Frame Rate Issues (EQ2 under-performing) [Archive]

Alacard

12-31-2010, 02:47 AM

I have returned to Everquest 2 after a few year hiatus and I am generally a satisfied customer. I, like all other playes have my own set of gripes about class balance, game mechanics and the like but by and large I am satisified except for...General Problem:Everquest 2 for my computer should be renamed "Everquest 2" Epic (2x). Long story short whenever I am in any area with a reasonably decent amount of polygons to render my computer chugs along at a less-than-reasonable 8-18 frames per second. EverPoint... PowerQuest... Not sure which one applies...My system specifics:<img src="http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7131/cpuc.jpg" width="1221" height="396" />As you can tell I do not have a blazing fast system but it should be more than enough to run Everquest 2 at reasonably high settings however as I shall demonstrate this is simply not to be.Preamble: All display properties defaulted to "Balanced" for the duration of all testing. Windows XP 64-bit installed 12/29/2010 (Fresh install). Absolutely NO third-party add-ons, mods, system tuning software added. Flash, Anti-virus, and Open Office are the only programs running save what is explicity mentioned in this writing.For the purpose of demonstration I have gone to the small northern island in the Sundered Frontier. I fought my way around the island (which took about half an hour, the duration of my load monitoring) which allowed me to look at the City of Paineel and away from it. While I did expect to see a drop in frame-rate when rendering the city this was not my only problem.<img src="http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3843/eq2000001.jpg" width="922" height="914" />Here is my system load during the time in question:<img src="http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6525/fpsovertime.gif" width="1398" height="1027" />I choose red and green for the processor to keep in the holiday spirit but once I looked at processor 0... bah humbug <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Initially I thought this could be a thermal issue but my CPU never went above 58C (cool for a CPU, a bit toasty for me to hold though).Here is my GPU's specifics during this same run.<img src="http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9807/gpub.gif" width="1150" height="494" />So my GPU is also doing just fine. I am aware that these values can be a bit flakey (at least traditionally) but FarCry II can peg them as can Crysis and Oblivion at their higher resolutions.So, if I were tech support I would ask "Have you applied <Insert Microsoft, Nvidia, and/or AMD program here> patch?" Well, here you go:<img src="http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/5308/misci.jpg" width="810" height="1009" />I would also ask "are you using the most up-to-date launcher?" so here's your answer for that too:<img src="http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1552/launchpad.jpg" width="366" height="509" />I would also ask about the presence of a router. Yes, I am running a LinkSys WRT-54g router flashed with DD-WRT firmware however the presense of this router has made zero impact in multiple testing sessions.So, the simple things have been reviewed. Unless I'm missing something then this problem will be one of those insidious issues which could take some time to resolve. Please keep me updated and that's fine with me. However, attempting to sound less-than-jerkish I will say that my customer satisfaction is directly proportional to effort spent on the resolution of my woe. I know this issue will be resolved.I would like to express my gratitude to the TSRs that have worked this issue with me. Thanks Aaron, Matthew (both of you) and the myriad of others that I cannot recall at this moment. I know this type of issue should just "go away", especially if you are made aware of it before you get your coffee & check your email so I appreciate all your hard work <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Thanks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Wingrider01

12-31-2010, 09:41 AM

EQ2 is still cpu dependant for a lot of graphics, they have made some changes but it is still the promary driving force for fps - have you looked at the multi-cpu and graphics settings that are in the option panel? ot sure if this option is available on the 200 series cards but go into the nvidia control panel and look for the setting under Manage 3d settings labled Power Management Mode and make sure it is set to "Prefer maximum performance". The finaly thing to remembner is the 2xx series is on the lower to midrange end of the spectrum when it comes to graphics performance. download and run the latest free version of 3dmark and see what the results are there

Alacard

12-31-2010, 11:01 AM

My mistake for not clarifying the data presented in this picture.<img src="http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9807/gpub.gif" width="1150" height="494" />When I put "Locked to Performance Mode" I should have specified "in the driver" under the Nvidia Control Panel on all Nvidia cards.My concern is that while my hardware might be "the lower to midrange end of the spectrum" my GPU not being utilized (Load, Memory Load and Memory Controller Load).I do appreciate any constructive feedback on this issue. I would rather be wrong and have a working game than right <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />

Peogia

12-31-2010, 02:52 PM

Your frames look perfect for this game I get that or 1 frame<a href="http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gtx-460-us.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.nvidia.com/object/produc...gtx-460-us.html</a>unfortunately SOE doesn't support PC/personal computers and there video cards so this is the performance you will see on any pc hardware from EQ2 launch date to now

Alacard

12-31-2010, 03:01 PM

That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.

Peogia

12-31-2010, 03:07 PM

<cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.</blockquote>Up grading gpu or cpu wont do anything for this game but wast your $$$I have a AMD Phenom II X4 955 & GeForce GTX 460 for performance this game is a lost cause they have back burned it for over 6+ years now

Wingrider01

12-31-2010, 03:39 PM

<cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your frames look perfect for this game I get that or 1 frame<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gtx-460-us.html" target="_blank">http://www.nvidia.com/object/produc...gtx-460-us.html</a>unfortunately SOE doesn't support PC/personal computers and there video cards so this is the performance you will see on any pc hardware from EQ2 launch date to now</blockquote>/rofl - running an average of 80 FPS in some places when I single box, drops to 55 FPS when I duo-box and 25 FPS when I tri-box on the system, but then again SOE doesn't support PC's I guess we need to all install HAL 9000 to play the game. According to your theory NONE of the players of the game should be able even run the game, but fortunately all the people that are in the game shows that you are wrong, or maybe none of the rest of my guild and raid force was on this morning doing PAL or the PUGS I played in all this week with the double expierence.

Wingrider01

12-31-2010, 03:40 PM

<cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.</blockquote>try 3dmark - see what your averages are there, it will show you where the bottle neck is

Peogia

12-31-2010, 04:10 PM

<cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.</blockquote>try 3dmark - see what your averages are there, it will show you where the bottle neck is</blockquote>3dmark is no help for this situation because SOE doesn't support video card hence his first posts

Ironcleaver

01-01-2011, 09:19 AM

I have a pretty old system (intel 3.0Ghz 930 cpu, nvidia 8600, ect..) and I've alway have had a problem running on "Balanced" (and with good reasion). What I personally do, I set to extreme performance then bump up the textrues to max, lighting to two sources, particals to average then bump up the render clipping-plans a bit. In the end the game looks just like it dose in "Balanced" but without the non-visable fat that bogs down my system. Well that's what I do anyway.I kinda get the feeling your draw range is bumped up too high (what I do above eliminates this issue) and you're rendering things though walls (non-visable objects); thier just sucking up system resources. In your screenshot, I bet you're still drawing everything in the center of the island (the village) and you're not even in there.For poops and giggles, try the above then repeat your test. Never hurts, right? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Wingrider01

01-01-2011, 09:36 AM

<cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.</blockquote>try 3dmark - see what your averages are there, it will show you where the bottle neck is</blockquote>3dmark is no help for this situation because SOE doesn't support video card hence his first posts</blockquote>Again, that is an incorrect assumption - 3dmark will establish a validated baseline on the performance of the vidoe subsystem as compared to similiar configurations. The company that publishes the application keeps an end user accessable database that will compare similiair systems, at that point it can be determined if the systems falls within the average performance rating for the cpu/memory/video card configuration. Baseline diagnostics to detemine an issue is the primary and correct method of determing wherre exactly the problem sits. You incorrect statement of "SOE does not support video card" is - to put it bluntly and politely - ludicrous that has no basis in fact and shows that there is very little of a foundation in basic system diagnostics and problem resolution.

Peogia

01-01-2011, 05:52 PM

<cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.</blockquote>try 3dmark - see what your averages are there, it will show you where the bottle neck is</blockquote>3dmark is no help for this situation because SOE doesn't support video card hence his first posts</blockquote>Again, that is an incorrect assumption - 3dmark will establish a validated baseline on the performance of the vidoe subsystem as compared to similiar configurations. The company that publishes the application keeps an end user accessable database that will compare similiair systems, at that point it can be determined if the systems falls within the average performance rating for the cpu/memory/video card configuration. Baseline diagnostics to detemine an issue is the primary and correct method of determing wherre exactly the problem sits. You incorrect statement of "SOE does not support video card" is - to put it bluntly and politely - ludicrous that has no basis in fact and shows that there is very little of a foundation in basic system diagnostics and problem resolution.</blockquote>Can you then explain how Sony supports a video card when the graphics engine is designed for CPU ONLY AND NOT GPU

Wingrider01

01-01-2011, 06:37 PM

<cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.</blockquote>try 3dmark - see what your averages are there, it will show you where the bottle neck is</blockquote>3dmark is no help for this situation because SOE doesn't support video card hence his first posts</blockquote>Again, that is an incorrect assumption - 3dmark will establish a validated baseline on the performance of the vidoe subsystem as compared to similiar configurations. The company that publishes the application keeps an end user accessable database that will compare similiair systems, at that point it can be determined if the systems falls within the average performance rating for the cpu/memory/video card configuration. Baseline diagnostics to detemine an issue is the primary and correct method of determing wherre exactly the problem sits. You incorrect statement of "SOE does not support video card" is - to put it bluntly and politely - ludicrous that has no basis in fact and shows that there is very little of a foundation in basic system diagnostics and problem resolution.</blockquote>Can you then explain how Sony supports a video card when the graphics engine is designed for CPU ONLY AND NOT GPU</blockquote>not going to do your research for you, examine the options of the game, and review the old patch notes from about the last year - hint - there is a dedicated forum for them.Back on the original OP's question - still would like to see the test results of 3dmark, although looking at baselines for the hardware that have been documented from similiar systems, what you are seeing seems to be about right. As it is documented in patch notes and in settings they are prgressing to a move balanced model of GPU/CPU the game still has a heavy relance on the CPU speeds.

Peogia

01-01-2011, 07:17 PM

<cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.</blockquote>try 3dmark - see what your averages are there, it will show you where the bottle neck is</blockquote>3dmark is no help for this situation because SOE doesn't support video card hence his first posts</blockquote>Again, that is an incorrect assumption - 3dmark will establish a validated baseline on the performance of the vidoe subsystem as compared to similiar configurations. The company that publishes the application keeps an end user accessable database that will compare similiair systems, at that point it can be determined if the systems falls within the average performance rating for the cpu/memory/video card configuration. Baseline diagnostics to detemine an issue is the primary and correct method of determing wherre exactly the problem sits. You incorrect statement of "SOE does not support video card" is - to put it bluntly and politely - ludicrous that has no basis in fact and shows that there is very little of a foundation in basic system diagnostics and problem resolution.</blockquote>Can you then explain how Sony supports a video card when the graphics engine is designed for CPU ONLY AND NOT GPU</blockquote>not going to do your research for you, examine the options of the game, and review the old patch notes from about the last year - hint - there is a dedicated forum for them.Back on the original OP's question - still would like to see the test results of 3dmark, although looking at baselines for the hardware that have been documented from similiar systems, what you are seeing seems to be about right. As it is documented in patch notes and in settings they are prgressing to a move balanced model of GPU/CPU the game still has a heavy relance on the CPU speeds.</blockquote>Thx for admiting I am right<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" />

Alacard

01-02-2011, 12:06 AM

This is a problem for my gaming experience so I request that people stop hijacking my threadLet's look at what people have said:CPU speed is killing me = Ok, I have a core sitting around idle.GPU Speed is killing me = Ok, I have a bored GPUBoth arguments are invalid per provided data setsI have provided all this data alreadyHere is yet another fast fact = TSRs (yes, that's plural) have stated that the game should be running better.I will run 3dMark whatever in the near future however the data will be redundant as I've already provided more data than 3dMark gathers.I do believe I already know where the problem lies. I believe the problem is either with the implementation of Direct3d APIs or thread management.

Morogoth Drakul

01-02-2011, 07:21 AM

<cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is a problem for my gaming experience so I request that people stop hijacking my threadLet's look at what people have said:CPU speed is killing me = Ok, I have a core sitting around idle.GPU Speed is killing me = Ok, I have a bored GPUBoth arguments are invalid per provided data setsI have provided all this data alreadyHere is yet another fast fact = TSRs (yes, that's plural) have stated that the game should be running better.I will run 3dMark whatever in the near future however the data will be redundant as I've already provided more data than 3dMark gathers.I do believe I already know where the problem lies. I believe the problem is either with the implementation of Direct3d APIs or thread management.</blockquote><ul><li>CPU = Too slow (check) => never be fast enough for EQ2 the speed necessary isnt physically capable on a single core. now they added multicore support....sorta. what i find good is it says you have a AM2 slot processor. Is your board AM2+? and are the BIOS upgradeable to support newer AM3 processors? If so you may have a cheaper solution to hold you over for a bit.</li><li>GPU = Too slow (check) => regardless of your data your card is holding you back as well. i had a 295, recently upgraded to a 465gtx my fps went from 8-18 on up to 30+ constant.</li></ul>I want to type out the specs on the nvida site of the 2 cards in comparison. your 220 that you have a problem with vs my 465 i am recommending because it helps with my fps.<hr />Graphics Card GT220 GTX465Graphics Clock (Mhz) 625 607Processor Clock (Mhz) 1360 1215Memory Clock (Mhz) 790 1603Standard Memory 1024ddr3 1024ddr5Memory Interface Width 128bit 256bitMemory Bandwith (GB/sec) 25.3 102.6

Wingrider01

01-02-2011, 08:48 AM

<cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.</blockquote>try 3dmark - see what your averages are there, it will show you where the bottle neck is</blockquote>3dmark is no help for this situation because SOE doesn't support video card hence his first posts</blockquote>Again, that is an incorrect assumption - 3dmark will establish a validated baseline on the performance of the vidoe subsystem as compared to similiar configurations. The company that publishes the application keeps an end user accessable database that will compare similiair systems, at that point it can be determined if the systems falls within the average performance rating for the cpu/memory/video card configuration. Baseline diagnostics to detemine an issue is the primary and correct method of determing wherre exactly the problem sits. You incorrect statement of "SOE does not support video card" is - to put it bluntly and politely - ludicrous that has no basis in fact and shows that there is very little of a foundation in basic system diagnostics and problem resolution.</blockquote>Can you then explain how Sony supports a video card when the graphics engine is designed for CPU ONLY AND NOT GPU</blockquote>not going to do your research for you, examine the options of the game, and review the old patch notes from about the last year - hint - there is a dedicated forum for them.Back on the original OP's question - still would like to see the test results of 3dmark, although looking at baselines for the hardware that have been documented from similiar systems, what you are seeing seems to be about right. As it is documented in patch notes and in settings they are prgressing to a move balanced model of GPU/CPU the game still has a heavy relance on the CPU speeds.</blockquote>Thx for admiting I am right<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>not worth it.I apoligize to the OP for allowing this poster to take me off track of trying to assist you in determining the issue that the system is displaying. Hopefully it can be worked out and resolved

Wingrider01

01-02-2011, 09:21 AM

<cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is a problem for my gaming experience so I request that people stop hijacking my threadLet's look at what people have said:CPU speed is killing me = Ok, I have a core sitting around idle.GPU Speed is killing me = Ok, I have a bored GPUBoth arguments are invalid per provided data setsI have provided all this data alreadyHere is yet another fast fact = TSRs (yes, that's plural) have stated that the game should be running better.I will run 3dMark whatever in the near future however the data will be redundant as I've already provided more data than 3dMark gathers.I do believe I already know where the problem lies. I believe the problem is either with the implementation of Direct3d APIs or thread management.</blockquote>The 220 is basicly a 9400 with a 64 bit interface. You don't mention the brand but some of the comparisions that I have seen on the net on the performance websites show it at the bottom end of the performance spectrum unless overclocked. What brand card is it - some of them actually shipped with DDR2 memory instead of DDR3 depending on the manufacturer and price point for the card<a href="http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/inno3d_gt220/">http://www.overclockersclub.com/rev...s/inno3d_gt220/</a><a href="http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/2962/galaxy_geforce_gt_220_1gb_video_card/index.html">http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/29...card/index.html</a>

Peogia

01-02-2011, 07:20 PM

<cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>That doesn't make me feel better.It's ironic that so many people espouse how CPU-dependant EQ2 is while recommending upgrading the GPU.</blockquote>try 3dmark - see what your averages are there, it will show you where the bottle neck is</blockquote>3dmark is no help for this situation because SOE doesn't support video card hence his first posts</blockquote>Again, that is an incorrect assumption - 3dmark will establish a validated baseline on the performance of the vidoe subsystem as compared to similiar configurations. The company that publishes the application keeps an end user accessable database that will compare similiair systems, at that point it can be determined if the systems falls within the average performance rating for the cpu/memory/video card configuration. Baseline diagnostics to detemine an issue is the primary and correct method of determing wherre exactly the problem sits. You incorrect statement of "SOE does not support video card" is - to put it bluntly and politely - ludicrous that has no basis in fact and shows that there is very little of a foundation in basic system diagnostics and problem resolution.</blockquote>Can you then explain how Sony supports a video card when the graphics engine is designed for CPU ONLY AND NOT GPU</blockquote>not going to do your research for you, examine the options of the game, and review the old patch notes from about the last year - hint - there is a dedicated forum for them.Back on the original OP's question - still would like to see the test results of 3dmark, although looking at baselines for the hardware that have been documented from similiar systems, what you are seeing seems to be about right. As it is documented in patch notes and in settings they are prgressing to a move balanced model of GPU/CPU the game still has a heavy relance on the CPU speeds.</blockquote>Thx for admiting I am right<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>not worth it.I apoligize to the OP for allowing this poster to take me off track of trying to assist you in determining the issue that the system is displaying. Hopefully it can be worked out and resolved</blockquote>Apology accepted don't let it happen again

Peogia

01-02-2011, 07:50 PM

<img src="http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6525/fpsovertime.gif" width="1398" height="1027" />As stated in your post earlier this is how Everquest II runs on any pc hardware max's 1 cpu core and a lil % goes to the second core and rest of cores go unused up grading from any card to the newest 580 will not show a benefit in Everquest II because it does all graphics rendering on the CPU and not the GPU also because this game mainly utilizing only 1 core for everything up grading cpu isn't much help ether because multi cores are still running same speed as single cores or slower fastest quad i seen was 3.7ghz before oc and the fastest single core i seen was a 3.8ghz+

Alacard

01-03-2011, 01:21 AM

<cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I apoligize to the OP for allowing this poster to take me off track of trying to assist you in determining the issue that the system is displaying. Hopefully it can be worked out and resolved</blockquote>Honestly, totally cool. Any further assistance you can provide would be appreciated.<cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>The 220 is basicly a 9400 with a 64 bit interface. You don't mention the brand but some of the comparisions that I have seen on the net on the performance websites show it at the bottom end of the performance spectrum unless overclocked. What brand card is it - some of them actually shipped with DDR2 memory instead of DDR3 depending on the manufacturer and price point for the card</blockquote>I have included that data here:<img src="http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9807/gpub.gif" width="1150" height="494" />I totally understand where your coming from on this for any other game but from the data I have collected my GPU (dated as it may be) is not even 25% utilized.This leaves me with the following question "Do I actually have to downgrade my system for faster performance?" TSRs say it should work better but for the life of me I cannot fathom how. Is there some arcane "go faster" .ini file or something? (kidding)

Morogoth Drakul

01-03-2011, 01:52 AM

the difference in say my 465 and the posted 220 is the memory. the 465 has the major advantage of faster handling memory in addition to a better memory bandwith. both of which increase performance even in EQ2's limited use aspect of the card.my previous post suggested that the AM2 slot could be upgraded given that the BIOS supported it or could be upgraded to support AM3."As stated in your post earlier this is how Everquest II runs on any pc hardware max's 1 cpu core and a lil % goes to the second core and rest of cores go unused up grading from any card to the newest 580 will not show a benefit in Everquest II because it does all graphics rendering on the CPU and not the GPU also because this game mainly utilizing only 1 core for everything up grading cpu isn't much help ether because multi cores are still running same speed as single cores or slower fastest quad i seen was 3.7ghz before oc and the fastest single core i seen was a 3.8ghz+"i disagree that upgrading the would not help. as the op posted in the first post their spec for their processor is a 2.3Ghz. there would be a noticable performance increase even moving up to a 3Ghz let alone anything higher than that. the game is not totally dependant on the CPU either. the GPU is definately used for alot of things when you get into the higher settings. will it take advantage of 400series or a 500series? deffinately not. in fact the game runs just as well on one of the 9000series or 8000series nvidia cards and that is what has been recommended before.

Peogia

01-03-2011, 01:57 AM

<cite>Morogoth Drakul wrote:</cite><blockquote>the difference in say my 465 and the posted 220 is the memory. the 465 has the major advantage of faster handling memory in addition to a better memory bandwith. both of which increase performance even in EQ2's limited use aspect of the card.my previous post suggested that the AM2 slot could be upgraded given that the BIOS supported it or could be upgraded to support AM3."As stated in your post earlier this is how Everquest II runs on any pc hardware max's 1 cpu core and a lil % goes to the second core and rest of cores go unused up grading from any card to the newest 580 will not show a benefit in Everquest II because it does all graphics rendering on the CPU and not the GPU also because this game mainly utilizing only 1 core for everything up grading cpu isn't much help ether because multi cores are still running same speed as single cores or slower fastest quad i seen was 3.7ghz before oc and the fastest single core i seen was a 3.8ghz+"i disagree that upgrading the would not help. as the op posted in the first post their spec for their processor is a 2.3Ghz. there would be a noticable performance increase even moving up to a 3Ghz let alone anything higher than that. the game is not totally dependant on the CPU either. the GPU is definately used for alot of things when you get into the higher settings. will it take advantage of 400series or a 500series? deffinately not. in fact the game runs just as well on one of the 9000series or 8000series nvidia cards and that is what has been recommended before.</blockquote>I have a 3.2ghz quad and my friend has a 2.4ghz duelcore we both get about the same frames in (Everquest II ONLY)

Terrius

01-03-2011, 04:05 AM

<cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is a problem for my gaming experience so I request that people stop hijacking my threadLet's look at what people have said:CPU speed is killing me = Ok, I have a core sitting around idle.Sadly eq2 isnt truely multi core, as you can see the game maxes out a single core and offloads a bit to the second. Your best bet to increase performace is a faster CPU. the faster the core running at 100% is the better the game will run thus the more FPS. For me for every .1 ghz I overclock my 2.3ghz tri core I get 2-5fps. Best bet imo is a 3+ghz CPUGPU Speed is killing me = Ok, I have a bored GPUEq2's perfomance is highly dependant on CPU speed, however it does use your video card as does any 3d application that uses DirectX. Just not very much your videocard should be sufficient, a video card with faster memory might give slight increases but a faster CPU is a much better investment.</blockquote>EQ2's engine wasnt made for multicore CPUs and it wasnt made to offload much to the GPU. A 2.3GHZ processor isnt much when trying to run a game engine designed with the idea that 6ghz processors would be the norm in the future.Wish there was better news but if you want amazing FPS you're probably going to have to upgrade to AM3 and get a 3+ghz CPU.

Wingrider01

01-03-2011, 03:15 PM

<cite>Zalakria@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is a problem for my gaming experience so I request that people stop hijacking my threadLet's look at what people have said:CPU speed is killing me = Ok, I have a core sitting around idle.Sadly eq2 isnt truely multi core, as you can see the game maxes out a single core and offloads a bit to the second. Your best bet to increase performace is a faster CPU. the faster the core running at 100% is the better the game will run thus the more FPS. For me for every .1 ghz I overclock my 2.3ghz tri core I get 2-5fps. Best bet imo is a 3+ghz CPUGPU Speed is killing me = Ok, I have a bored GPUEq2's perfomance is highly dependant on CPU speed, however it does use your video card as does any 3d application that uses DirectX. Just not very much your videocard should be sufficient, a video card with faster memory might give slight increases but a faster CPU is a much better investment.</blockquote>EQ2's engine wasnt made for multicore CPUs and it wasnt made to offload much to the GPU. A 2.3GHZ processor isnt much when trying to run a game engine designed with the idea that 6ghz processors would be the norm in the future.Wish there was better news but if you want amazing FPS you're probably going to have to upgrade to AM3 and get a 3+ghz CPU.</blockquote>this actually hits it right on the money. While the developers have made progress in moving things to the GPU, the majority of it still sits on the CPU - and as mentioned it was not written for SMP processing, again there have been some changes by the developers but to truely support SMP processing on the new dual/quad cores with single physical processors, or the board that support those processors with multeiple cpu slot - like a bord that supports 2 or more I7-980X processors would required pretty much a rewrite. SMP threaded applications are pretty much designed from the ground up. There may have been some changed in IDE applications that allow it to be added later, but I have not kept up with those sinvce I quit coding A newer generation video card will help, but it needs to be matched to a faster base core cpu speed. have not messed with the AMD processors in gaming since the Intel dual and quad core processors came out, so I can;t really give you a recomendation for a replacement AMD, have seen a Core i5-650 Clarkdale 3.2GHz with a Palit 460 pull 25 FPS in balanced mode in a PAL raid at a LAN party.

Alacard

01-03-2011, 09:47 PM

I appreciate everyone's input on this.I think I'm back at square one with regards to performance. Individual cores on my CPU just aren't fast enough to handle this game on anything but high performance. I will probably continue playing but it is irritating to know that my system is indeed fast enough to handle the game but the game isn't new enough to handle the system <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I am already looking into purchasing a new Radeon card which I've heard EQ2 likes better than Nvidia (Ironic considering the NVidia splash screen).Thanks guys <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Wingrider01

01-04-2011, 08:59 AM

<cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>I appreciate everyone's input on this.I think I'm back at square one with regards to performance. Individual cores on my CPU just aren't fast enough to handle this game on anything but high performance. I will probably continue playing but it is irritating to know that my system is indeed fast enough to handle the game but the game isn't new enough to handle the system <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" />I am already looking into purchasing a new Radeon card which I've heard EQ2 likes better than Nvidia (Ironic considering the NVidia splash screen).Thanks guys <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>use both, prefer the higher end of the 400 or 500 series Nvidia cards over the ATI cards, the nvidia drivers are a litle more refined then the ATI drivers. Add to teh fact that it is fun utilizing the 3d effects sometimes that are available for nvidia in game every once in awhile.

Alacard

01-04-2011, 12:26 PM

Any thoughts on specific cards? I am in the market to purchase one but I would rather not blow the bank on it (read: Budget card likely)

Wingrider01

01-04-2011, 02:23 PM

<cite>Alacard wrote:</cite><blockquote>Any thoughts on specific cards? I am in the market to purchase one but I would rather not blow the bank on it (read: Budget card likely)</blockquote>Palit is a decent brand, midline 400 series depending on what you want to spend, but you may see more bang for your buck by upping the processor first to a unit with a higher core speed.as i mentioned, have pretty well went away from AMD processors, but Terrius seems to know more about them then I do. I prefer staying in the Intel line right now with their performance ratings

Kotoko

01-04-2011, 05:11 PM

Do you have any mother-board specific performance tweaking utilities installed, even if they're disabled? Things such as software overclocking.. I just solved a VERY similar issue of my own when I traced the entire problem to a DLL owned by ASUS for their AI Suite II package (cpu/ram overclocking software). Even if the utility's disabled in startup, it still exists and gets hooked by various programs... I know you mentioned Far Cry working great while EQ runs like crap...I noticed this as well with my own system...MMOs would be terrible, while things like Crysis actually ran smooth. It didn't seem to hook all games, only ones that went online.Sadly, XP's native performance tracing leaves much to be desired... I'll see if I can find a 3rd party utility to recommend, but in the meantime, if you have any such tweaking utilities installed, disabling them isn't enough, they actually have to be completely uninstalled to get rid of their DLLs.

Alacard

01-05-2011, 05:44 PM

I have reinstalled this system four times now with various different operating systems (yay for fixing GRUB each time). Vista 32bit, XP 32 and 64 bit. I only wish I hadn't thrown away all those copies of Win98...So, from four clean installations (no overclocking, weird drivers, etc.) I have had this issue numerous times. I have dished out money to AT&T to fix a server in the cloud somewhere, I have spent hours analyzing the performance of my system (which in my experience NT does a reasonably good job with PerfMon) and the like... yeah <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />So, there is one program that I have recently installed and my desktop currently shows:<img src="http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/4158/wowwt.jpg" width="646" height="512" />I really do feel for the guys who maintain Everquest 2. I can totally understand that they are not at fault for the decision in 2002-2004ish to develop a game believing that Moore's Law would hold up. Those guys are long gone but it was obvious back then that processors simply couldn't continue getting faster.I would like to say that everyone I have dealt with from the support staff (many, many people) have been helpful and more importantly, understanding of how frustrating this issue is for me.I will likely continue to play EQ2 on some level but this is mostly to support the players in my guild.If I could make a few suggestions.Open source the client. Let the fans who are VERY technically proficient fix the rendering issues.Implement OpenGL instead of DirectX. DirectX might be easier to implement but it is the same as Linux versus Windows. Windows is easier to get out of the box and get going but a year down the road... You'll be very happy with LinuxProgram for current generation servers (as workstation hardware generally lacks a few years behind) in terms of memory, FSB speeds, processors, hard drive interface, etc.I am going to keep tabs on EQNext so I'm not put off by this experience. I just shouldn't ask Taco Bell to make hamburgers. It's just not what they do, right?Thanks for everyone's help <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />~Alacard

Wingrider01

01-05-2011, 06:17 PM

my condolences, the latest expansion over there is a nightmare, have had a half dozen guild members come back to eq2 from that game since the new expansion released.Comparing the graphics betwen the two games - wow is very low cartoon style graphics, the game was written with low end systems in mind, machines with built in graphic chipsets or low end laptops.Hopefully you did the due dillegence over on their forums before you decided to jump ship.

Kotoko

01-05-2011, 06:17 PM

Alucard, I've no real disagreement with anything you posted at all in your last post there...except one little thing. I disagree that NT's perfmon is adequate. Win7's resource mon is FAR superior to any prior product that microsoft's released as of yet. That's all I really had here...I'm firmly of the mindset that if you aren't enjoying what's SUPPOSED to be something fun, for whatever reason, and can't solve it...you find something new to enjoy. You shouldn't be frustrated in your pursuit of leisure.Edits: XP->NT, reworded end of that sentence as a result of my mis-reading.

Peogia

01-05-2011, 07:35 PM

<cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>my condolences, the latest expansion over there is a nightmare, have had a half dozen guild members come back to eq2 from that game since the new expansion released.Comparing the graphics betwen the two games - wow is very low cartoon style graphics, the game was written with low end systems in mind, machines with built in graphic chipsets or low end laptops.Hopefully you did the due dillegence over on their forums before you decided to jump ship.</blockquote>Still better then anything Sony Online Entertainment could pull off or do<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=475005" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=475005</a>that is sony's idea of improving Everquest IIand here is wow on ultra maxed out everything<img src="http://i800.photobucket.com/albums/yy289/Icexstorm69/WoWScrnShot_120410_203041.jpg" width="1024" height="578" />pretty vibrant deep and colorful

Wingrider01

01-05-2011, 08:40 PM

Peogia

01-05-2011, 08:46 PM

<cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>my condolences, the latest expansion over there is a nightmare, have had a half dozen guild members come back to eq2 from that game since the new expansion released.Comparing the graphics betwen the two games - wow is very low cartoon style graphics, the game was written with low end systems in mind, machines with built in graphic chipsets or low end laptops.Hopefully you did the due dillegence over on their forums before you decided to jump ship.</blockquote>Still better then anything Sony Online Entertainment could pull off or do<a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=475005" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=475005</a>that is sony's idea of improving Everquest IIand here is wow on ultra maxed out everythingpretty vibrant deep and colorful</blockquote>Not worth it and cannot send the response as a PM since you don;t have a active eq2 account</blockquote>scared to post it here?

Popgun

01-14-2011, 12:50 AM

Can someone please assist me with some tips in order to wrangle in this CPU bottleneck...My specs are basicallyAMD 6 core CPU8 gigs ramNvidia 470 SLIEQ2 runs off my SSD driveSo basically I cant find a good medium ground to get pretty and performance. Some areas I get 80+ fps, then i turn to the left and I get 15 FPS-- it's that dramatic. I cant find ground to stand on. I find myself constantly screwing with the settings and i am tired of it.I turn off shadows, it helps but it doesnt seem to really help at all in the larger outdoor areas like Kylong or Fens. I turn down my distance rendering and that helps a bit but it makes the game very ugly (IMO), I want to keep shadows on.. I switch to GPU shadows and my FPS drops as if I have it on CPU shadows. Indoors the game runs beautifully, fully maxed out on all sliders. Outdoors is my major problem. How can I maintain a really pretty game and get performance as well in outdoor areas? It's really driving me crazy-- I know 1000s of other people deal with it. The hardware issue, to me, is this game's biggest flaw. Also, I know the history of why it's like this and how Sony made a bad decision based on hardware at the time. I just want some tips in order to get better performance outdoors and still maybe keep shadows on and my rendering distance high.thank you very much in advance.

Peogia

01-14-2011, 02:02 AM

<cite>Popgun wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can someone please assist me with some tips in order to wrangle in this CPU bottleneck...My specs are basicallyAMD 6 core CPU8 gigs ramNvidia 470 SLIEQ2 runs off my SSD driveSo basically I cant find a good medium ground to get pretty and performance. Some areas I get 80+ fps, then i turn to the left and I get 15 FPS-- it's that dramatic. I cant find ground to stand on. I find myself constantly screwing with the settings and i am tired of it.I turn off shadows, it helps but it doesnt seem to really help at all in the larger outdoor areas like Kylong or Fens. I turn down my distance rendering and that helps a bit but it makes the game very ugly (IMO), I want to keep shadows on.. I switch to GPU shadows and my FPS drops as if I have it on CPU shadows. Indoors the game runs beautifully, fully maxed out on all sliders. Outdoors is my major problem. How can I maintain a really pretty game and get performance as well in outdoor areas? It's really driving me crazy-- I know 1000s of other people deal with it. The hardware issue, to me, is this game's biggest flaw. Also, I know the history of why it's like this and how Sony made a bad decision based on hardware at the time. I just want some tips in order to get better performance outdoors and still maybe keep shadows on and my rendering distance high.thank you very much in advance.</blockquote>This is already answered here<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=492835" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=492835</a>

TSR-JoshuaM

01-20-2011, 09:57 PM

I am still reviewing your information but one thing I would like to suggest really briefly here is to make sure you add EQ2 as an exception to your anti-virus if it has any active/resident shield type of feature. Go ahead and do that and I'll continue reviewing the rest of this thread.

ThelvynD

01-21-2011, 08:09 AM

Umm... why is your memory in single channel mode instead of dual channel? You're choking your memory bandwidth by half if your sticks of memory are in the wrong slots on your motherboard. That might help some! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

TSR-JoshuaM

01-21-2011, 06:33 PM

If anyone on this thread is still awaiting a response, please PM me directly or ask your question again so that I know you still require assistance.

MurFalad

02-12-2011, 09:09 PM

<cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>my condolences, the latest expansion over there is a nightmare, have had a half dozen guild members come back to eq2 from that game since the new expansion released.Comparing the graphics betwen the two games - wow is very low cartoon style graphics, the game was written with low end systems in mind, machines with built in graphic chipsets or low end laptops.Hopefully you did the due dillegence over on their forums before you decided to jump ship.</blockquote>Still better then anything Sony Online Entertainment could pull off or do<a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=475005" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=475005</a>that is sony's idea of improving Everquest IIand here is wow on ultra maxed out everything<YUCK>pretty vibrant deep and colorful</blockquote>Childrens toys are colourful too, but they just don't do anything for me anymore. And the word "deep" surely cannot be used in the same sentence as WoW without a negative somewhere? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />WoW on Ultra runs at 50-60 FPS (but is jerky and unplayable even though 20 FPS is ok in EQ2) on my PhenonII 3.2Ghz +4870 1Gb rig, that's way more powerful then the OP's system which will struggle to run on high let alone ultra, from toms hardware I'd guess they will get medium settings going.On my laptop its even reversed, its got a Core 2 duo 2.4Ghz + ATI HD2600, there WoW runs at low with view distance at max to give about 30 FPS in a smooth playable fashion (non of the jerky feel I got on ultra with my desktop). But EQ2 runs at 20-30 FPS in a equally smooth fashion.The graphics card there is quite a bit slower then a Nvidea GT220, so I'd recommend here the poster looked at a CPU upgrade as the chief way to get the best performance improvements out. Clock for clock the PhenonII is 20% faster then the X64's, then add in the DDR3 memory and high clock rates and its quite nice. Saying that though while AMD offer good value, right now if you have the money the best performance is alas with Intel (I try to avoid then due to their annoying marketting), at least until Bulldozer releases mid this year we will hopefully see some real competition.And I agree 100% with Wingrider01, I can only offer the OP my condolences for the move to Cataclysm, I lost interest in a reunion with my friends from WoW after a couple of weeks (still hit max level on one character), in fact I joined them less then a month after the expac released recently playing DCUO which says a lot.And I was surprised at how smoothly DCUO ran on my laptop despite my GPU not being much good (showing it must make a good balanced use of GPU+CPU, perhaps its multicore optimisation are good? either way it was well implemented, although EQ2 still beats it for character detail for me).

Uwkete-of-Crushbone

11-11-2011, 07:39 PM

<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wingrider01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>my condolences, the latest expansion over there is a nightmare, have had a half dozen guild members come back to eq2 from that game since the new expansion released.Comparing the graphics betwen the two games - wow is very low cartoon style graphics, the game was written with low end systems in mind, machines with built in graphic chipsets or low end laptops.Hopefully you did the due dillegence over on their forums before you decided to jump ship.</blockquote>Still better then anything Sony Online Entertainment could pull off or do<a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=475005" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=475005</a>that is sony's idea of improving Everquest IIand here is wow on ultra maxed out everythingpretty vibrant deep and colorful</blockquote>Childrens toys are colourful too, but they just don't do anything for me anymore. And the word "deep" surely cannot be used in the same sentence as WoW without a negative somewhere? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />WoW on Ultra runs at 50-60 FPS (but is jerky and unplayable even though 20 FPS is ok in EQ2) on my PhenonII 3.2Ghz +4870 1Gb rig, that's way more powerful then the OP's system which will struggle to run on high let alone ultra, from toms hardware I'd guess they will get medium settings going.On my laptop its even reversed, its got a Core 2 duo 2.4Ghz + ATI HD2600, there WoW runs at low with view distance at max to give about 30 FPS in a smooth playable fashion (non of the jerky feel I got on ultra with my desktop). But EQ2 runs at 20-30 FPS in a equally smooth fashion.The graphics card there is quite a bit slower then a Nvidea GT220, so I'd recommend here the poster looked at a CPU upgrade as the chief way to get the best performance improvements out. Clock for clock the PhenonII is 20% faster then the X64's, then add in the DDR3 memory and high clock rates and its quite nice. Saying that though while AMD offer good value, right now if you have the money the best performance is alas with Intel (I try to avoid then due to their annoying marketting), at least until Bulldozer releases mid this year we will hopefully see some real competition.And I agree 100% with Wingrider01, I can only offer the OP my condolences for the move to Cataclysm, I lost interest in a reunion with my friends from WoW after a couple of weeks (still hit max level on one character), in fact I joined them less then a month after the expac released recently playing DCUO which says a lot.And I was surprised at how smoothly DCUO ran on my laptop despite my GPU not being much good (showing it must make a good balanced use of GPU+CPU, perhaps its multicore optimisation are good? either way it was well implemented, although EQ2 still beats it for character detail for me).</blockquote>Ah, but that's one of the things I actually liked about WoW (finally quit this year after I realized I wasn't playing hardly at all any more after the Cataclym expansion...tried the new races a couple of times but even that couldn't save it)...I could play WoW on DIAL-UP when I couldn't "see" anything on EQ2 that was greater than 10 yards away for my character. Zoning in EQ2 (very, very little of that needed in WoW) took up to 2-3 MINUTES (I timed it). EQ2 has NEVER worked right on my Alienware laptop, specifically bought for gaming purposes and outfitted with nice Windows Office stuff, just in case. Had absolutely no issues with WoW there whatsoever; when I tried to get EQ tech support on the serious issues I had on the laptop, I was given the brush-off and looked down the nose at; how dare I expect SOE to adapt the game to every possible laptop out there (but, but, but, your major competitor works just fine on it...)??I'm having a better experience with EQ2 on DSL (far better, actually), but I still have to turn off shadows completely, no Flora effects, and go with Balanced->High Performance with reflections on (which makes it a Custom) for Display, and still only barely get double digit FPS on a good day, outside a city, standing still. If I try to actually move, especially in a city, forget it. Virtual Memory issues are frequent. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I will say this about EQ2 over WoW: I like that grey mobs don't try to bother me (it can be distracting to have your 60th+ level character being chased by level 5 mobs), and the in-game economics in EQ are SUPERB. By this I include the Broker system (vs. the Auction House system, which completely stinks), the Banking system, the mount system, the mail system (though I wish we could mail multiple items in one mail), bags/strongboxes, housing possibilities, quest item requirements, etc., etc., etc., etc. I'm not totally thrilled about Crafting in EQ2, I still find it way too tedious (especially now with the removal of the huge XP bonus for first recipe makes), but that's the only element of WoW's economy I could live with. I actually didn't care that much about the graphics being "cartoony"; they worked. It was the actual world "function" vs. "form" that often drove me nuts. Yes, when the entire World is at War for eternity, it can cut down on normal day-to-day living niceties for the characters, but I want to do other things with my game time than PvP and raiding, and EQ2 is better for those other things.Now if I can just get the graphics better than a snail's pace... <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Uwkete