait around 2 minutes for the fps to normalize-Post your information in this threadYour information and results -Processor:Ram:Graphics Card:Operating System:Screen Resolution: Frames Per Second:Let everyone know what kind of performance you're getting in Everquest 2!</blockquote>I would like to thank Daniel for putting this post together, I looked at the spirit of the post and how we as the post participants can better help the post. I think we should continue to follow the same steps outlined by Daniel but to give each other a better expectation of their goal we should run the test at least three time on the SOE factory defaults. Test 1 at the lowest setting, test 2 at balanced, and test 3 at the highest setting. That way for those of use looking to upgrade can get a real expectation on how the game will run at those settings this will also provide SOE a platform to see what we are seeing without the confusion of custom settings. Just food for thought for the people on the forums. If you already posted instead of making a new post just edit the one you have. Processor:Ram:Graphics Card:Operating System:Screen Resolution: Frames Per Second (Low):Frames Per Second (Balance):Frames Per Second Extreme):

DeathsLuck

12-21-2009, 02:21 PM

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33ghz)Ram: 4GBGraphics Card: ATI 2400 Pro (256mb)Operating System: Win 7 Pro x64Screen Resolution: windowed 1024x768 (full is 1280x1024)HD: WD 160GB D: driveFrames Per Second: 18 fpsWhen Running a second instance of EQ2 from a different hd on the same monitor at the same time:Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33ghz)Ram: 4GBGraphics Card: ATI 2400 Pro (256mb)Operating System: Win 7 Pro x64Screen Resolution: windowed 1024x768 and windowed 1024x768HD: WD 160GB C: + D: drive (2 different HD's)Frames Per Second: 9 fps on C while in the foreground, 6fps on D in the background (staggered)The 2400 Pro only has 1 output, so i can't do dual monitors atm. My fan on the ati 1650 pro went out, it uses dual monitors and seemed to be a faster card then the 2400. I have a another computer i'll report on as well. Additionally, 93% of the memory is in use while running 2 instances of EQ2 and this IE page in the background. It's not yet taking hits to the hd, so it's still only using physical memory, however (i expect the OS is suffering more so then the game, but the game may also be suffereing to some extent). I will post my other system and this system again once i replace the graphics card.

Ryonas

12-24-2009, 06:36 PM

Processor: Core i7 920 @ 2.67 GHzRam: 6 GB OCZ Gold DDR3 1600Graphics Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 260 (Core 216) 896 MBOperating System: Windows 7 RC 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1400 x 1050Frames Per Second: 47

Kenstin1983

01-07-2010, 06:48 PM

Processor - Q8300 2.5 GHZ Overclocked to 3.0 GHZRam - 8 Gigs DDR2Video Card - 2 x Geforce 9800 GTX+ - SLIMotherboard - ASRock N7AD 780iOperating System - Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bitMonitor - 26" Widescreen at 1920x1080High Quality - Hovers from 45-50 FPS

dpsman

01-13-2010, 04:03 AM

Processor: Phenom 550 dual core, liquid cooled and overclocked to 3500Ram: 8 gigs Patriot high performance memory and 8 gigs readyboost drive Graphics Card: 9800GTX+ performance editionOperating System: Windows 7 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: 110

Wullail

01-13-2010, 04:26 AM

Processor:i7-920 2.44 O/C to 3.2Ram:6 gig DDR3Graphics Card:ATI Radeon 4850. 1 gigOperating System: Windows 7 Pro 64 BitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second:49-54

Knockabout

01-13-2010, 11:54 PM

CPU: Q9550 @ 2.83MHzRAM: 8gig Corsair DDR3Graphics: ATI 4870X2 (2gig GDDR5)OS: Win7 64bitRes: 1920x1200FPS: 20 (!)This with no shadows. I was monitoring the cores as well, having read other's comments but none maxed out. I'm stumped at the moment as this rig should be able to deliver 1920x1200 with no prob's. Runs great on my other (1680x1050) monitor. <sigh>

Kain-UK

01-20-2010, 04:01 PM

I figured i'd do this since I upgraded...Processor: Intel Core i7 920 (OC'ed to 4Ghz)Ram: 6GB DDR3-1600Graphics Card: nVidia 9800GX2Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate x64Screen Resolution: 1920x1080Frames Per Second: 57That was using the settings requested. I typically run in a modified version of extreme quality (I just turn off shadows and flora) and get 46fps at the same spot.

boostershots

01-21-2010, 05:06 AM

CPU - Core 2 duo E8500 OC'd to 3800GPU - Radeon HD5870Ram 4g ocz reaper dd2 1080OS- vista 64 ultimatescreen reso: 1920x1200This game runs like crap. Max settings with shadows TURNED OFF I only get 20 fps. Compare this to every other game in the known universe, where my system totally owns. MW2 max settings.. 60-70fps. Crysis Warhead enthusiast max - 50fps. Age of Conan Max + DX10 - 40 FPS. LOTRO Max + DX10 - 70 FPS. It is ridiculous that SOE, can't optimize this game. I guess this is my good bye. I'll keep checking the free trials to see if they get this game running properly, because I do love the lore and the actual game itself, I just refuse to pay to play such a poorly optimized game on my above average computer. Till then, good night and good luck.

SeaCats

01-24-2010, 09:15 PM

I'm back after years of not playing so much has changed. I play now on a laptop newly upgraded to Win7 from Vista. I also have custom UI (Fetish).Processor: Intel Core 2Duo CPU P8 @ 2.26 GHz (2Cpu's)Ram: 4gGraphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTSOperating System: Win7 64-bitScreen Resolution: 1440 x 900Frames Per Second: 32Now when I am in the older content which to me is EoF on down I get 60-70 fps on high quality. Which I wish I could get that in the TSO and RoK but have to play high performance.

Loxus

01-29-2010, 11:47 PM

Time to test out my new toy. This is the FPS on the stock build. I'll be overclocking this in a month or two.Processor: i7-975 Extreme @ 3.33 (for this test)Ram: 12 Gig of DDR3 1600Graphics Card: Nivida GTX 295 @ 1.8 GigOperating System: Windows 7 UltimateScreen Resolution: 1680X1050Frames Per Second: On High Quality 50 FPS (Cpu Shadows)Frames Per Second: On Very High Quality 52 FPS (Cpu Shadows)Frames Per Second: On Extreme Quality 18 (cpu shadows) 40 (Gpu Shadows)All in Windowed mode, running Profit on a dual monitor display.

Seolta

02-01-2010, 05:06 AM

Processor: i7-920 stock clockRam: 9 Gig of DDR3 1033Graphics Card: Nivida GTX 260 core216 stock clockOperating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: On High Quality 36 FPS (Cpu Shadows)Full screen w Profit UI, avg. FPS on a 24hr ingame time cycle, min. FPS 32, maxFPS 39 Will update with OC results later

Phaedrella

02-01-2010, 07:26 PM

Processor: Intel Core i7 860 2.8 GHz (not overclocked)RAM: G.Skill 8 GB DDR3-1333 Graphics card: Sapphire ATI HD4850 1GB DDR3Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)Screen resolution: 1920x1080, ProfitUI, 8x AA, GPU shadowsFrames per second: 40-41Does this seem to be on target? The machine is all of three days old, custom-built, with a bare minimum of bloatware installed. Indeed running Aero, but I was still expecting closer to fifty, frankly.

Keikoku

02-03-2010, 06:35 AM

Just did an upgrade, so thought this deserved an upgraded post as well:Processor: i5-750 2.66GHzRam: 6GBGraphics Card: Nvidia GTS 250 1GBOperating System: Windows 7 64 Bit ProfessionalScreen Resolution: 1440x900Frames Per Second: 45

Arlon

02-04-2010, 02:59 PM

I upgraded my system and here's some tests I made while looking for best performance. Tests executed as instructed by the OP.System specs, not overclocked: Processor: Intel i7-860 (2.8Ghz) Ram: 4G (1333Mhz) Graphics Card: ATI HD5850 (Catalyst Version 10.1) Operating System: Windows 7 64-bit Screen Resolution: 1680x1050 (Full screen, ProfitUI)Test 1 (r_aa_blit 1 in eq2.ini):3D Settings in Catalyst Control Center: Anti-Aliasing: 8x, Filter: Edge-detect, Samples: 24x Anistropic Filtering: 16x Catalyst A.I.: Advanced Mipmap Detail Level: High Quality Wait for vertical refresh: Always on Anti-Aliasing mode: Super-sample AA Frames Per Second: 42Apparently AA is not actually working (noticed this after next tests...)Test 2 (r_aa_blit 1 in eq2.ini):3D Settings in Catalyst Control Center: Anti-Aliasing: 8x, Filter: Edge-detect, Samples: 24x Anistropic Filtering: 16x Catalyst A.I.: Disable Mipmap Detail Level: High Quality Wait for vertical refresh: Always on Anti-Aliasing mode: Super-sample AA Frames Per Second: 27Game looks smoother, but then Eq2.exe crashed after alt-tabbing out from eq2 :p Next test r_aa_blit = 0 Test 3 (r_aa_blit 0 in eq2.ini):3D Settings in Catalyst Control Center: Anti-Aliasing: 8x, Filter: Edge-detect, Samples: 24x Anistropic Filtering: 16x Catalyst A.I.: Disable Mipmap Detail Level: High Quality Wait for vertical refresh: Always on Anti-Aliasing mode: Super-sample AA Frames Per Second: 50Eq2.exe did not crash this time. Also it seems that AA is working.Test 4 (r_aa_blit 1 in eq2.ini):3D Settings in Catalyst Control Center: Anti-Aliasing: Application controlled Anistropic Filtering: Application controlled Catalyst A.I.: Disabled Mipmap Detail Level: High Quality Wait for vertical refresh: Off, unless application specifies (Off in Eq2 performance options) Anti-Aliasing mode: Super-sample AAFrames Per Second: 51Test 5 (r_aa_blit 0 in eq2.ini):3D Settings in Catalyst Control Center: Anti-Aliasing: Application controlled Anistropic Filtering: Application controlled Catalyst A.I.: Disabled Mipmap Detail Level: High Quality Wait for vertical refresh: Off, unless application specifies (Off in Eq2 performance options) Anti-Aliasing mode: Super-sample AAFrames Per Second: 49Hmm... that's odd. Looks like I get about 50fps regardless of AA... I wonder why?Anyway, I'm going to play with Test 3 settings in windowed mode.

Slam

02-21-2010, 05:26 AM

Bought a new rig...Processor: i7-920 @2.67GHzRam: 6GB @ 1333MHzGraphics Card: nVidia 295Operating System: Win7 64bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200 FullscreenFrames Per Second: 50

mdragon77

02-22-2010, 12:22 AM

Processor: i7 2.67ghzRam: 4gb DDR3Graphics Card: BFG GTS250 1GBOperating System: Windows 7 64-BitScreen Resolution: 1440X900Frames Per Second: 48 Very High Quality 24Extreme QualityCan any one tell me if i should have Synchronize refresh, Triple buffer, and Reuse vertex buffers checked?TY For the helpGego

Viper1

02-26-2010, 12:52 AM

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 810 OC to 3.25 GhzRAM: 8Gb Viper 1333 DDR3Video Card: ATI Radeon 5770 1GbOS: Windows 7 64-BitResolution: 1920x1080FPS: 52I get 52 with all settings maxed with AAx8 and AFx4, no cpu shadows and 60% rendering distance (thats all I really use in normal play). If I max the rendering distance and turn on all the cpu shadows my fps dumps to around 20-24. This is probably because of the smaller L2 and L3 Cache size on the 810 cpu. Going to be getting a 965 Black Edition soon. I built this system on a budget and just spent the high dollars on the motherboard so i could max it out later. Seems to run great in eveyrthing I play. Crysis-1080p, all settings on high, AAx8 and AFx2, 40 FPS. Now, Excellent settinsg turns it into a slide show......

eastbayrae

03-18-2010, 08:29 AM

Processor: intel Core2Duo P8600(2.4ghz mobile)Ram: 4gigGraphics Card: nVidia Quadra 3700M(driver version 195.81)Operating System: Win7 x64 UltimateScreen Resolution: 1440x900Frames Per Second: 31

Daladfar

03-20-2010, 10:29 AM

Proc: i7-860 Oc'd to 3.8 Ram: 4gb Ddr3 Gskill Ripjaw Gaming Series 1333 OC'd to 1440 Video: BfgTech GTX 260 Maxcore 55 OC'd edition 150g HDD Raptor OS : Win7 Home Prem. 64bit Screen Resolution : 1680x1050 FPS: 15-20 Done every tweak ive seen posted in all these threads and no change in performance Lag is horrible spell casting is 2-3 seconds -- ive even went down to raid settings with no change -- i was expecting with my machine to be able to at least play in balanced with no lag -- Thing i dont understand is people with higher machines than mine having the same issue - people with less systems are saying they are running extreme quality no problem ?

Elinea

03-24-2010, 03:42 PM

Processor: AMD 7850 Dual-Core 2.8ghzRam: 8gbGraphics Card: Nvidia Geforce GTX 275Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate, 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1680 x 1050, 60 hzFrames Per Second: 51

Elinea

03-24-2010, 03:47 PM

<cite>Daladfar wrote:</cite><blockquote>Proc: i7-860 Oc'd to 3.8 Ram: 4gb Ddr3 Gskill Ripjaw Gaming Series 1333 OC'd to 1440 Video: BfgTech GTX 260 Maxcore 55 OC'd edition 150g HDD Raptor OS : Win7 Home Prem. 64bit Screen Resolution : 1680x1050 FPS: 15-20 Done every tweak ive seen posted in all these threads and no change in performance Lag is horrible spell casting is 2-3 seconds -- ive even went down to raid settings with no change -- i was expecting with my machine to be able to at least play in balanced with no lag -- Thing i dont understand is people with higher machines than mine having the same issue - people with less systems are saying they are running extreme quality no problem ?</blockquote>I'm certainly no expert, but I'm wondering how much stuff you have running in the background. Stuff that loads on startup. Also, your internet connection, and how many users share it. Have you tried running a performance test like PC Pitstop or something similar?

Daladfar

03-24-2010, 11:09 PM

Ive done the msconfig thing and dropped everything on startup not needed -- internet is 16mb connection speed test actually shows 25mb board usesa 10/100/1000 nic -- only have 2 pc's me and my wife both play she gets lag also but not bad like mine and she is playing on a 3-4yr old amd system

Avenged

03-26-2010, 07:28 AM

from looking at the rest of the posts and also from my own experience on the game... more ram... 6-8 gigs seems to smooth things out but i guess you can do more research.

Loxus

03-26-2010, 09:50 AM

<cite>Daladfar wrote:</cite><blockquote>Proc: i7-860 Oc'd to 3.8 Ram: 4gb Ddr3 Gskill Ripjaw Gaming Series 1333 OC'd to 1440 Video: BfgTech GTX 260 Maxcore 55 OC'd edition 150g HDD Raptor OS : Win7 Home Prem. 64bit Screen Resolution : 1680x1050 FPS: 15-20 Done every tweak ive seen posted in all these threads and no change in performance Lag is horrible spell casting is 2-3 seconds -- ive even went down to raid settings with no change -- i was expecting with my machine to be able to at least play in balanced with no lag -- Thing i dont understand is people with higher machines than mine having the same issue - people with less systems are saying they are running extreme quality no problem ?</blockquote>The first question I'd ask is "why are you running 4gb of triple channel ram?" In this set-up the only thing you're doing is running very expensive dual channel ram as if there are not 3 channels available the processor will revert back to dual channel. In order to take advantage of the triple channel the processor and memory offer, you need to run it in multiples of 3. Up your ram to 6gb or drop it to 3gb.Second: reset your processor to stock settings, OR see if you can enable the dynamic overclocking while it is OC'ed (you probably can't on the 8 series) on the I7 - usually when you overclock the i7, this gets disabled. This is probably the biggest boost you can give to EQ2. On single core processes the i7 will automatically overclock ONE core itself if there are no other loads on the other cores in order to handle the load of demanding single core programs. If you OC the processor yourself, this feature gets turned off so the chip doesn't fry itself.

Sigrath

03-28-2010, 07:39 PM

Processor: AMD Opteron 170 (2050 MHz)Ram: 3 gbGraphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260Operating System: Windows 7 64bitScreen Resolution: 1680 x 1050Frames Per Second: 15

Daladfar

04-03-2010, 10:56 AM

<cite>Loxus@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Daladfar wrote:</cite><blockquote>Proc: i7-860 Oc'd to 3.8 Ram: 4gb Ddr3 Gskill Ripjaw Gaming Series 1333 OC'd to 1440 Video: BfgTech GTX 260 Maxcore 55 OC'd edition 150g HDD Raptor OS : Win7 Home Prem. 64bit Screen Resolution : 1680x1050 FPS: 15-20 Done every tweak ive seen posted in all these threads and no change in performance Lag is horrible spell casting is 2-3 seconds -- ive even went down to raid settings with no change -- i was expecting with my machine to be able to at least play in balanced with no lag -- Thing i dont understand is people with higher machines than mine having the same issue - people with less systems are saying they are running extreme quality no problem ?</blockquote>The first question I'd ask is "why are you running 4gb of triple channel ram?" In this set-up the only thing you're doing is running very expensive dual channel ram as if there are not 3 channels available the processor will revert back to dual channel. In order to take advantage of the triple channel the processor and memory offer, you need to run it in multiples of 3. Up your ram to 6gb or drop it to 3gb.Second: reset your processor to stock settings, OR see if you can enable the dynamic overclocking while it is OC'ed (you probably can't on the 8 series) on the I7 - usually when you overclock the i7, this gets disabled. This is probably the biggest boost you can give to EQ2. On single core processes the i7 will automatically overclock ONE core itself if there are no other loads on the other cores in order to handle the load of demanding single core programs. If you OC the processor yourself, this feature gets turned off so the chip doesn't fry itself.</blockquote> The Gskill ram i have isnt triple channel its dual channel supporting the I5-I7 proc. specifically and i just recently up'd to Gskill Ddr3 1600 4gb dual channel also for the i5-i7 proc -- and i have also run the proc at stock settings with turbo on and all the other settings for it -- still get the lagThe Ram -- <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231277">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16820231277</a>

bradamante

04-05-2010, 11:55 AM

<ul><li>Processor: i7 920 OC'd to 3.4GHz</li><li>Ram: 6 gb 1600MHz DDR3 Tri Channel</li><li>Graphics Card: GTX 285</li><li>Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit</li><li>Screen Resolution: 1920 x 1020</li><li>Frames Per Second: 47-48</li></ul>

ibiern

05-09-2010, 12:24 AM

Processor: Intel Core Duo 6400 @ 2.13 GHzRAM: Corsair 4x2GB (yes, I know 32 bit windows doesn't see it all, count me for 4 GB)Video: BFG Tech GTX280OC w/ latest driversOS: Windows Vista Ultimate w/ current SPsResolution: 1920x1200 (Dual monitors)Bandwidth: 50Mb down, 12 Mb UpFPS: 7-110 depending on zone Ykesha, SF zones are at 8-20 FPS on High(including your benchmark - 16), Kunark is 30-50 and original zones are 70+FYI, on extreme, your benchmark is 8-10 FPSmy normal play settings are at high + max on a few settings for custom. I get 16 FPS on the benchmark location.BTW, Off Topic, when are you going to come up with a 10+ year reward for those of us that have been station members since the original EQ release? My EQ character was created July 21, 1999 on Brell. I'm sure there are some others that are around that have been here as well. I know there are several in my guild as we were one of the original Brell guilds and we're still playing.

d2hound

05-18-2010, 09:58 PM

Processor: Intel Core Duo 6750 @ 3.47 GHzRAM: A-Data 4x2GB @ 868 mhz 5 5 5 18 and 2TVideo: BFG Tech GTX260 OC w/ latest driversOS: Windows 7 64Resolution: 1680x1050 (Dual monitors)Bandwidth: cable comcast35 FPS

Sphiriah

05-19-2010, 08:13 PM

Processor: E6600 @ 2.4ghzRam: 4GBGraphics Card: 275 GTXOperating System: Windows 7Screen Resolution: 1280x1024Frames Per Second: 20 on High Quality with shadows and flora off, 30 with Extreme Performance.^Is this normal? This really doesn't seem right compared to some other posts in this thread.

Bodracoran

05-28-2010, 07:52 PM

Results -Processor: E8400Ram: 8gbGraphics Card: 8800GT 512mbOperating System: Vista64Screen Resolution:1600x1200Frames Per Second:17 Shader Model 3/Full screen; 8 SM3/Windowed; 42 SM1/Full Screen; 22 SM1/WindowedAlso shader model 3 makes switching any setting in display painfully slow, took a minute to switch from windowed to fullscreen only takes a second without shader model 3...

Martinus

06-16-2010, 03:33 PM

Pocessor : intel Core I7 950.Ram: 12gbGraphic : AMD 4870x2 (does EQ2 see this card as one card or 2?)Operating : Win7 64bit Pro.Resolution 1920x1200Average FPS 20-30 (Depending on zone). When using a flyer. FPS 15-20

Sirlutt

06-18-2010, 04:44 PM

<cite>MartinusPe wrote:</cite><blockquote>Pocessor : intel Core I7 950.Ram: 12gbGraphic : AMD 4870x2 (does EQ2 see this card as one card or 2?)Operating : Win7 64bit Pro.Resolution 1920x1200Average FPS 20-30 (Depending on zone). When using a flyer. FPS 15-20</blockquote>It is truely abysmal that you can have such a nice setup, and get such poor results.Seriously SOE, how can a 5 yo game run SO poorly? I've played since launch and EQ2 has always been the worst running game on any system I have had. Over the years I have upgraded my system, sometimes it was cutting edge, sometimes not quite. Games have improved, all except EQ2. it's the same performance dog it was 5 years ago.A quadcore system with 12 GB of ram and 2 video cards running a 64 bit OS should NOT be getting 20-30 FPS.We can't even crank the game up to it's maximum settings, which by the way still look like crap compared to modern games.You have some of the best core game mechanics and lore, zones, instances etc around, but you've tied it to the lamest poorest performing engine of any MMO I have seen. really, take a look at some of the free2 play MMO's coming out, even they perform and look better.Please, undertake a SERIOUS upgrade to the engine, not just the Shader stuff you recently did (which looks like crap mostly).(FYI your awesome "Waiting for zone server" message is what gave me the time and come and rant)

Laenai

06-18-2010, 05:16 PM

Processor: AMD Athlon x2 dual core processor BE-2300Ram: 4gbGraphics Card: NVidia GeForce 9500 GTOperating System: Windows 7 Ultimate ProfessionalScreen Resolution: 1280 x 1024Frames Per Second: 18This is with 10 players in the zone. However, I run most often on "High Performance" (I get about 25 FPS there) because anything higher is hellaciously choppy and laggy. And forget about running through Toxxulia Forest or raiding on anything higher than extreme performance. Its a slideshow.This is the second machine I've run EQ2 on since launch which, even though I don't have the best system in the universe, there's really no performance difference between my old Pentium 4 and my AMD. *shrugs* I just assume I need a top of the line machine to run a 5 year old game efficiently.

Sepulchrel

06-22-2010, 09:02 AM

<cite>Ironhide@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>MartinusPe wrote:</cite>You have some of the best core game mechanics and lore, zones, instances etc around, but you've tied it to the lamest poorest performing engine of any MMO I have seen. Please, undertake a SERIOUS upgrade to the engine, not just the Shader stuff you recently did (which looks like crap mostly).</blockquote>QFT!!

NrthnStar5

06-22-2010, 07:59 PM

How is Everquest 2 performing for me?Like utter crap!

atinoco

06-24-2010, 09:18 AM

You said it all, We can just hope SOE Eventully comes to their senses, a major engine update should have been done ages ago, they could even charge for an engine update (include it with a future expansion) and I'll pay for it.<cite>Ironhide@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>MartinusPe wrote:</cite><blockquote>Pocessor : intel Core I7 950.Ram: 12gbGraphic : AMD 4870x2 (does EQ2 see this card as one card or 2?)Operating : Win7 64bit Pro.Resolution 1920x1200Average FPS 20-30 (Depending on zone). When using a flyer. FPS 15-20</blockquote>It is truely abysmal that you can have such a nice setup, and get such poor results.Seriously SOE, how can a 5 yo game run SO poorly? I've played since launch and EQ2 has always been the worst running game on any system I have had. Over the years I have upgraded my system, sometimes it was cutting edge, sometimes not quite. Games have improved, all except EQ2. it's the same performance dog it was 5 years ago.A quadcore system with 12 GB of ram and 2 video cards running a 64 bit OS should NOT be getting 20-30 FPS.We can't even crank the game up to it's maximum settings, which by the way still look like crap compared to modern games.You have some of the best core game mechanics and lore, zones, instances etc around, but you've tied it to the lamest poorest performing engine of any MMO I have seen. really, take a look at some of the free2 play MMO's coming out, even they perform and look better.Please, undertake a SERIOUS upgrade to the engine, not just the Shader stuff you recently did (which looks like crap mostly).(FYI your awesome "Waiting for zone server" message is what gave me the time and come and rant)</blockquote>

Coho1

06-29-2010, 02:51 PM

I left the game for about 11 months. I come back and it's worse. I run an older PC. I have to use my raid settings to just quest now.

Ansimov

07-04-2010, 07:23 PM

Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+ 2.70 GHzRam: 2 x 2 gig DDR2 Ram (4 gig ram total)Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD4350 512mb Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1920 x 1080Internet connection speed: 10mb+ cable connectionFrames Per Second on Balanced (mid setting): 10-16 fpsFrames Per Second on Extreme Performance (lowest setting): 27-33 fpsI purchased this game last week... considering my system specs... this game runs horrid.I've decided not to continue playing this game for this very reason. ( For the record - this is an awesome game, i'm truly dissapointed i can't play it)

Billaben

07-06-2010, 02:49 AM

I have played this game since launch and really haven't ever had a problem with running this game, i started off with an amd athlon, and currently use an i7 975. Personally I'd check on the drivers your using ATI maybe changing something in them to make your performance worse, possibly and older one would be better. I have always run Nvidia cards on this game and even with my old 7950gt i could get 30 fps in balanced.Currently I use:Intel i7 975EE6GB Corsair Dominator GT DDR3 ramEVGA x58 Classified MotherboardCorsair Nova v128GB SSDEVGA GTX480On Extreme Quality it runs 60fps mostly cause i use the Vsync, but with shader 3.0 there are a few issues not so much with fps but some the older shader1 models try to overlap the 3.0 ones and so you just get black screen under your ui and names.Over the years tho nvidias drivers have been tweeked and tweeked so it has progressively become better on their cards.TWIMTBP for the win i guess.

LardLord

07-08-2010, 08:09 PM

Processor: AMD Athlon x2 3800+ (2.0 GHz)Ram: 4 GBGraphics Card: GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MBOperating System: Windows 7Screen Resolution: 1920 x 1080Frames Per Second: 17That's using the High Quality preset at the Moors of Ykesha airship dock, as the OP suggested. Going down to the "High Performance" preset only gets me to 20 FPS in this spot, and even "Extreme Performance" can't even get me to 25 FPS. Oddly, going to windowed mode and moving my curser outside of the game gives a boost to performance. The UI is just a massive resource hog, I guess.EDIT: That's with Shader 1.0. Shader 3.0 lowers performance for me (and makes some things look worse, in my opinion).

Nyden

07-14-2010, 02:57 PM

AMD Phenom x4 20, 3.2 Ghz (Phenom X3 720 Overclocked and Unlocked)4 GB PQI DDR2 Radeon 5770Windows 7 FPS: around 30ishSetting: Balanced, with textures on all max.It varies quite a lot with this game. This is a fresh brand new install on the system above on a new HDD. I get around 25-45 most of the time. Wish the game ran better, but whatever, I'm just glad I can play it now, I came from an Athlon 3000+ with a Radeon 3450 and a gig of RAM.

MindiMaxi2

08-04-2010, 11:53 AM

Was surprised (after using the trial) that EQ 2 runs smoothly at default settings on the following: Processor: Intel i3Ram: 6 gig DDR3Graphics Card: Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator HD (Core i3) (yes, that is integrated graphics)Operating System: Windows 7 PremiumScreen Resolution: 1680x1050 (HP w2207h) Frames Per Second:I did not go to the recommended place because I had not figured out how to get there, but since the game ran well on this budget desktop PC, decided to go ahead and subscribe.Antonia Bayle has a ton of people running around and although the FPS is not stellar compared to others (around 25-40), it is smooth and very playable (much like playing a console game).

Diekan

08-21-2010, 03:50 AM

My rig:AMD 6400 Dual Core 3.2 gig.XFX GeForce 8800 GTS 512.4 gigs Atlas RAM2 Seagate HD's - dual boot XP (with SP 3) and Ubuntu Linux.As far as performance goes.... terrible right now. I have an open CS ticket to resolve an issue (that hasn't been looked at yet). I'm one of the many that is suffering from random screen 30 second screen freezes about every 1 to 2 minutes of game play. Basically, I log in run around for about a minute or two - then the screen locks up for about 30 seconds - then it "let's go" and the game runs smooth again for another 1 to 2 minutes - then it locks up again for another 30 seconds - then it releases and back to smooth play - goes through this cycle continuously. Had this problem before after a patch - then upon a later patch it "went away" - now it's back.

schizmark

08-22-2010, 07:29 PM

Right now, it is not performing well. I've gotten the BSOD three times in the last three days. Once, it was preceded by falling through the world in Lavastorm (not immediately preceded, but that happened at some point before blue doom kicked in). I started my own thread to report the problem, but got no response, so here it is again: Started the client last night, brief update, character select screen, noticed a brief 'warp' in the background, didn't think much of it. Started game graphics went bonkers, blue screen of death. Restarted computer, everything seemed normal, restarted game, things seemed fine, zoned from guild hall to Lavastorm, blue screen of death. Restarted computer, but the graphics were bad from the get-go, and it was stuck in 800X600 (I think that's right). Decided maybe my BFG NVidia 9800GTX/OC had taken a dive and called it a night. Talked to a friend who happened to have saved the two NVidia 7800GT's he'd replaced a year or so ago, and he gave them to me. Installed one (only had room for one) and got everything back, or so I thought. I had uninstalled and reinstalled EQII in the process of trying to diagnose the problem with my original card, and the game was still updating stuff ast I tried it out today. Seemed okay for the five minutes I was on, but I had somewhere to be. Came home, logged on, let the update complete before I tried to play and the graphics are screwy again, only worse.Fade out from character select to whichever character I chose doesn't fade all the way out. Lots of stuff (all broken up) on the screen while the new area loads. Hotbars have blotches of open areas in the squares that should be black (full opacity), and what should be black borders on some windows is more like looking through a screen door from really close up. Took lots of screenshots, but they all look perfectly normal. I can't believe that I would have blown two graphics cards in less than twenty hours, so there's got to be something else.I run Windows Vista64 Ultimate on a Dell Inspiron 531, AMD Athlon 64x2 5000+ processor, with a 19" and a 24" monitor (both flat screen), six gigs of DDR2 RAM, and have had no problems with this or any other game before the latest update. Didn't have any problems after LU57 either. Whatever small change happened yesterday that required a tiny update to the game did it. Any ideas?Oh, yeah; while I'm here, I should mention that I fell through the world in Lavastorm yesterday. Turned left and all the hills were gone. Not sure where in the mix of the mess I just described that it happened, but maybe the two are related.Alright, that's the first two. The third one happened just after logging out. I had been in the game for a little over two hours, doing a lot of crafting and moving things around in my game house. I camped, pulled up IE, closed it, realized I'd forgotten something, so I tried to open it again, then came blue gloom. The only changes my game life has experienced in the past week are the EQII updates and increasing the size of my page file. Since I have almost half of a 320-gig hard drive empty, I don't see the page file as causing the problem.I changed video cards after the first two times, but now I'm wondering if my card was really bad at all.

Mohrl

08-26-2010, 03:13 PM

2 old computers, 2 very different outcomes.HTPC running EQ2 on high quality with shadows offProcessor: Pentium 4 3.0 HTRam: 2gb Dual channel ddr2 533Graphics Card: ATI HD4350 512mb pci-eOperating System: Windows XP Pro SP3Screen Resolution:1680x1050Frames Per Second: 20-30computer 2 running on extreme performanceProcessor: Athlon XP 3000+Ram: 1.5gb ddr 333mhzGraphics Card: ATI HD4650 1gb AGPOperating System: Windows XP Pro SP3Screen Resolution:1680x1050Frames Per Second: 7-12I don't understand the huge difference in frame rate. Granted, the first computer is a little faster, but there is very little differnce in FPS in any other games on the two systems.

Barx

08-26-2010, 03:37 PM

<cite>Mohrley wrote:</cite><blockquote>2 old computers, 2 very different outcomes.HTPC running EQ2 on high quality with shadows offProcessor: Pentium 4 3.0 HTRam: 2gb Dual channel ddr2 533Graphics Card: ATI HD4350 512mb pci-eOperating System: Windows XP Pro SP3Screen Resolution:1680x1050Frames Per Second: 20-30computer 2 running on extreme performanceProcessor: Athlon XP 3000+Ram: 1.5gb ddr 333mhzGraphics Card: ATI HD4650 1gb AGPOperating System: Windows XP Pro SP3Screen Resolution:1680x1050Frames Per Second: 7-12I don't understand the huge difference in frame rate. Granted, the first computer is a little faster, but there is very little differnce in FPS in any other games on the two systems.</blockquote>RAM on the second computer is slower and lower in quantity, plus that Athalon is probably running a good bit slower then the P4, and EQ2 is very CPU-intensive.

Mohrl

08-31-2010, 10:40 PM

<cite>Barx@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mohrley wrote:</cite><blockquote>2 old computers, 2 very different outcomes.HTPC running EQ2 on high quality with shadows offProcessor: Pentium 4 3.0 HTRam: 2gb Dual channel ddr2 533Graphics Card: ATI HD4350 512mb pci-eOperating System: Windows XP Pro SP3Screen Resolution:1680x1050Frames Per Second: 20-30computer 2 running on extreme performanceProcessor: Athlon XP 3000+Ram: 1.5gb ddr 333mhzGraphics Card: ATI HD4650 1gb AGPOperating System: Windows XP Pro SP3Screen Resolution:1680x1050Frames Per Second: 7-12I don't understand the huge difference in frame rate. Granted, the first computer is a little faster, but there is very little differnce in FPS in any other games on the two systems.</blockquote>RAM on the second computer is slower and lower in quantity, plus that Athalon is probably running a good bit slower then the P4, and EQ2 is very CPU-intensive.</blockquote>I know computer 2 is slower(cpu/ram+agp vs pci-e), but it should do better than 7fps on the absolute lowest settings. I tested on a 3rd computer running high performanceProcessor: Pentium 4 2.66mhzRam: 768mb ddr 333Graphics Card: nvidia fx5500 128mb pci (regular pci)Operating System: Windows XP Pro SP3Screen Resolution:1680x1050Frames Per Second: 12-20This is on high performance getting better than computer 2 on extreme. This with @1/2 the ram and a very old pci graphics card.I am wondering if the cause is the hotfix agp driver for the HD 3xxx/4xxx agp series of graphics cards. Anyone else using one of these newer ATI agp graphics cards?

kcirrot

09-09-2010, 09:57 PM

I recently built this:Processor: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 ProcessorRAM: 4 GB DDR3 1600Graphics: ATI Radeon 5850Operating System: Windows 7 Home edition 64 bitMy monitor runs at 1280 x 1024I get about 20-30 FPS in Very High Quality. Extreme causes weird stuff to happen like characters standing on their mounts and such and FPS goes into the 15-20 FPS range. This makes me very sad. I was hoping that this machine could run EQ2 on Extreme. I've now given up on running this game past balanced on raids. I use High Quality for soloing.

xochipi

09-17-2010, 12:12 PM

Processor: intel E8400 core 2 duo clock 3.0 ghz ( not overclocked yet )MOBO: Asus p5k/se emuRAM: 4 GB DDR3 1600Graphics: Nvidia Zotac gfx 470Operating System: Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit twinked for multimedia performance.My monitor runs at 1400 x 900im using shader 3.0 with textures maximed, shadows, particles, lightning also maximed tho lightining i enable only 1 source otherwise it eats my cpu.... in peak stress i get around 20 fps and when things are fine 50 +this cpu s beast and quite cheap in the market nowadays....

LA Smog

09-21-2010, 03:41 AM

I just built this system yesterday, all are at stock speeds:Processor: Intel i7 950 @ 3.07Video Card: nVidia 475 GTXMemory: 12GB DDR3 RAMMotherboard: MSI X58A-GD65Operating System: Windows 7 Pro 64-bitFramerate at Moors of Ykesha landing looking directly Northeast: 26-29fps with Shader 3.0 active, 42-45fps without.Yeah I was surprised at this too, I should be seeing better frames per second here. I decided to go hunting to see what was going on a bit. Using EVGA Precision to track GPU usage, and Process Explorer for thread usage and Task Manager to monitor the CPU I was seeing some interesting trends:1. Total CPU utilization was reported at 16-18%.Although the first thread on the first core was showing as pretty much pegged, and the other cores each had a thread active but utilizing very little if any time, this means the overall usage isn't even a single core's worth of processing power. I tried disabling hyper threading to test if this is a threading issue or reporting issue. Although the total usage was now reported at 31-33% there was no actual change (maybe one more FPS?) in frame rate on the client, which suggests a reporting issue.2. GPU utilization was at 44%, plenty of head room left. When I changed the hyper-threading on the CPU the utilization showed a flat 48% utilization, but this is in the statistical noise area and could be from NPCs/PCs moving through the view. I activated Shader 3.0 hoping to get some of those nice new graphical updates with only a minor hit at best since my card's extra cycles are not being used. Activating Shader 3.0 dropped my FPS from 40-45fps to 25-29fps and my GPU utilization DROPPED from 40-44% to 28-31%. I thought this was supposed to push more content/rendering onto the video card, not the CPU? Definately one more thing to look into.3. While the landing is pretty intensive I headed over to the Boarfiend Cave ballon landing area in Moors and looked down into the valley/lower area below. The FPS dropped to 8-14 and so I used this to tweak a few settings to get some better FPS. You might want to get the folks to use this or an equal area as a reference point since it has a wide range of graphic/rendering types (water, NPCs, particle effects, distance, etc) to get a better idea of whole rendering engine performance.Of course shadows still don't work correctly on my card: moire patterns all over, huge amounts of flickering (almost seizure inducing), lighting/shadows disappearing depending on which angle you are looking, etc. I loved the look of Shader 3.0 since it brings so much depth back to the game world that has been missing without any shadowing available, but its just so intensive that I have to return to the bland world settings. Please take a little bit to look into this, I love the work you did and really want to use it.

MMORefugee

10-08-2010, 04:33 AM

i7 940 @ 3.2ghz (Minor O/C, bad cooler)6gb DDR3 (Slight O/C)Windows 7 updated.1920x1080Sapphire HD5970 4gb (stock clocks, essentially an x2)10.5->10.9a ATI driversJune DirectX release.CPU temps are iffy, but they don't go into overheat range so I'm ignoring it.The video card never breaks 60c under full 100% core load, even under things like Metro 2033 and Fallout 3 with 15gb of mods.I've been able to get it into a playable range now with alot of tinkering.Anything related to CPU shadowing is an abysmal FPS hit, as well as 3.0 shader.The render engine barely uses my video card at all. (30-50% utilization on both cores when enabled.)Managed to get AA working with some odd combination of settings.Best performance and appearance is gained by setting it on "Balanced" then cranking everything except CPU shadows back up to maximum. (40-100 FPS in TD, still in the 30-50% GPU utilization range...)Going straight to "Extreme" breaks pretty much everything, and "High Performance" is flat out too ugly.Crossfire "works" but is a large FPS hit and causes problems with AA, best disabled. (Cat AI off)FPS goes up with AA forced in CCC and r_blit whatever disabled. (??)Small to no effect on performance (various areas and terrains tested, rough estimates, 3.0 disabled, AI disabled):Lighting max is a 0 FPS hit.Particles max is a 0 FPS hit.Texture resolution is a very small hit (5% FPS hit min to max).Flora is a 0 FPS hit.Water options (10-15% FPS hit all min, to all max )Draw Distance is a 5% FPS hit at max, minimal gain at lowest.Complex Shader (20-40% FPS hit min to max)CPU shadows (50-90% FPS hit. !!!)GPU shadows (Usually broken, ATI related, as far as I can tell.)Model Res (5-10% FPS hit, depending on count)Animation settings max 0 FPS hit.I understand the quirks related to ATI cards and drivers, and while it irks me having an idle GPU core that's acceptable as very little really needs two. I do not understand why a game with this much content, and obvious attention to detail and skilled effort put into it - has such a "iffy" engine.

oldsarge1986

10-09-2010, 05:10 AM

I need some help with screen message displays. I have three characters but one of them doesn't show me the advancement messages like it used to. Also when I enter a new area or have completed a step in a quest I don't get the message in the upper middle of my screen like I used to or like I still do with my other two characters. Any help would be appreciated.Thanks.

xDBS

10-10-2010, 04:15 PM

AMD <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>Nvidia 470.4GB.High Quality 30-60+Extreme Quality 10-40.Pretty much the same issues as LA Smog. Shadows are buggy, extreme quality just compeletly slows the game down completly, but it never EVER maxes out my system.You guys seem to have put in a lot of effort on Shader Model 3.0, but, a lot of people can't use it.And even tho I know it will take tons of work, you truly need multicore support, their is no reason that this game shouldn't use all 4 cores, since it is cpu intensive.

Leww

10-16-2010, 10:30 AM

Something great happened to my computer/game after this last GU and I have no idea what it is. Standing on the Moors dock on the default Extreme Quality settings with 3.0 on in full screen 1920x1200, I am now getting 32 fps. Prior to this update when I tested it about 6 months ago I was only getting 12 fps. I haven't changed any settings on my computer, so I wish I could give details about what changed. I was running through BB with an alt and getting 80-112fps, in our T3 Guild Hall, all decked out i'm getting 47-52fps. I am so excited about the change though!! Has anyone else experienced a boost in performance?System:Phenom IIx4 955 OC to 3.8ghz4GB RamWindows 7-64bitRadeon 5700

cruk

10-17-2010, 12:37 PM

<cite>Leww wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am so excited about the change though!! Has anyone else experienced a boost in performance?</blockquote>I'm not sure what happened, but I'm experiencing a massive boost in performance since the October update as well. I'm on extreme settings now. GPU shadows appear to have been fixed (no more strange concentric circles, they look absolutely PHENOMENAL) and the framerate in previously taxing areas has increased to completely playable levels. Last night, I ran through Maj'Dul for the Halloween quests and was greeted with the best performance (and graphics quality) I have ever seen! The difference is incredible. I have never been this happy with the graphics and performance in EQ2!Windows 7 64bit8GB RAMCore 2 Duo E8400Radeon 4870 1GB (4x box AA! Looks amazing now!)

Kaitak

10-29-2010, 09:04 AM

Processor: Core i7 920 @ 4.0 GHzRam: 12GB G.Skill Ripjaw DDR3 1600Graphics Card: (2) eVGA GTX260 c216 SLiOperating System: Win7 Ultimate 64-bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1080Frames Per Second: <SLi Enabled=58fps> <SLi Disabled=62>Wait...WHAT??!!?? I knew EQ2 was CPU-bound, but to get negative benefit from SLi?? Come on...rly? I guess I'm running w/o SLi in EQ2 from here on out!

KaiZas

11-02-2010, 04:50 AM

Maybe set the 2nd card to do AA? That's what I've been doing.

Peogia

11-06-2010, 01:22 AM

<cite>TSR-DanielH wrote:</cite><blockquote>In order to help people make hardware decisions and to share performance tips, let's all post our system specs and performance information. To make sure that the results are somewhat consistent, we should all take benchmarks in the same area using the same settings. I have posted some general guidelines below on what I think would be a good test.Test Settings --Take the airship from Sinking Sands the Moors of Ykesha-Get off the airship and onto the docks so you're right on top of the first fan grate-Look directly North-East and zoom in until you're in first person-Set your graphics settings to 'High Quality' and then hit F11 to access the performance monitor-Wait around 2 minutes for the fps to normalize-Post your information in this threadYour information and results -Processor:Ram:Graphics Card:Operating System:Screen Resolution: Frames Per Second:Let everyone know what kind of performance you're getting in Everquest 2!</blockquote>My bad this was done on balanced I don't turn anything on anymore 3.0 ect or turn anything higher then balanced anymore in Everquest II to avoid permeant damage to my PC component's sorry I cannot be of further help on testing but i am already out about $180 in damages on a branew video card after launching Everquest IIProcessor: Phenom II 955Ram: 8GBGraphics Card: GTX 460Operating System: 7 64bitScreen Resolution: 1360x768Frames Per Second: 37Who do we have to thank for graphics being rendered on cpu instead of gpu and why hasn't SOE sued the guy that wrote this graphics engine yet Microsoft sued other manufacturers for faulty parts in xbox 360

MurFalad

11-15-2010, 08:48 PM

<cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote>My bad this was done on balanced I don't turn anything on anymore 3.0 ect or turn anything higher then balanced anymore in Everquest II to avoid permeant damage to my PC component's sorry I cannot be of further help on testing but i am already out about $180 in damages on a branew video card after launching Everquest IIProcessor: Phenom II 955Ram: 8GBGraphics Card: GTX 460Operating System: 7 64bitScreen Resolution: 1360x768Frames Per Second: 37Who do we have to thank for graphics being rendered on cpu instead of gpu and why hasn't SOE sued the guy that wrote this graphics engine yet Microsoft sued other manufacturers for faulty parts in xbox 360</blockquote>If something failed there then its the fault of the hardware and nothing to do with SOE or EQ2.The hardware should be designed so that it can cope with being run at 100%, if it cannot handle that and overheats and fails while in a well ventilated case at ~ room temperature then its a poor design, or it has a hardware flaw that caused a failure (I say that as a chip designer myself, its definitel the engineers responsibility to design the system to not overheat under allowable ambient conditions).And while the graphics engine definitely does rely too heavily on the CPU, sometimes I have to just sit back and be amazed at the level of detail it achieves. Personally I wish they could convert it to make better use of multi-core processors myself, as I think this is where the big performance could be added almost everyone now has a dual core or better, while few have a decent graphics card).

MurFalad

11-15-2010, 08:49 PM

Firstly I have just upgraded my laptop's processor, being in a hurry I didn't unfortunately get an accurate figure for the previous processor (a T5250 1.5Ghz core 2 duo with 2mb cache and DDR2 667Mhz, I used to run it at high performance and remember testing the docks at high quality as being ~12 FPS. Now (I'm assuming the core clocks are accurate here and its automatically adjusted to the correct ratio, if not then I'm actually running at a clock multiplier that will give me 2.16Ghz.... still better either way!). Processor : T7700 (2.4 Ghz core 2 duo, 4mb cache) with DDR2 800Mhz Ram : 4Gb DDR2 800Mhz Graphics card : ATI 2600 with 512Mb ram and access to 1Gb further onboard ram Operating system : Vista home edition Screen resolution : 1440x900 60Hz FPS : High quality default = 24 to 25 FPS I'd recommend to anyone to go for such an upgrade, the game is running at high quality settings with FPS around 20+ and relatively smooth, more playable then it was previously at high performance on the 1.5Ghz. Although upgrading the laptop can be time consuming to dismantle the computer for certain models (like my Toshiba...). Graphics card performance wise I can confirm though that this card cannot handle GPU shadows on any setting without halving FPS, and shader 3.0 performance is very low, the next laptop I go for will have to have something at least twice as powerful I guess to make it worthwhile, probably ~= NVidea GTS360M / ATI 4650.

stayx

02-03-2011, 04:13 PM

Processor: AMD Phenom II X3 740 @3x3,0 GhzRam: 4GB DDR3 1333 Kingston Value RamGraphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 460 Super Overclocked 1024Operating System: Win7 Home Premium 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1680x1050Frames Per Second: 584x Antialising and 8x AF

Shagor

02-14-2011, 08:15 AM

Well guys this is my first post couse i started play (and enjoy rly much) this game some days ago. The performance of this graphic engine is the the most important problem that this game have and i hope that devs are working hard for it couse i'm rly going to love this Everquest.Ok let's start whit configurations and fps:CPU: e8200@stock mhzRAM: 4gb ddr2 800motherboard: p5q provga: ati radeon 4870 512mbres: 1680x1050useless to say that i'm able to play almost all games and mmo whit high level settings exept this <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />While tweeking the settings to reach a good balance trough performance and good graphic i have noticed that the most fps killer are shadows and draw distances, as someone sad before me, the other stuffs can be set to high or even maximum whit any fps lost (at least for my spec); so i setted sadows to GPU and putting em to minimum, and i decreased the draw distance since i was fine whit fps. I'm using shader 3.0 (couse playing whit 1.0 in 2011 is kinda crappy <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />) and i can notice a frame rate that goes to a min of 25-30 to a max of 100 or more. I turned of the self torch that let u gain some fps and tbh i like it off much.ofc i'm talking of single play. playing in big groups or raids will make fps go rly down but this is almost the same in every gameI hope that they will fix this engine couse the game itself is rly goodcya in game

Shareana

02-21-2011, 12:03 AM

This post has moved: <a href="/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=445320&post_id=5504538" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=44532...post_id=5504538</a> non constructive.

Lalen

03-06-2011, 04:34 AM

Processor: AMD Phenom II x6 1100T Black Edition (3.3 Ghz)Ram: Corsair 4x4 16 GB DDR3 @ 1600MhzGraphics Card: 2 SLI EVGA NVidia 570 GTX (2x 1.3GB DDR5 Mem)Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate x64Screen Resolution: 1920x1080 8xQ AA, 4xAF (AA and AF makes no FPS impact on this system with EQ2)Frames Per Second: 14-16 (S3.0 and everything else is on and maxed)

RaunII

03-08-2011, 11:22 PM

Processor: Pentium E4500 OC'ed to 2.4 GHZRam: 4 gig of Geil low latency ramGraphics Card: EVGA 9800GT dual slot editionOperating System: Windows XP SP3Screen Resolution: 1152x864Frames Per Second: 19-23 FPS

Quenthl

04-01-2011, 03:58 PM

Ok well I didn't have lag when I first started Eq2 this computer was built a few years ago and EQ has progressed but my computer has not... here is my DxDiag.. if someone could tell me what I can add or do hardware wise or something else could you tell me what? Thank you very much for your timeQuenthlAntonia Bayle Server------------------System Information------------------ DxDiag Previously: Crashed in system information (stage 1)------------DxDiag Notes------------ DirectX Files Tab: Display Tab 1: No problems found. Sound Tab 1: No problems found. Sound Tab 2: No problems found. Music Tab: No problems found. Input Tab: No problems found. Network Tab: No problems found.---------------Display Devices--------------- Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT Manufacturer: NVIDIA Chip type: GeForce 7950 GT DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC Device Key: EnumPCIVEN_10DE&DEV_0295&SUBSYS_220719F1&REV_A1 Display Memory: 512.0 MB Current Mode: 1680 x 1050 (32 bit) (60Hz) Monitor: Plug and Play Monitor Monitor Max Res: 1600,1200 Driver Name: nv4_disp.dll Driver Version: 6.14.0011.6921 (English) DDI Version: 9 (or higher)Driver Attributes: Final Retail Driver Date/Size: 12/5/2007 05:41:00, 5773568 bytes WHQL Logo'd: Yes WHQL Date Stamp: n/a VDD: n/a Mini VDD: nv4_mini.sys Mini VDD Date: 12/5/2007 05:41:00, 7435392 bytesDevice Identifier: {D7B71E3E-41D5-11CF-4861-0C0200C2CB35} Vendor ID: 0x10DE Device ID: 0x0295 SubSys ID: 0x220719F1 Revision ID: 0x00A1 Revision ID: 0x00A1 Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_A ModeMPEG2_B ModeMPEG2_C ModeMPEG2_D ModeWMV9_B ModeWMV9_A Deinterlace Caps: {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch {6CB69578-7617-4637-91E5-1C02DB810285}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch Registry: OK DDraw Status: Enabled D3D Status: Enabled AGP Status: EnabledDDraw Test Result: Not run D3D7 Test Result: Not run D3D8 Test Result: Not run D3D9 Test Result: Not run-------------Sound Devices------------- Description: Microsoft LifeChat LX-3000 Default Sound Playback: No Default Voice Playback: No Hardware ID: USBVid_045e&Pid_070f&Rev_0100&MI_00 Manufacturer ID: 65535 Product ID: 65535 Type: WDM Driver Name: usbaudio.sys Driver Version: 5.01.2600.5512 (English) Driver Attributes: Final Retail WHQL Logo'd: n/a Date and Size: 4/13/2008 14:45:12, 60032 bytes Other Files: Driver Provider: Microsoft HW Accel Level: Full Cap Flags: 0x0 Min/Max Sample Rate: 0, 0Static/Strm HW Mix Bufs: 0, 0 Static/Strm HW 3D Bufs: 0, 0 HW Memory: 0 Voice Management: No EAX(tm) 2.0 Listen/Src: No, No I3DL2(tm) Listen/Src: No, NoSensaura(tm) ZoomFX(tm): No Registry: OK Sound Test Result: Not run Description: SoundMAX HD Audio Default Sound Playback: No Default Voice Playback: No Hardware ID: HDAUDIOFUNC_01&VEN_11D4&DEV_1988&SUBSYS_104381E1&REV_1003 Manufacturer ID: 65535 Product ID: 65535 Type: WDM Driver Name: ADIHdAud.sys Driver Version: 5.10.0001.4530 (English) Driver Attributes: Final Retail WHQL Logo'd: n/a Date and Size: 5/2/2006 13:12:06, 229376 bytes Other Files: Driver Provider: AnalogDevices HW Accel Level: Full Cap Flags: 0x0 Min/Max Sample Rate: 0, 0Static/Strm HW Mix Bufs: 0, 0 Static/Strm HW 3D Bufs: 0, 0 HW Memory: 0 Voice Management: No EAX(tm) 2.0 Listen/Src: No, No I3DL2(tm) Listen/Src: No, NoSensaura(tm) ZoomFX(tm): No Registry: OK Sound Test Result: Not run---------------------Sound Capture Devices--------------------- Description: Microsoft LifeChat LX-3000 Default Sound Capture: No Default Voice Capture: No Driver Name: usbaudio.sys Driver Version: 5.01.2600.5512 (English) Driver Attributes: Final Retail Date and Size: 4/13/2008 14:45:12, 60032 bytes Cap Flags: 0x0 Format Flags: 0x0 Description: SoundMAX HD Audio Default Sound Capture: No Default Voice Capture: No Driver Name: ADIHdAud.sys Driver Version: 5.10.0001.4530 (English) Driver Attributes: Final Retail Date and Size: 5/2/2006 13:12:06, 229376 bytes Cap Flags: 0x0 Format Flags: 0x0-----------DirectMusic----------- DLS Path: C:WINDOWSSYSTEM32driversGM.DLS DLS Version: 1.00.0016.0002 Acceleration: n/a Ports: Microsoft Synthesizer, Software (Not Kernel Mode), Output, DLS, Internal, Default Port USB Audio Device, Software (Kernel Mode), Output, DLS, Internal Microsoft MIDI Mapper [Emulated], Hardware (Not Kernel Mode), Output, No DLS, Internal Microsoft GS Wavetable SW Synth [Emulated], Hardware (Not Kernel Mode), Output, No DLS, Internal Registry: OK Test Result: Not run-------------------DirectInput Devices------------------- Device Name: Mouse Attached: 1 Controller ID: n/aVendor/Product ID: n/a FF Driver: n/a Device Name: Keyboard Attached: 1 Controller ID: n/aVendor/Product ID: n/a FF Driver: n/a Device Name: Microsoft LifeChat LX-3000 Attached: 1 Controller ID: 0x0Vendor/Product ID: 0x045E, 0x070F FF Driver: n/a Device Name: USB Gaming Mouse Attached: 1 Controller ID: 0x0Vendor/Product ID: 0x046D, 0xC049 FF Driver: n/a Device Name: USB Gaming Mouse Attached: 1 Controller ID: 0x0Vendor/Product ID: 0x046D, 0xC049 FF Driver: n/aPoll w/ Interrupt: No Registry: OK-----------USB Devices-----------+ USB Root Hub| Vendor/Product ID: 0x8086, 0x2830| Matching Device ID: usbroot_hub| Service: usbhub| Driver: usbhub.sys, 4/13/2008 14:45:37, 59520 bytes| Driver: usbd.sys, 2/28/2006 08:00:00, 4736 bytes----------------Gameport Devices----------------------------PS/2 Devices------------+ Standard 101/102-Key or Microsoft Natural PS/2 Keyboard| Matching Device ID: *pnp0303| Service: i8042prt| Driver: i8042prt.sys, 4/13/2008 15:18:00, 52480 bytes| Driver: kbdclass.sys, 4/13/2008 14:39:47, 24576 bytes| + Terminal Server Keyboard Driver| Matching Device ID: rootrdp_kbd| Upper Filters: kbdclass| Service: TermDD| Driver: termdd.sys, 4/13/2008 20:13:20, 40840 bytes| Driver: kbdclass.sys, 4/13/2008 14:39:47, 24576 bytes| + HID-compliant mouse| Vendor/Product ID: 0x046D, 0xC049| Matching Device ID: hid_device_system_mouse| Service: mouhid| Driver: mouclass.sys, 4/13/2008 14:39:47, 23040 bytes| Driver: mouhid.sys, 2/28/2006 08:00:00, 12160 bytes| + Terminal Server Mouse Driver| Matching Device ID: rootrdp_mou| Upper Filters: mouclass| Service: TermDD| Driver: termdd.sys, 4/13/2008 20:13:20, 40840 bytes| Driver: mouclass.sys, 4/13/2008 14:39:47, 23040 bytes----------------------------DirectPlay Service Providers----------------------------Internet TCP/IP Connection For DirectPlay - Registry: OK, File: dpwsockx.dll (5.03.2600.5512)IPX Connection For DirectPlay - Registry: OK, File: dpwsockx.dll (5.03.2600.5512)Modem Connection For DirectPlay - Registry: OK, File: dpmodemx.dll (5.03.2600.5512)Serial Connection For DirectPlay - Registry: OK, File: dpmodemx.dll (5.03.2600.5512)DirectPlay Voice Wizard Tests: Full Duplex: Not run, Half Duplex: Not run, Mic: Not runDirectPlay Test Result: Not runRegistry: OK-------------------DirectPlay Adapters------------------------------------------DirectPlay Voice Codecs------------------------------------------------DirectPlay Lobbyable Apps-------------------------------------------DirectX Components------------------

Quenthl

04-01-2011, 03:59 PM

------------------DirectShow Filters------------------DirectShow Filters:WMAudio Decoder DMO,0x00800800,1,1,,WMAPro over S/PDIF DMO,0x00600800,1,1,,WMA Voice Decoder DMO,0x00600800,1,1,,Canon G.726 DMO Decoder,0x00000000,1,1,,Mpeg4s Decoder DMO,0x00800001,1,1,,WMV Screen decoder DMO,0x00800001,1,1,,WMVideo Decoder DMO,0x00800001,1,1,,Mpeg43 Decoder DMO,0x00800001,1,1,,Mpeg4 Decoder DMO,0x00800001,1,1,,WMT MuxDeMux Filter,0x00200000,0,0,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000F ull Screen Renderer,0x00200000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933D V Muxer,0x00400000,0,0,qdv.dll,6.05.2600.5512Color Space Converter,0x00400001,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933 WM ASF Reader,0x00400000,0,0,qasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145Scre en Capture filter,0x00200000,0,1,wmpsrcwp.dll,11.00.5721.5145 AVI Splitter,0x00600000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933W MT AudioAnalyzer,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.402 6.0000VGA 16 Color Ditherer,0x00400000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933I ndeo® video 5.10 Compression Filter,0x00200000,1,1,Ir50_32.dll,5.2562.0015.0055 Windows Media Audio Decoder,0x00800001,1,1,msadds32.ax,8.00.0000.4487A C3 Parser Filter,0x00600000,1,1,mpg2splt.ax,6.05.2600.5512WM T Format Conversion,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0 000StreamBufferSink,0x00200000,0,0,sbe.dll,6.05.26 00.6076WMT Black Frame Generator,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.00 00MJPEG Decompressor,0x00600000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5 933Indeo® video 5.10 Decompression Filter,0x00640000,1,1,Ir50_32.dll,5.2562.0015.0055 WMT Screen Capture filter,0x00200000,0,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000M icrosoft Screen Video Decompressor,0x00800000,1,1,msscds32.ax,8.00.0000. 4487MPEG-I Stream Splitter,0x00600000,1,2,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933S AMI (CC) Parser,0x00400000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933MPE G Layer-3 Decoder,0x00810000,1,1,l3codecx.ax,1.06.0000.0052M PEG-2 Splitter,0x005fffff,1,0,mpg2splt.ax,6.05.2600.5512 ACELP.net Sipro Lab Audio Decoder,0x00800001,1,1,acelpdec.ax,1.04.0000.0000I nternal Script Command Renderer,0x00800001,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933M PEG Audio Decoder,0x03680001,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Fi le Source (Netshow URL),0x00400000,0,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145WMT Import Filter,0x00200000,0,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000D V Splitter,0x00600000,1,2,qdv.dll,6.05.2600.5512Bitm ap Generate,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.000 0Windows Media Video Decoder,0x00800000,1,1,wmvds32.ax,8.00.0000.4487Ca non Actual Data Length Setter,0x00200000,1,1,CanonActualDataLengthSetter. ax,2.00.0000.0002Video Mixing Renderer 9,0x00200000,1,0,quartz.dll,Windows Media Video Decoder,0x00800000,1,1,wmv8ds32.ax,8.00.0000.4000C anon Custom Resizer SaveMode,0x00200000,1,1,CanonDESResizer.ax,1.00.00 00.0001Canon Resizer,0x00200000,1,1,CanonResizer.ax,1.00.0000.0 003WMT VIH2 Fix,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000Reco rd Queue,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000Ca non MDP Motion-JPEG Decoder,0x00200001,1,1,CanonMDPMJPEGDecoder.ax,1.0 0.0000.0002Windows Media Multiplexer,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5 145ASX file Parser,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145AS X v.2 file Parser,0x00600000,1,0,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145NS C file Parser,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145AC M Wrapper,0x00600000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Wi ndows Media source filter,0x00600000,0,2,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145Vi deo Renderer,0x00800001,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933F rame Eater,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000MP EG-2 Video Stream Analyzer,0x00200000,0,0,sbe.dll,6.05.2600.6076Line 21 Decoder,0x00600000,1,1,qdvd.dll,6.05.2600.5512Vide o Port Manager,0x00600000,2,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933WS T Decoder,0x00600000,1,1,wstdecod.dll,5.03.2600.5512 Video Renderer,0x00400000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933C anon Image Rotation Filter,0x00200000,1,1,CanonRotateFilter.dll,1.00.0 000.0009WM ASF Writer,0x00400000,0,0,qasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145WMT Sample Information Filter,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000V BI Surface Allocator,0x00600000,1,1,vbisurf.ax,5.03.2600.5512 Microsoft MPEG-4 Video Decompressor,0x00800000,1,1,mpg4ds32.ax,8.00.0000. 4504File writer,0x00200000,1,0,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512WMT Log Filter,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000C anon G.726 Decoder,0x00800000,1,1,CanonG726Decoder.ax,1.00.00 00.0003WMT Virtual Renderer,0x00200000,1,0,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.000 0DVD Navigator,0x00200000,0,2,qdvd.dll,6.05.2600.5512Ov erlay Mixer2,0x00400000,1,1,qdvd.dll,6.05.2600.5512Canon Motion-JPEG Decoder,0x00200001,1,1,CanonMJPEGDecoder.ax,1.02.0 000.0005AVI Draw,0x00600064,9,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933.RAM file Parser,0x00600000,1,0,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145Ca non Text Source Filter,0x00200000,0,1,CanonTextSourceFilter.ax,2.0 2.0000.0008WMT DirectX Transform Wrapper,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000 G.711 Codec,0x00200000,1,1,g711codc.ax,5.01.2600.0000MPE G-2 Demultiplexer,0x00600000,1,1,mpg2splt.ax,6.05.2600 .5512DV Video Decoder,0x00800000,1,1,qdv.dll,6.05.2600.5512Indeo ® audio software,0x00500000,1,1,iac25_32.ax,2.00.0005.0053 Windows Media Update Filter,0x00400000,1,0,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145AS F DIB Handler,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145A SF ACM Handler,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145A SF ICM Handler,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145A SF URL Handler,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145A SF JPEG Handler,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145A SF DJPEG Handler,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145A SF embedded stuff Handler,0x00600000,1,1,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.51459 x8Resize,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.000 0WIA Stream Snapshot Filter,0x00200000,1,1,wiasf.ax,1.00.0000.0000Alloc ator Fix,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000Samp leGrabber,0x00200000,1,1,qedit.dll,6.05.2600.5512N ull Renderer,0x00200000,1,0,qedit.dll,6.05.2600.5512WM T Virtual Source,0x00200000,0,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000M PEG-2 Sections and Tables,0x005fffff,1,0,mpeg2data.ax,WMT Interlacer,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0 000StreamBufferSource,0x00200000,0,0,sbe.dll,6.05. 2600.6076Smart Tee,0x00200000,1,2,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Overlay Mixer,0x00200000,0,0,qdvd.dll,6.05.2600.5512AVI Decompressor,0x00600000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5 933Uncompressed Domain Shot Detection Filter,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000A VI/WAV File Source,0x00400000,0,2,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Qui ckTime Movie Parser,0x00600000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Wav e Parser,0x00400000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933MID I Parser,0x00400000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Mul ti-file Parser,0x00400000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Fil e stream renderer,0x00400000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933X ML Playlist,0x00400000,1,0,wmpasf.dll,11.00.5721.5145 Canon WAV Dest,0x00200000,0,0,CanonWavDest.ax,1.00.0000.0001 AVI Mux,0x00200000,1,0,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Line 21 Decoder 2,0x00600002,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933File Source (Async.),0x00400000,0,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933F ile Source (URL),0x00400000,0,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933WMT DV Extract,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000 Canon Motion-JPEG Encoder,0x00200000,1,1,CanonMJPEGEncoder.ax,1.02.0 000.0001WMT Switch Filter,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000W MT Volume,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000S tretch Video,0x00200000,1,1,wmm2filt.dll,2.01.4026.0000In finite Pin Tee Filter,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512QT Decompressor,0x00600000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5 933MPEG Video Decoder,0x40000001,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933ps Wav Dest,0x00200000,0,0,psWavDes.ax,1.00.0000.0001Inde o® video 4.4 Decompression Filter,0x00640000,1,1,ir41_32.ax,4.51.0016.0003Ind eo® video 4.4 Compression Filter,0x00200000,1,1,ir41_32.ax,4.51.0016.0003WDM Streaming Data Transforms:Microsoft Kernel Acoustic Echo Canceller,0x00000000,0,0,,Microsoft Kernel GS Wavetable Synthesizer,0x00200000,1,1,,5.03.2600.5512Microsof t Kernel DLS Synthesizer,0x00200000,1,1,,5.03.2600.5512Microsof t Kernel DRM Audio Descrambler,0x00200000,1,1,,5.03.2600.5512Video Compressors:WMVideo8 Encoder DMO,0x00600800,1,1,,MSScreen encoder DMO,0x00600800,1,1,,WMVideo9 Encoder DMO,0x00600800,1,1,,MSScreen 9 encoder DMO,0x00600800,1,1,,DV Video Encoder,0x00200000,0,0,qdv.dll,6.05.2600.5512Indeo ® video 5.10 Compression Filter,0x00100000,1,1,Ir50_32.dll,5.2562.0015.0055 MJPEG Compressor,0x00200000,0,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.593 3Cinepak Codec by Radius,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Intel 4:2:0 Video V2.50,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Intel Indeo(R) Video R3.2,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Intel Indeo® Video 4.5,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Indeo® video 5.10,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Intel IYUV codec,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Micros oft H.261 Video Codec,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Micros oft H.263 Video Codec,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Micros oft RLE,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Microsof t Video 1,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512VP60® Simple Profile ,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512VP61® Advanced Profile,0x00200000,1,1,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Audio Compressors:WMA Voice Encoder DMO,0x00600800,1,1,,WM Speech Encoder DMO,0x00600800,1,1,,WMAudio Encoder DMO,0x00600800,1,1,,IAC2,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll ,6.05.2600.5933IMA ADPCM,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933PCM, 0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Microsoft ADPCM,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933ACEL P.net,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933DSP Group TrueSpeech(TM),0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600 .5933Windows Media Audio V1,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Windows Media Audio V2,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933GSM 6.10,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Micro soft G.723.1,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933CC ITT A-Law,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933CCITT u-Law,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933MPEG Layer-3,0x00200000,1,1,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Audio Capture Sources:Microsoft LifeChat LX-3000 ,0x00200000,0,0,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512SoundMAX HD Audio,0x00200000,0,0,qcap.dll,6.05.2600.5512Midi Renderers:Default MidiOut Device,0x00800000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Mic rosoft GS Wavetable SW Synth,0x00200000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933WDM Streaming Capture Devices:SoundMAX HD Audio,0x00000000,0,0,,USB Audio Device,0x00200000,2,2,,5.03.2600.5512WDM Streaming Rendering Devices:SoundMAX HD Audio,0x00000000,0,0,,USB Audio Device,0x00200000,2,2,,5.03.2600.5512BDA Transport Information Renderers:MPEG-2 Sections and Tables,0x00600000,1,0,mpeg2data.ax,WDM Streaming Mixer Devices:Microsoft Kernel Wave Audio Mixer,0x00000000,0,0,,BDA CP/CA Filters:Decrypt/Tag,0x00600000,1,0,encdec.dll,6.05.2600.6076Encryp t/Tag,0x00200000,0,0,encdec.dll,6.05.2600.6076XDS Codec,0x00200000,0,0,encdec.dll,6.05.2600.6076Audio Renderers:Microsoft LifeChat LX-3000 ,0x00200000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Default DirectSound Device,0x00800000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Def ault WaveOut Device,0x00200000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Dir ectSound: Microsoft LifeChat LX-3000 ,0x00200000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933DirectSou nd: SoundMAX HD Audio,0x00200000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933Soun dMAX HD Audio,0x00200000,1,0,quartz.dll,6.05.2600.5933WDM Streaming System Devices:SoundMAX HD Audio,0x00200000,19,3,,5.03.2600.5512USB Audio Device,0x00200000,4,2,,5.03.2600.5512

sephy666

04-03-2011, 02:15 PM

TBH EQ2 Runs like a bag of ^&%$ on both my Computers, I will post both setups: Desktop:Processor: AMD Phenom II X2 545 @3.0GHZ per coreRam: 4GB DDR 2Graphics Card: Geforce GTS250 512MBOperating System: Windows 7 Pro x64Screen Resolution: 1440x900Frames Per Second: 32 (High Quality)Laptop:Processor: Intel core I5 (Apparently Dual core but it shows 4 cores)Ram: 4GB DDR3 Graphics Card: Geforce Gt105M 512MBOperating System: Windows 7 Home Premium x64Screen Resolution: 1600x900Frames Per Second: 22 (High Performance)

Owarr

04-10-2011, 12:34 AM

Processor: Intel Core I7 940Ram:12 GB DDR3Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 295Operating System: Win 7 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1080 dual monitorsFrames Per Second: 34The issue I have that irritates me most is the "casting bar lag". Tonight we couldn't even finish the x2 because the lag was so bad. I'd really like to see this fixed. We can all turn our graphics settings down or get new pc gear. Nothing is going to help server side lag except fixing the servers.

Hannalynn

05-22-2011, 02:22 AM

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Duel Core 6000+ 3.0ghzRam: 4096Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 5770Operating System: Win7 Home Premium 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1080Frames Per Second: 12High Quality is a horrible setting, all I have to do is put GPU shadow or turn off shadow to boost my FPS to 30ish, though I don't know why you put it in first person as I don't know anyone at all who plays in first person view & I actually got more FPS (15-18 when I came into 3rd person view. There are a load of other things associated with High Quality setting that are just absurd to be honest, but those were the benchmark setting so there you go. On my custom settings (where some settings are actually higher than the High Quality) I run about 45-50ish FPS constantly.

Alvane

05-25-2011, 08:42 PM

Since the game has been up again, I can say performance has been the worse I have ever seen it over the past 5 years.1. Adjusting gamma does nothing to the game. I am hardly playing anymore because the game is so dark and I cannot lighten it up using the option choices. Yes, everying is up to date including Direct X. - please see my post.2. FPS is extremely inconsistent, regardless if hardly anyone is in the area/zone or it's got a crowd of 30 people. Before the security issues, my FPS ran generally around 35-45. Sometimes it would drop for a while, but would get better and stay consistent. Now, I can range anywhere from 6 to 55 in a NY second - and that is constant changing. So the FPS might be at 35 for one minute, then next second drop down to 20, then down to 10, 9, 6, then maybe up to 10-12. It would get so bad, I couldn't play much.I have decreased many settings through options in hopes even playing bare base would make a difference. But alas, it has no effect.

drakkenshie

07-13-2011, 02:50 AM

Processor: Intel i7 920, 3.7GHzRam: 6GB tri-channel, 720Mhz (1440DDR)Graphics Card: EVGA nVidia GTX285 OCOperating System: Window 7Screen Resolution: 1920x1200, 1920x1080 on second displayFrames Per Second: 37fpsThe game ran faster earlier this year with higher settings, not sure why it dropped.

warmpita

08-19-2011, 11:38 PM

Intel Pentium D CPU 3.20GHz3GB RamNvidia GeForce 9500 GTWindows XP1280 x 1020The game keeps freezing on me. This is fairly new as the game has always run wonderfully for me. I honestly can not figure out what changes, I even reset my graphics drivers, but no luck.

Loviotor

09-27-2011, 07:33 PM

Playing on my Asus G73JW-A1 laptop.Processor: Intel Core i7 740Q (1.73Ghz - 2.93Ghz)Ram: 8GB DDR3Graphics Card: GeForce GTX 460M 1.5GBOperating System: Windows 7 Home PremiumScreen Resolution: 1920 x 1080Frames Per Second: 27 FPS

Irgun

10-09-2011, 05:55 AM

Processor: Intel i7 2600k@4,8GHzRam: 16GB Kingston HyperX (PC 1600)Graphics Card: Asus nVidia GTX580 Operating System: Window 7 Home Premium 64bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: between 35fps (zooming out + looking on whole raid) and 200+fps (soloing)- everything turned on, except shader 3.0 (graphics glitches, black textures etc.)- MSAA off- gpu-shadows maxed, but cpu-shadow (also maxed) if indoors- particle effects / character: set to 1, everything else will give you a headache during grp/raid- all sliders to maximum, except "Number of Lights" under "Lighting"Overall found problem with lights:Number of lights dont affect the visibility of lights, but the corona around them. So having the slider set to 1 light only doesnt affect the lights to appear/disappear, only coronas will show up, which you probably wont even notice much.Framerate impact is pretty silly atm, best example is if you look down the whirling book stairs in Library of Erudin, with my system following numbers:- 1 light: 82fps- 2 lights: 53fps (only 1 additional "corona", no noticable difference in graphics quality but such a big impact!)- 3 lights: 23fps (same here)- 4 lights+: under 15fpssince you can set the slider up to 30 lights there wont be a system the next 10years to handle this, if you dont change how lights will actually work way more effective......Also strange: number of lights affect the distance from which you see static lights, like torches.Another example:In Necrotic Asylum after the crystal cave there is a bridge leading to Vauth the Suffragan, the access has a skull with 2 torches lighting the path.The higher you set the number of lights there the sooner you will actually see the effect, but without increasing/decreasing the actual number of lights. This has to be a bug, since the range of lights shouldnt be affected, they are either there or not.Plus, if you get closer to a lightsource you wont notice a slow increasing gloom around you, but you actually end up having a light around you if you go 1 step further (or zoom in one more bit), if you go 1 step back the light is gone.There is no fluent radiance, its just like you turn on/off a lamp - maybe you can fix this as well.

Ziomarco

10-18-2011, 08:34 PM

Processor: Intel i5 <a href="mailto:750@4,8GHz">750 @4.2GHz</a>Ram: 16GB G Skill Ripmax (PC 1600)Graphics Card: EVGA nVidia GTX580 x 2 (I know SLI does nothing for this game)Operating System: Window 7 Ultimate 64bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1200Frames Per Second: anywhere from 30 - 65Why does this game perform so badly?? Considering the engine is almost 10 years old (with some minor updates) A system like mine should be holding 200+ FPS solid. Is the engine that inefficient?

Citadelli

11-07-2011, 10:27 PM

First try...Processor: Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.4ghz Ram:4gigGraphics Card:NVIDIA GTX 550 TiOperating System:Win 7 home premium 64-bitScreen Resolution: 1680x1050 60mhz (native and same as desktop) full screen modeFrames Per Second: ~25 to 28 / 140-200pingI say first try because after taking the boat to MoY my Avatar wasn't visible even after 15 mins...Second try (relogged to my guy, visible but i didnt do the boat travel)Frames Per Second:~23 to 25 fully first person again.130-180 ping, non full screen 18-20 fps. 12-15fps in 3rd person, all within the 20 to 30 min range time of sitting here not moving typing my post.I'm posting because i'm trying to find out why my new video card (which is supposed to be far supperior over my 2 year old video card that burnt out (NVIDIA 9800), this weekend is performing so bad - 15 to 30 fps less on all settings and zones with no other hardware changes except a more powerful power unit; also did full ad-spyware crap and all that junk as well). Seriously unbearble and chunky.... Pings remain about the same as always.I'm trolling through other forums but any ideas would be awesome guys <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Play Hard, Eat dirt and have fun.CitaPS: NVIDIA! - "The way it's meant to be played... (cued at every login...)" hm, checks wallet and sighs....

Lazaretto

11-27-2011, 11:51 PM

Processor: I7 860 (overclocked to 3.8 ghz)Ram: 8 gigs (DDR3 601.5 MhZ, 2:6, 9:9:9:24:88 2T)Graphics Card: GeForce GTX 285Screen Resolution 1900x1200FPS: 37

Blinx123

01-11-2012, 08:06 AM

Mainboard: Asrock Z68 Extreme 7CPU: Intel i5 2500k @ 4.2 GHzGPU: NVIDIA Geforce 560 TI 2GB @ stock (soon to be replaced with an AMD Radeon 7970 or a 6990, since I got nothing but issues with that card* and want to go triple-screen soon)RAM: 16GB GEIL Black Dragon DDR3-1600 (CL9)HDD: 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black (SATA III)OS: Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (64 Bit)Resolution: 1024x768 (I'm still on a CRT).Framerate: Avg: 39 FPS; Low**: 9 FPS; High: 75 FPS*It won't always be recognized on boot-up and it only works in the PCIE 2.0/3.0 slot, but none of the others.** In parts of the guild hall

Alenna

01-12-2012, 07:23 PM

this has been since AoD, F2P hit.OS: Windows XP professionalMotherboard: AMD Athlon 64 3300+GPU: ATI Radeon 9800 XTFPS low as 1 in teir 3 guildhall on Guk and tier 1 guild hall on AB most times am surprised if I get over 10. at extreme performancedepending on where I am and what time can get maybe 15-20 fps. and this when I have game set at extreme performanceBefore AoD and F2P hit I was averaging 25-30 IIRC. not the greatest but could move around and coudl some times go to very high or even high performance and still get around and into my t3 guild hall to craft on Guk.I don't dare try any rush orders in the tier 3 guild hall on guk now.just got that out of memory error message trying to get into my AB Tier 1 guild hall a second time this week. when are you going to fix it? I did not have this trouble before the AoD expansion hit.

Maguu

01-16-2012, 12:07 AM

Processor: Q9400 (Core2 Quad)Ram: 4Gb 800mhzGraphics Card: AMD 6950Operating System: Win 7 64bitScreen Resolution: 1280x1024Frames Per Second: 16There is no good reason this should be so low. It should be easily double or triple. and beyond that should not be out of the question.Not everyone has a high performance CPU or GPU. I understand this. We shoudl have the option or ability to make much better use of our hardware.

Uwkete-of-Crushbone

01-25-2012, 04:13 PM

<cite>TSR-DanielH wrote:</cite><blockquote>In order to help people make hardware decisions and to share performance tips, let's all post our system specs and performance information. To make sure that the results are somewhat consistent, we should all take benchmarks in the same area using the same settings. I have posted some general guidelines below on what I think would be a good test.Test Settings --Take the airship from Sinking Sands the Moors of Ykesha-Get off the airship and onto the docks so you're right on top of the first fan grate-Look directly North-East and zoom in until you're in first person-Set your graphics settings to 'High Quality' and then hit F11 to access the performance monitor-Wait around 2 minutes for the fps to normalize-Post your information in this threadYour information and results -Processor:Ram:Graphics Card:Operating System:Screen Resolution: Frames Per Second:Let everyone know what kind of performance you're getting in Everquest 2!</blockquote>My information and results:Processor: Pentium IV 3.00 GHz (Enhanced)Ram: 1.50 GB; 2.99 GHz (approx.)Graphics Card: Chaintech GeForce FX-5200 128 MB DDR VRAM (for the longest time, this was more than enough to run EQ2 fairly well, and was not even an issue for World of Warcraft, which worked just fine at this level)Operating System: Windows XPScreen Resolution: 1024 x 768 60 HzFrames Per Second: 3 to 5, on average; I rejoice when I'm up to double-digits. And yes, this has actually decreased a little since the whole new, more complex login screens bit went up (including the leaving of Launchpad on [it has NEVER dropped of its own accord for me since the new login; I've always had to shut it off manually using Windows Task Manager], and the inappropriately-named AwesomiumProcess.exe). On the plus side, since I usually run at Balanced or High Performance with Reflections turned on (but nothing else like Flora or anything; it usually runs at Custom), at least now I'm getting shadows for the first time with this benchmark. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />With regular usage, Virtual Memory Too Low warnings keep cropping up, even more than they did in the past. I would've chalked it up to higher minimums for the new expansion (even though we've been assured the minimum reqs would not increase to an untenable level), but apparently, even folks with the latest and greatest systems are having issues. :-/Just now, the Windows Task Manager (which I leave up on a regular basis now) indicated that EverQuest2, on its own, was gobbling up over 1 million K in Mem Usage, which crashed the game and spawned many a Critical Error message regarding memory usage (for the second night in a row, while on Test Server, I got 6 Critical Error messages to 1 EverQuest2 on my Taskbar and had to shut down the game [under "Close Group"]). In the past, EverQuest2 had maintained its Mem Usage at a few dozen K without increasing, but even with LaunchPad.exe and Awesomium.exe off (and had been for hours), there seems to be an odd "build-up" of memory usage (or memory leakage?). Why?Good thing I'm not paying you guys by the hour for this game; I used to be able to play great marathons, but now it seems I'll be restricted to an hour or two if I don't want to reboot on a regular basis. In essence, the game is becoming literally unplayable for me, which is a shame. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" />UwkP.S. I'll have to admit, I'm not sure what other settings could be affecting this; I have the whole list available if anyone's interested. Just noticed this tonight: I'd gotten as far as the Character Select screen, and the Mem Usage just for EverQuest2 was over 730,000 K, until I killed AwesomiumProcess.exe and (mistakenly) LaunchPad.exe. My Mem Usage plummeted! It was great! On the other hand, when I tried to come in with a character, it booted me out of the game. D'oh. Next time, I'll see if I can get rid of "Awesomium" and still get in. I adjusted some other graphics settings, hoping that would help my Mem Usage, restarted, killed "Awesomium" and LaunchPad the minute my character was in the world, and it didn't help my Mem Usage at all; it was up to over 800,000 K and climbing. On the plus side, adjusting the graphics settings in more detail did help my FPS a tad. Can't wait until I can see double-digits there! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" /> --U.P.P.S. That change of a few graphics settings under Options didn't do much; got the Critical Errors again tonight. Hope I can figure this out before Erollisi Day is over. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /> --U.

jabbu

02-04-2012, 01:23 PM

Processor: Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.67ghzRam: 4GBGraphics Card: Radeon 4850 512mbOperating System: Win7 64-bitScreen Resolution: 1920x1080Frames Per Second: 20 with launchpad, 25 (I think) without

Frijoles

02-09-2012, 10:37 PM

<cite>TSR-DanielH wrote:</cite><blockquote>In order to help people make hardware decisions and to share performance tips, let's all post our system specs and performance information. To make sure that the results are somewhat consistent, we should all take benchmarks in the same area using the same settings. I have posted some general guidelines below on what I think would be a good test.Test Settings --Take the airship from Sinking Sands the Moors of Ykesha-Get off the airship and onto the docks so you're right on top of the first fan grate-Look directly North-East and zoom in until you're in first person-Set your graphics settings to 'High Quality' and then hit F11 to access the performance monitor-Wait around 2 minutes for the fps to normalize-Post your information in this thread</blockquote>Information and results: Processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1065T (@ 2.9-3.4 ghz)Ram: 8 GBGraphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 6850Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bitScreen Resolution: 1600 x 900Frames Per Second: 22-23 fps

Masako

02-18-2012, 06:06 AM

Processor: Intel Core2 Duo T9300 2.5GHzRam: 4gbGraphics Card: Nvidia GeForce 8600M GTOperating System: Windows Vista 32bitScreen Resolution: 1280x1024Frames Per Second: 10-12Honestly I'm shocked the FPS is that high. I cannot play on this machine anymore without absolute minimum settings AND with a macro made to turn every particle effect off. I have to be sat out in some raid fights because this machine can't handle them. Other times I'm running 2-5 FPS. Yes, with bare minumum settings.I take really good care of this computer, and it's frustrating to see how this game has become almost unplayable despite having a clean machine. It used to run just fine with "Balanced" mode two years ago, and now I wouldn't ever dream of turning it up that high. Has the game really been messed up that badly since then? I mean, this is so bad I am now having to consider buying a whole new gaming laptop just because my main game, EQII, can't be run on this current one anymore. Sure I can play other games if I upgrade too, but come on...

Aanwiel

04-22-2012, 05:58 AM

.

Saxy

06-06-2012, 09:05 AM

Processor:AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4000+ (2 CPUs), ~2.1GHzRam:3454MB RAM and (PAGEFILE)2445MB used, 7264MB availableGraphics Card:NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 Operating System:Windows Vista 32 bitScreen Resolution: 1280x1024Frames Per Second: 5-30 most the time 30-60 inside buildings all graphics turned all the way dowI know my computer needs a upgrade and im hoping too soon i got a computer build that should run eq2 on max settings with 50+ constant fps

Apexian

07-06-2012, 06:11 AM

Asrock h61m/u3s3I3 2120 3.3 ghz2x4gb gskill ripjaws 1333mhzEvga gtx 550ti Western digital 500gb 7200rpm 6gbps sata hdd1280x1024 resolution25 fps at moors dock at the most graphically intense spot. Running graphics at extreme quality and switched to gpu shadows. I think some of the optional stuff like sun rays are set on too. Everywhere else I'm running 40-60 fps. Great performance for a fairly cheap build. If you have more money to spend the only upgrades I would suggest would be a motherboard that can overclock and an i5 2500k or 3570k. An SSD would be nice too.

deadcrickets2

07-07-2012, 04:29 AM

FOXCONN A88GMVAMD Athlon II X4 640 Propus (About to upgrade to Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition)Cheap PNY PC3-10700H DDR3 2 x 4GbGigabyte Radeon 6850OC 1GbWindows 7 x64 Ultimate1440x900FPS: 53Lowest FPS is in Paineel moving around where it drops to around 8 or 9Mind you, I modify the heck out of operating system and game settings like using /app_cache_never_low_mem. All textures to maximum, all settings to maximum and all special features like godrays.

ohhoohohohohoooohohohooo

09-18-2012, 09:07 AM

Well when I run the game in high settings I can have 35 fps looking in one direction, then turn around and have only 17fps. There is too bad performance on this game, its not very optimized for modern computers. In Lotro I can run it in Ultra and never go below 25fps anywhere.And aldo Eq2 looks bland in balanced and lower settings, so for me its not very easy to keep playing for longer periods, as the performance usually leaves me annoyed.

deadcrickets2

09-18-2012, 05:46 PM

<cite>ohhoohohohohoooohohohooo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well when I run the game in high settings I can have 35 fps looking in one direction, then turn around and have only 17fps. There is too bad performance on this game, its not very optimized for modern computers. In Lotro I can run it in Ultra and never go below 25fps anywhere.And aldo Eq2 looks bland in balanced and lower settings, so for me its not very easy to keep playing for longer periods, as the performance usually leaves me annoyed.</blockquote>When your frames drop from turning or moving is from texture loading. Play the game on a SSD drive and you'll see much more stable frame rates. I recently upped mine to a SSD and it's made a world of difference.