Graphics Card Help [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

CrisuK0M13

04-08-2011, 08:24 PM

Here's the sitatuion, for Christmas I got a new graphics card. The card is a beast compared to my old graphics card. But for some reason EQ2 runs better with my old graphics card then with my new one. Every other game I play, including Crysis is able to be run on maximum settings without any problems. It's only Everquest 2.So, my friend is getting ready to upgrade her graphics card, and I'm trying to help her decide what card to get. She only plays everquest 2, so her card needs to be able to run EQ2 on extreme settings without any problems (40-60 FPS) and I don't want her to make the same mistake that I made. So I was hoping to get some information about this game about what it's more based off of. Should she look at more clock speed? More memory? Faster memory? Also, does anyone have any suggestions as to what they're using and are able to run the game on max settings.Thanks!!

cawalton

04-08-2011, 08:32 PM

you should check out the Support Forums, Performance Support. This post most likely will get moved to those forums.In general, EQ2 loves a really fast CPU (high clock speed - not core count)next, a good chunk of memory, 4 GB under a Win7 64 bit OSfinally, a medium to medium-high range graphics card, there is little to no SLI support/benefit under this game

Ironcleaver

04-08-2011, 08:34 PM

The game itself gets a greater performance boost depending on the clock frequancy of your main CPU over the GPU, in addition anything over 2 cores dosent seem to help much. Looking at only video cards just try to get one that's a good bang-for-the-buck, so something midrange. Really juggle the bang (the video cards hardware) VS the buck (cost of said card). If you go out and get the most bleedingedged video card spending over $500 you may end up getting roughly the same enhanced performance with only a $100~$150 range card. This goes back to my first sentance. If your main CPU is a 2.4Ghz and you upgrade to a 3.2Ghz, the difference would be remarkable. It's wonky, I know.

Umbrage

04-08-2011, 08:35 PM

I just installed a GTX 560ti into my Amd 6 core computer. It is factory overclocked at 950mhz with 256 bit...yada...yada...yada.I can run everquest at about 10 frames per second on extreme quality and this card is supposed to be an awfully good video card.So unless I have the internal settings wrong....scratch the new GTX 560ti card off your list.

Landiin

04-08-2011, 10:01 PM

EQ2 is all about your processor! With a top end processor u can run EQ2 on extreme with a lack luster video card with ok FPS. The game simply depends to much on your processor. It has got a crap load better since the begging but it still a CPU hog. So save your self some cash and don't go out and buy the next best 3D card so u can play EQ2 full on. Go out and buy a beast CPU instead.

Wingrider01

04-08-2011, 10:54 PM

<cite>Umbrage wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just installed a GTX 560ti into my Amd 6 core computer. It is factory overclocked at 950mhz with 256 bit...yada...yada...yada.I can run everquest at about 10 frames per second on extreme quality and this card is supposed to be an awfully good video card.So unless I have the internal settings wrong....scratch the new GTX 560ti card off your list.</blockquote>even though they have done some work towards moving to the gpu the cpu still does the majority of the rendering. Have a set of GTX 580's matched with Intel I7 980X Gulftown's that run at 3.33 GHZ on the motherboard, running a average aof 52 fps in extreme quality. Suspect that you have a slower processor or the performance setting in the Nvidia settings is set to adaptive and not prefer high performance

Timesquare

04-09-2011, 05:01 AM

i heard someone mentioned about EQ2 runs better on intel ?but yes EQ2 is about your cpu and rami would core2 3.0Ghz or higher , not sure on i7 so any 200series or higher , HD 4870 or higher would do the work , of course the card must be 512mb or higher

Wingrider01

04-09-2011, 09:06 AM

<cite>Timesquare wrote:</cite><blockquote>i heard someone mentioned about EQ2 runs better on intel ?but yes EQ2 is about your cpu and rami would core2 3.0Ghz or higher , not sure on i7 so any 200series or higher , HD 4870 or higher would do the work , of course the card must be 512mb or higher</blockquote>intel does hold a lead over amd right now, but that changes frequently. can rememebr when amd was the only way to go for gaming performance until the new intels hit the streets. Have to much money invested in the I7 980x's to think about switching, she who wields the frying pan would use it on me if I asked for a new motherboard and processors right now

Lethe5683

04-09-2011, 12:05 PM

People who are saying that EQ2 is all about your CPU are dead wrong. While CPU is the most important thing for performance in EQ video cards are still a big deal. The main issue is if you get a new video card and don't get a new processor you may be bottlenecking it because your processor is too slow.Intel > AMDNvidia > AMD... I mean "ATI"

Wurm

04-09-2011, 12:32 PM

MurFalad

04-09-2011, 12:41 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>People who are saying that EQ2 is all about your CPU are dead wrong. While CPU is the most important thing for performance in EQ video cards are still a big deal. The main issue is if you get a new video card and don't get a new processor you may be bottlenecking it because your processor is too slow.</blockquote>It is true that you wont be able to view EQ2 in its full quality on a low end graphics card even with the best CPU, but there is very little benefit going for a graphics card much better then a Nvidea 260GTX or ATI 4870 since from my experience it seems that even these cards are spending the majority of their time waiting around for the CPU (these are old ones, but you can <a href="http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-graphics-card-geforce-gtx-590-radeon-hd-6990,review-32134-7.html" target="_blank">check out this toms hardware rough guide to see where newer cards lay in terms of performance</a>).As an aside my laptop does show an excellent example of how heavily EQ2 relies on the CPU, originally I had a 1.5Ghz core 2 duo, I could play EQ2 in high performance playably and WoW in "fair" with a similar experience (it has a ATI HD2600 graphics card - low end now). I upgraded the CPU to 2.4Ghz and EQ2 is playable in high settings with shadows off, and WoW is exactly the same fair settings (one notch off the lowest possible).<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Intel > AMD</blockquote>This is true, BUT only true for how much you pay, at the low end even I think you get slightly more for your money from an AMD then a Intel (my PhenonII AMD 955 3.2Ghz is pretty good in its day, the equivalent from Intel would have been slightly worse for the same price).But AMD has been lagging behind Intel ever since Core 2 Duo came out, they have nothing that matches an I7 and are blown away by Sandybridge I7's, this gap has gotten bigger with every release, while the new Bulldozer cores due for release later this year should close the gap quite a bit they are not promising to be any faster then Intel (except for their on chip memory interfaces which will support faster DDR3 ram then Intel - it'll be interesting to see if this gives any real benefit).<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nvidia > AMD... I mean "ATI"</blockquote>I have not seen any evidence for this, personally until the mouse point being stuck in the top right problem recently I've had good performance (the GPU has not been the bottleneck) and far fewer driver problems then the Nvidea for a few years, but thats just one persons experience and I expect things will change.Since EQ2 bottlenecks at the CPU at the extreme settings something like an ATI 6970 will be just as much overkill for an NVidea 580GTX. <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=444036" target="_blank">There is a thread on the forums here</a> where people have given the performance they get (based on a heavy to render area in the Moors of Ykesha).

Lethe5683

04-09-2011, 12:59 PM

<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>People who are saying that EQ2 is all about your CPU are dead wrong. While CPU is the most important thing for performance in EQ video cards are still a big deal. The main issue is if you get a new video card and don't get a new processor you may be bottlenecking it because your processor is too slow.</blockquote>It is true that you wont be able to view EQ2 in its full quality on a low end graphics card even with the best CPU, but there is very little benefit going for a graphics card much better then a Nvidea 260GTX or ATI 4870 since from my experience it seems that even these cards are spending the majority of their time waiting around for the CPU (these are old ones, but you can <a href="http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-graphics-card-geforce-gtx-590-radeon-hd-6990,review-32134-7.html" target="_blank">check out this toms hardware rough guide to see where newer cards lay in terms of performance</a>).</blockquote> That's my point however. Upgrading your video card is important but only when you upgrade your CPU as well. Getting a top end CPU and keeping a crappy video card is going to be very bad for your FPS no matter how good the processor is.<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>As an aside my laptop does show an excellent example of how heavily EQ2 relies on the CPU, originally I had a 1.5Ghz core 2 duo, I could play EQ2 in high performance playably and WoW in "fair" with a similar experience (it has a ATI HD2600 graphics card - low end now). I upgraded the CPU to 2.4Ghz and EQ2 is playable in high settings with shadows off, and WoW is exactly the same fair settings (one notch off the lowest possible).</blockquote>Laptops are also notorious for having absolutely horrendous video cards; this is why WoW was unaffected. EQ2 would see a large performance boost because it relies heavily on CPU but this doesn't mean you can discount the impact of a video card. If your laptop was given a comparable (dedicated) video card you would have probably been able to play on high settings with shadows on.<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nvidia > AMD... I mean "ATI"</blockquote>I have not seen any evidence for this, personally until the mouse point being stuck in the top right problem recently I've had good performance (the GPU has not been the bottleneck) and far fewer driver problems then the Nvidea for a few years, but thats just one persons experience and I expect things will change.Since EQ2 bottlenecks at the CPU at the extreme settings something like an ATI 6970 will be just as much overkill for an NVidea 580GTX. <a href="list.m?topic_id=444036" target="_blank">There is a thread on the forums here</a> where people have given the performance they get (based on a heavy to render area in the Moors of Ykesha).</blockquote>Ati cards are basically economy cards and with as little money as I have I still would not ever buy another one. I had been using Nvidia for years but saw a ATI card that looked to be as good as the new Nvidia card I was going to get but for cheaper so I got it. Even since getting it I have had nothing but stability and performance issues. It's acually perfoming worse than my 1 year older Nvidia card was (about the same price, back then as this one was now), if it wasen't for the fact that it had broke (my fault) I would have switched it back to the older one.

Wingrider01

04-09-2011, 01:40 PM

gourdon

04-10-2011, 06:08 PM

<cite>Wurm wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>People who are saying that EQ2 is all about your CPU are dead wrong. While CPU is the most important thing for performance in EQ video cards are still a big deal. The main issue is if you get a new video card and don't get a new processor you may be bottlenecking it because your processor is too slow.Intel > AMDNvidia > AMD... I mean "ATI"</blockquote>As far as EQ2 goes...Intel = AMD as long as you are running a i3,5,7 or Phenom at 3Ghz or greater. EQ2 really likes a faster CPU and due to the age of the game you wont be seeing much improvement in regards to the advanced features the newer CPUs have.Nvidia > AMD but not by much, regardless of what you have make sure all your drivers are upto date.</blockquote>Seriously? The Phenom architecture is roughly equal to a four year old "core" Intel architecture with respect to instructions per clock, or how much it can compute per clock cycle. There are two generations of Intel CPUs that AMD can't compete with. AMD doesn't make anything remotely competitive with a core i5, much less a core i7. Having said that, AMD CPUs and motherboards are less expensive.The only way a computer with an AMD CPU is competitive with a modern Intel CPU is in a task where the CPU doesn't matter, which would be most games. EQ2 is not one of those games. You can't just look at game benchmarks to figure out if a CPU is going to work well for EQ2.As for GPUs, nVidia = AMD/ATi . They have been trading spots at the top for the last couple of years. There was a time when the 8800 reigned supreme, but those days are long gone. AMD and nVidia are also roughly equal in the mid range, with AMD almost always being less expensive for the same performance.

gourdon

04-10-2011, 06:20 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>People who are saying that EQ2 is all about your CPU are dead wrong. While CPU is the most important thing for performance in EQ video cards are still a big deal. The main issue is if you get a new video card and don't get a new processor you may be bottlenecking it because your processor is too slow.</blockquote>It is true that you wont be able to view EQ2 in its full quality on a low end graphics card even with the best CPU, but there is very little benefit going for a graphics card much better then a Nvidea 260GTX or ATI 4870 since from my experience it seems that even these cards are spending the majority of their time waiting around for the CPU (these are old ones, but you can <a href="http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-graphics-card-geforce-gtx-590-radeon-hd-6990,review-32134-7.html" target="_blank">check out this toms hardware rough guide to see where newer cards lay in terms of performance</a>).</blockquote> That's my point however. Upgrading your video card is important but only when you upgrade your CPU as well. Getting a top end CPU and keeping a crappy video card is going to be very bad for your FPS no matter how good the processor is.<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>As an aside my laptop does show an excellent example of how heavily EQ2 relies on the CPU, originally I had a 1.5Ghz core 2 duo, I could play EQ2 in high performance playably and WoW in "fair" with a similar experience (it has a ATI HD2600 graphics card - low end now). I upgraded the CPU to 2.4Ghz and EQ2 is playable in high settings with shadows off, and WoW is exactly the same fair settings (one notch off the lowest possible).</blockquote>Laptops are also notorious for having absolutely horrendous video cards; this is why WoW was unaffected. EQ2 would see a large performance boost because it relies heavily on CPU but this doesn't mean you can discount the impact of a video card. If your laptop was given a comparable (dedicated) video card you would have probably been able to play on high settings with shadows on.<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nvidia > AMD... I mean "ATI"</blockquote>I have not seen any evidence for this, personally until the mouse point being stuck in the top right problem recently I've had good performance (the GPU has not been the bottleneck) and far fewer driver problems then the Nvidea for a few years, but thats just one persons experience and I expect things will change.Since EQ2 bottlenecks at the CPU at the extreme settings something like an ATI 6970 will be just as much overkill for an NVidea 580GTX. <a href="list.m?topic_id=444036" target="_blank">There is a thread on the forums here</a> where people have given the performance they get (based on a heavy to render area in the Moors of Ykesha).</blockquote>Ati cards are basically economy cards and with as little money as I have I still would not ever buy another one. I had been using Nvidia for years but saw a ATI card that looked to be as good as the new Nvidia card I was going to get but for cheaper so I got it. Even since getting it I have had nothing but stability and performance issues. It's acually perfoming worse than my 1 year older Nvidia card was (about the same price, back then as this one was now), if it wasen't for the fact that it had broke (my fault) I would have switched it back to the older one.</blockquote>I have used nothing but ATi cards. Most have been made by Sapphire and none of those have had a problem. The one problem I've had with the non-Sapphire card was self inflicted, not having a powerful enough power supply. Your bad ATi experience was either bad luck on a card, or you didn't do your homework on the card manufacturer and bought a PoS. If you look at any serious benchmarking then look at the prices of the cards, for the same performace AMD/ATi is almost always less expensive. Your anecdote is meaningless in the grand scheme. It might make you feel better to avoid AMD, but it isn't based upon meaningful data.

MurFalad

04-10-2011, 08:17 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>As an aside my laptop does show an excellent example of how heavily EQ2 relies on the CPU, originally I had a 1.5Ghz core 2 duo, I could play EQ2 in high performance playably and WoW in "fair" with a similar experience (it has a ATI HD2600 graphics card - low end now). I upgraded the CPU to 2.4Ghz and EQ2 is playable in high settings with shadows off, and WoW is exactly the same fair settings (one notch off the lowest possible).</blockquote>Laptops are also notorious for having absolutely horrendous video cards; this is why WoW was unaffected. EQ2 would see a large performance boost because it relies heavily on CPU but this doesn't mean you can discount the impact of a video card. If your laptop was given a comparable (dedicated) video card you would have probably been able to play on high settings with shadows on.</blockquote>It has got a dedicated card (I know because when I dissasembled it it was on its own board <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But yes, it certainly is weak, but the performance does illustrate well how EQ2 scales, the GPU really just gives the icing on the cake in terms of looks.I would still recommend anyone out there though to go for something 4870 or higher in performance ideally though, since especially with shader 1.0 being phased out I'm guessing SOE will have to look at making shader 3.0 standard, and shader 3.0 on a fast card is a improvement in FPS. But the GPU is certainly second place to the CPU in terms of where the budget should go (hopefully people can just buy both!).<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ati cards are basically economy cards and with as little money as I have I still would not ever buy another one. I had been using Nvidia for years but saw a ATI card that looked to be as good as the new Nvidia card I was going to get but for cheaper so I got it. Even since getting it I have had nothing but stability and performance issues. It's acually perfoming worse than my 1 year older Nvidia card was (about the same price, back then as this one was now), if it wasen't for the fact that it had broke (my fault) I would have switched it back to the older one.</blockquote>Well I don't agree at all that ATI cards = economy cards, in fact they produce currently the fastest card out there and their tag line for the card that superceded it was "faster then the fastest card available - we know because we built it", a claim that Toms hardware support in their tests (and show it on their list), the 6990 which is a dual GPU card and hence not very useful for EQ2, £500 isn't economy.I can only guess you got a bad card there, my experience has been good with the high end designs, I'm not a fan of the noisy stock coolers though.

Wurm

04-11-2011, 05:17 AM

ATI's problem had always been driver support. They made great hardware (well lets not talk about the rage cards) but the drivers had always been lack-luster and buggy.Now that ATI is dead and AMD has taken over, that is no longer a problem. I still buy Nvidia out of habit, but have no issues with AMD at all anymore.

Wurm

04-11-2011, 05:20 AM

<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>since especially with shader 1.0 being phased out I'm guessing SOE will have to look at making shader 3.0 standard, and shader 3.0 on a fast card is a improvement in FPS.</blockquote>I hope that shader 3.0 is finally fixed before we get that far... since right now the current 3.0 shaders are way too buggy to even think about using full time.

MurFalad

04-11-2011, 06:53 AM

<cite>Wurm wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>since especially with shader 1.0 being phased out I'm guessing SOE will have to look at making shader 3.0 standard, and shader 3.0 on a fast card is a improvement in FPS.</blockquote>I hope that shader 3.0 is finally fixed before we get that far... since right now the current 3.0 shaders are way too buggy to even think about using full time.</blockquote>I do use it myself full time, but have to agree its not perfect. Quite a few zones have an asset or two that really looks wrong. The criminal bit is that its more like 95% right, but it does not look like its getting any time recently, I had the impression before Ryan left for Planetside that it was just him altering every single file to make things work.Maybe things like transparent textures and overly bright/wrong colours are due to bugs rather then incorrect settings? If not though I would have thought other people in the team could have been involved in the bug fixing.Still, we have a new graphics programmer, and enough potential projects to keep him busy until the sun becomes a cold lump of charcoal <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Although I would really like to see Ryan brought back to finish the indoor GPU shadows and maybe even a bigger project where he mentioned about the current EQ2 engine not organising the data in a way that is efficient for shader 3.0.Back to graphics cards though, I am looking for upgrades myself to eke out that little bit of extra performance, especially with shader 3.0 although its not a cost effective upgrade, but from a ATI 4870 to get a useful upgrade I seem to be limited to an ATI 6970 or Nvidea 580GTX...