Guild Wars 2: Your Graphics Card And CPU Performance Guide

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

oomph

Honorable
Sep 20, 2012
6
0
10,510
0
I agree with Alidan's post.

I'd also be interested in seeing SLI performance benchmarks. I don't think that using a Nvidia's 210 was the greatest choice. The 250 and 260's were more common cards from that era, and they perform better too.

For example, after I upgraded to a GTX 670, I dropped one of my older GTX 285 cards into my wife's gaming PC. She is getting good, playable performance in GW2.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]oomph[/nom]I don't think that using a Nvidia's 210 was the greatest choice. The 250 and 260's were more common cards from that era, and they perform better too.[/citation]

The 210 is Nvidia's CURRENT offering sub-$50. The 250 and 260 aren't sold anymore.

I chose the 210 to represent what Nvidia has in the low end right now, not to represent the 200 series.
 

arrin

Honorable
Sep 23, 2012
7
0
10,510
0
[citation][nom]arrin[/nom]i was just wondering, would a core2quad (q8300) be bottle necking a 7750/7770?[/citation]

sorry i forgot to add that it's 2.5ghz
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]arrin[/nom]i was just wondering, would a core2quad (q8300) be bottle necking a 7750/7770?[/citation]

In Guild Wars 2, depends on the settings you use probably. Assuming you're using the highest detail settings, the CPU will probably be well matched to those cards.
 
G

Guest

Guest
When can we expect an update? I need to put together an affordable GW2 PC for the girl.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]steve 20[/nom]When can we expect an update? I need to put together an affordable GW2 PC for the girl.[/citation]

I'm going to add it today. Nothing has significantly changed, except the Sandy bridge Core i5 is slightly faster. :(

I'm keeping in touch with Ncsoft and if they can get AMD's FX to work faster they'll give me a heads up and I might retest then.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Excellent, so bottom line FX is a bad idea Intel i3 or better is the way to go then? thanks for getting back to this.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]steve 33[/nom]Excellent, so bottom line FX is a bad idea Intel i3 or better is the way to go then? thanks for getting back to this.[/citation]

For Guild Wars 2, until it's fixed... yes. :)
 

kaitheus

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2009
189
0
18,690
3
A bit early for this review isn't it ? I mean the game isn't even been that well optimized for Any company lols. I say give it a few months and then run this review again and see where the numbers are, as it is I'm playing this on a PII X4 955BE @ 3.9GHz with 8GB of DDR3 1600MHz with a HD4890 1GB with settings mostly high except shadows at a res of 1680x1050 and average 40-50+ FPS pretty constant.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]kaitheus[/nom]A bit early for this review isn't it ? [/citation]

When the game is in the hands of millions of players... no, I don't think it's early to test performance. Probably a good time, actually. :)
 

kaitheus

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2009
189
0
18,690
3
[citation][nom]cleeve[/nom]When the game is in the hands of millions of players... no, I don't think it's early to test performance. Probably a good time, actually.[/citation]

The game is still reletively new, so testing it This early, before major changes are made to the engine etc is a bit premature. Personally I would have waited 2-3 months, let the game mature some then would have done a review.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]kaitheus[/nom]The game is still reletively new, so testing it This early, before major changes are made to the engine etc is a bit premature. [/citation]

It can't possibly be premature when it is already deployed. It's in the hands of millions of players RIGHT NOW. The data is useful and relevant to those players, if you're making a Guld Wars 2 build I'd say it's the opposite of premature. How is hiding the results for 3 months going to help our readership? Your position is that starving them of results and having folks make assumptions with hardware is better? I don't agree. The point of this website is to test and share information, not bury it.

I'd also like to point out, you're ASSUMING it changes. No guarantees it will. So if it doesn't, do we keep waiting? Maybe in 2 or 3 years revisit it? How relevant will it be then?

We re-tested after a month and got the same results. We've talked with the devs, if they manage to fix the game and work faster with the FX CPU, they will contact us and we'll consider re-testing.

But until something changes, the benchmarks are obviously relevant. Extremely relevant in real-world scenarios, in fact.
That's very, very far from 'premature'.

That's ideal.
 

RedJaron

Splendid
Moderator
At the time you posted that message, the game nearly two months past release. So if you're advocating waiting a few months before a review, you've already met that time.

Cleeve, the original review and performance evaluation was done on the final beta build. Have the numbers in the article been updated to reflect the release build yet? Will they be updated in that way? ( I know there won't be any big changes in the AMD field yet. ) Thanks.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator


I did post an update in the article, we re-tested quite recently and have seen no notable difference.

I'm in touch with the devs and if/when they get the FX issue sorted they'll drop us a line.
 

RedJaron

Splendid
Moderator

Thank you, appreciate the response.
 

kaitheus

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2009
189
0
18,690
3
Good to hear that there constantly updating an testing this, with all the updates GW2's been getting it's performance is changing constantly, I'm still averaging 40-50+ most the time, how ever there are random instances where me and other players will get some pretty severe dips in area's there shouldn't be. So I'll be looking foward to Anet adressing those issues, atm how ever I think there more concerned with getting the bot/gold sellers under control as its getting pretty bad :/ lols.
 

FullBurstMode

Distinguished
May 23, 2011
23
0
18,510
0
The next time any benchmarks are run I suggest a different location. The shiverpeaks are fairly light as far as pushing hardware goes whereas even places like Divinity's Reach (human "town") or even Lion's Arch present much more of a challenge. A full load is present in the Shiverpeaks but it represents the kind of performance you'll see in only a portion of the game.
 

FullBurstMode

Distinguished
May 23, 2011
23
0
18,510
0
Oh and I'd be very interested in seeing some more extreme tests too. I'm curious as to whether clock speed on Sandy Bridge (core count with SB-E too I guess) will make a difference with considerably more graphics muscle.
 

alexmx

Distinguished
Oct 15, 2009
88
0
18,630
0
How much of a drag would a q8200 be with an HD6850 or and HD6870?

I'm moving from a 4770, but since my budget is nonexistant (managed to sold 2x4770's and got some spare change)

I'm 100% sure that the change would definitively improve performance, but how many fps would be my wall running gw2 at best appearance?

Is it possible to achieve 30-40 fps @ 1080?

 
G

Guest

Guest
Guild Wars 2 hates AMD. My FX-8320 (OC@4024k) only uses 30-40% and my 7970 GHZ only uses 40-60%. I am averaging 50-60 FPS but in massive events i can drop all the way down to 25 FPS, but never below 25, it is weird.

Anyone seen any improvements in moving to windows 8??
 

scienceboyroy

Honorable
Jul 14, 2012
6
0
10,510
0
I'm curious as to where you found the FX-8000, FX-6000, and FX-4000 processors. I wasn't aware that AMD had produced anything like that.
How would the FX-8000 compare to the FX-8150, FX-8320, or FX-8350?
Would the performance of the FX-6000 be more comparable to the FX-6100 or the FX-6300?
And is an FX-4000 as good as my FX-4170? Is it the same thing as the FX-4100, or more like the FX-4300?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY