EQ2 uses PS/VS 1.1 only

FYI,

I did some testing a while ago and found EQII to be much more CPU limited than I originally thought it was. An Ati 9500 Pro to a 9800 Pro on a Athlon 1.6 GHz showed no real world improvement (1~2FPS bah). That was not what I was expecting as other games didn't show the same thing. I do not believe that EQII is using near as much of the video card as it 'should'. It kinda reminds me of EQ I in that way. On this one I have to agree with Chalnoth's statement.

I also just purchased an Athlon XP 3200+ (really 2500+ mobile but running at 2.2GHz). I don't feel it is a low end gaming CPU. I am quite happy for the price if it and a NForce 2 mobo ($140). Also on this I will have to agree with Chalnoth's statement. If you look at Steam, 54.19% of people that took part of the survey had between a 1.7GHz and 2.7GHz CPU. 26.95% people have slower CPU's while only 18.86% have faster CPU's. To me if you look at the 3200+ (either at "3.2 GHz" or at 2.2GHz) it does not seem to be on the bottom of the list any way you look at it.

/shrug
Dr. Ffreeze

 

I'd say that EQ2 is the problem. Their engine is hyped junk. It doesn't look all that good, runs horrible, is a buggy mess, and lacks a lot of features, and needs 2GB of RAM to be HDD grind-free. There is something fundamentally wrong with it if it can't heat up a video card which has all the features the engine supposedly takes advantage of. Hell, there's little difference in performance between a 6800GT and a 9700 Pro! Until you turn on AA anyway, but that's not even supported by the engine without some hacking!!!

And, JVD, a 2.2Ghz AXP (3200+) is not low-end. LOL! What planet are you living on? Maybe it's your fav game, JVD, that makes it look low end (EQ2-happyworld!). A low end gaming CPU is more like a Athlon Thunderbird or a P4 ~1.5. Even those people can load up HL2 (I tried it on my 2nd comp, a 1.4 Thunderbird with PC2100 and a GF4 4200) and have a great time. C'Mon, be realistic and THINK about it.

A low end CPU to most people is probably a Pentium II or K6.

 

Chalnoth,

On topic, if it is true that EQ2 is only using 1.1 shaders that really bites. The game looks way cool, but I wonder how much faster it would run if it were creating the same effects but with 2.0 to 3.0 shaders. I probably won't find out as I think I am going to cancel my 2 accounts.

My Honey and I might try one more time, just the two of us and see if we can find some enjoyment. The one bad thing about online games that really take groups to shine (in my opion) is if you can't find a good guild of people that enjoy doing the same things you do on the same general time schedule you have, it is just not that much fun (as it could be). I enjoy adventure, exploring, and I think CoH spoiled me on fast action and taking on HOARDS of mobs at a time. =)

Dr. Ffreeze

 

Please learn to read

That is simply not true . Chrisray's tests are at the high setting . There is a very high , then extreme and then after that you can still push some sliders further to make it an ultra extreme quality .


I can tell you for a fact that going from a 9700pro to an x800xt pe increased my fps and allowed me to go from high settings slightly tweaked down to very high slightly tweaked up .



Some ruff tests using fraps


Athlon 64 3000+ at 2ghz radeon x800xt pe at 500/500

30fps


Athlon 64 @ 2.2 ghz radeon x800xt pe 500/500

33fps


Athlon 64 @ 2ghz , radeon x800xt pe at 600/600

39fps

athlon 64 @ 2.2ghz , radeon x800xt pe at 600/600

40fps

This is very high quality with the shaders all the way up and draw distance all the way up . I ran through starcrest commune the same route each time .


Moving up to extreme quality with textures on maximum will further push the game to being gpu limited.

 

in what ? these are the numbers fraps are reporting to me . It could be small lag spikes that are affecting the scores or something .

 

My tests were run between Extreme Performance and Balanced.

 

it all comes down to the eq2 engine sucking.

 

Didn't you get banned in t'other thread?

 

ANd you've come to the conclusion that the game is cpu limited from balanced and extreme performance ?

I"m sorry but these settings are barely putting any strain on a modern card

 

for stating facts?

 

And your subjective opinion-based trolling is factual?

 

Everyone gets your views on eq2, no need to come in here to stir the pot again.

epic

 

Gotcha. You'll just continue being a dick until you are. Carry on--it'll make the pain shorter.

 

jvd,

Correct, in extreme performance to balanced the game is CPU limited on my hardware more than I thought it was. I was getting very very poor frame rates, yet changing to a much better video card didn't impact frame rate to any real degree.

Correct, changing an Ati 9500 Pro 128MB to Ati 9800 Pro 256MB did not impact performance. Therefore I would say that those settings were barely putting any strain on those two modern cards. EQ2 frame rate was still crappy. I went from an Athlon 1.6GHz to an Athlon XP 2.2GHz and my 9500 Pro is MUCH better, hence I said, "EQ2 was much more CPU limited than I had originally thought."

I am not quite sure why you are posting when it appears that you are saying the same thing I am saying.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

Wouldn't you really expect any modern game to become CPU limited on low graphics settings though? Especially if the engine is reasonably scaleable. You also didn't state what resolution you were running in, at high resolutions the graphics card is again going to be a more limiting factor. Nobody is going to buy a top of the range graphics card to play a game at 800x600 with no AA. And any options are likely to push the card much more than the CPU, most of the stuff done on the CPU will be critical game code and very little will be optional. So as you turn the graphics settings up CPU utilization will go up much slower than GPU utilization. This makes sense and is not really a problem.

I play the game @1152x864 with 4xAA/8xAF and on my AXP2600+/R9700Pro setup it seems to be almost completely GPU limited (completely custom settings) - i.e. turning down any of the graphics options makes a huge impact on performance (purely subjectively, I haven't run any tests).[/quote]

 

But extreme performance and balance have almost no effects on at all .

They are meant for those running around the minimum specs with the minimum amount of ram and the low end cards .

This is like using doom3 in low quality settings and a 9800pro and saying its cpu limited .


If you were to set it to extreme quality you could change your cpu speed and you wouldn't see any gains (mabye minimum fps would go up a little ) but by moving to a faster card . LIke say a 9800pro to a x800xt pe you would see a diffrence at those settings

 

Allow me to chime in. If a game is CPU limited at some setting, that's worth noting. What's also worth noting is what framerate you are getting. If you're CPU limited and getting 60+ fps, chances are you'll be happy with the experience. If you're CPU limited and getting ~20 fps, chances are you'll be unhappy. Even if your average is over 30 fps, if you get lots of drops to ~20 fps the game can feel very stuttery.

I don't know all the numbers for settings people are using (in fact, I haven't played EQ2 at all since I've been consumed by WoW).

It's great that you're, apparently, GPU-limited, but without some performance comparisons it's kind of hard to make comparisons. If one person is CPU-limited at 25 fps and you're HW limited at 20 fps, I'd argue that the CPU could still be holding you back since the drop isn't huge.