Wow, I'm surprised this is still such a big issue. I agree there were FPS issues up the wahzoo last weekend (and before). They did I a boss drop on the main city... It was not good. I logged on today because I heard that they patched for FPS issues and it was looking good... It looks good on my 5 year old rig. Not sure what FPS I'm getting, all I can say is that it's been smooth in the Capitol cities, and in mob fights with 10+ players/targets. It may still persist in larger fights, but from what I can tell, it seems MUCH improved.
The performance is a known issue and they are working on it.
Probably no "miracle" patch but they'll improve the optimization patch by patch.
At the moment intel processors are superior on Wildstar compared to AMD.
I'm running Phenom 1055T x6 @ 3,5~~ghz with Windows 8.1 and GTX 580.
FPS jumps from 25-80 with average somewhere in 35-45.
They have not acknowledged this as a "known issue", as this has been complained about since the beginning of Closed Beta, and the official forum response is always the same: different computer setups behave differently and they are slowly working on making the game efficient for all setups. This is damage-control speak for "we hope people will believe the problem is their hardware specs and not our game engine".
The framerate HAS NOT IMPROVED SINCE CLOSED BETA through all the complaint megathreads on the Closed Beta forum. People that tell you otherwise have not done proper benchmarks - they are the fanboi players that Carbine are counting on to convince everyone else that the game is running fine.
Every week, I would check the game during Closed Beta, again and again, hoping each patch would make a single frame of improvement, but it never did. Truly a sad story for Wildstar as the game has great potential.
Not true, for me, I was getting around 15-25 fps and now I get a constant 55-70. So for me, it has improved with every closed beta that they did.
Originally posted by DEATHRAMENT I tried the game in late in open beta and i had the same frame rate issue, it was unplayable for me really. I have a nvidia 260 gtx and an amd cpu forget now what it is exactly but playes other games fine. Maybe its better now im not sure, but it was terrible when i tried the game.
Kind of should always know what your CPU is.
Intel i5 Haswell 3.4ghz Quad-Core. I know that off the top of my head, but it takes all of 15sec to go into your Control Panel, click System And Security, and then click System.
It does also need to be mentioned that AMD CPUs are completely sub par when it comes to video games compared to Intel CPUs. (See Benchmarks: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html ) . It really depends on your CPU for an MMO because of the way they're designed they're more CPU intensive, which is counter to many single player/multiplayer standalone games that are GPU intensive. It's a design thing that they do.
P.S. Realms are up, try it now to see if either of the last 2 patches improved it.
Pointless thread. First i'm at work so i can't check my pc atm and i don't know my cpu off by heart. Second it makes no difference what it is as i can play all other games on medium with no issues at all. And maybe AMD cpu's are sub par as u say but again it makes no difference as i can play any mmo released with no frame rate issues on medium settings. Plenty on high.
See and this reply right here is why youll probably never get any help. You clearly know it ALL and yet can fix nothing. And for you to be computer gaming and NOT know your CPU specs right off the bat is a F'n shame.
Originally posted by DEATHRAMENT I tried the game in late in open beta and i had the same frame rate issue, it was unplayable for me really. I have a nvidia 260 gtx and an amd cpu forget now what it is exactly but playes other games fine. Maybe its better now im not sure, but it was terrible when i tried the game.
Kind of should always know what your CPU is.
Intel i5 Haswell 3.4ghz Quad-Core. I know that off the top of my head, but it takes all of 15sec to go into your Control Panel, click System And Security, and then click System.
It does also need to be mentioned that AMD CPUs are completely sub par when it comes to video games compared to Intel CPUs. (See Benchmarks: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html ) . It really depends on your CPU for an MMO because of the way they're designed they're more CPU intensive, which is counter to many single player/multiplayer standalone games that are GPU intensive. It's a design thing that they do.
P.S. Realms are up, try it now to see if either of the last 2 patches improved it.
Pointless thread. First i'm at work so i can't check my pc atm and i don't know my cpu off by heart. Second it makes no difference what it is as i can play all other games on medium with no issues at all. And maybe AMD cpu's are sub par as u say but again it makes no difference as i can play any mmo released with no frame rate issues on medium settings. Plenty on high.
See and this reply right here is why youll probably never get any help. You clearly know it ALL and yet can fix nothing. And for you to be computer gaming and NOT know your CPU specs right off the bat is a F'n shame.
Again pointless, if you have nothing more inteligent to say don't waste my time.
Originally posted by DEATHRAMENT I tried the game in late in open beta and i had the same frame rate issue, it was unplayable for me really. I have a nvidia 260 gtx and an amd cpu forget now what it is exactly but playes other games fine. Maybe its better now im not sure, but it was terrible when i tried the game.
Kind of should always know what your CPU is.
Intel i5 Haswell 3.4ghz Quad-Core. I know that off the top of my head, but it takes all of 15sec to go into your Control Panel, click System And Security, and then click System.
It does also need to be mentioned that AMD CPUs are completely sub par when it comes to video games compared to Intel CPUs. (See Benchmarks: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html ) . It really depends on your CPU for an MMO because of the way they're designed they're more CPU intensive, which is counter to many single player/multiplayer standalone games that are GPU intensive. It's a design thing that they do.
P.S. Realms are up, try it now to see if either of the last 2 patches improved it.
Pointless thread. First i'm at work so i can't check my pc atm and i don't know my cpu off by heart. Second it makes no difference what it is as i can play all other games on medium with no issues at all. And maybe AMD cpu's are sub par as u say but again it makes no difference as i can play any mmo released with no frame rate issues on medium settings. Plenty on high.
This reminds me just of that one guy who posted in the official forums, blaming the player's PCs and telling them to upgrade but in the same post stated that he has to check his own specs when he gets home from work.
They been having performance issues from alpha to now. I personally think it is the coding of the game. One of the main reason's I won't be buying it. Unless of course they fix the issues but I really don't see this happening and I doubt it is a video driver issue. If it was they would have worked it out already.
Originally posted by holyneo Maybe the AMD/Nvidia need to teak there drivers for this game. I've seen al lot of games come out and new drivers release in same time frame.
This is one of the places where a lot of hype for a game probably helps. A couple hundred posts on the AMD site about their drivers sucking while Nvidia's gets tripple digit FPS (or vice versa) will likely light a fire under the AMD driver devs.
A game no one cares about may just get a "sucks to be you", or "have you tried turning it off and back on?" reply.
Originally posted by holyneo Maybe the AMD/Nvidia need to teak there drivers for this game. I've seen al lot of games come out and new drivers release in same time frame.
This is one of the places where a lot of hype for a game probably helps. A couple hundred posts on the AMD site about their drivers sucking while Nvidia's gets tripple digit FPS (or vice versa) will likely light a fire under the AMD driver devs.
A game no one cares about may just get a "sucks to be you", or "have you tried turning it off and back on?" reply.
Someone from Carbine recently posted that the game will be getting official support from AMD with the next ATI driver.
So my guess is that Carbine won't do anything in regards to the bad performance on ATIs until then.
Originally posted by holyneo Maybe the AMD/Nvidia need to teak there drivers for this game. I've seen al lot of games come out and new drivers release in same time frame.
This is one of the places where a lot of hype for a game probably helps. A couple hundred posts on the AMD site about their drivers sucking while Nvidia's gets tripple digit FPS (or vice versa) will likely light a fire under the AMD driver devs.
A game no one cares about may just get a "sucks to be you", or "have you tried turning it off and back on?" reply.
Someone from Carbine recently posted that the game will be getting official support from AMD with the next ATI driver.
So my guess is that Carbine won't do anything in regards to the bad performance on ATIs until then.
How is it Carbines fault? Last I checked they made games not videocards.
It will probably get better with future patches. Early beta tests in ESO used to have pretty bad fps rates, but now I got 60 fps always on max. I noticed in the beta test that I was getting around 15-20 fps in WildStar. It's using a lot of resources for not much pay off.
The performance is a known issue and they are working on it.
Probably no "miracle" patch but they'll improve the optimization patch by patch.
At the moment intel processors are superior on Wildstar compared to AMD.
I'm running Phenom 1055T x6 @ 3,5~~ghz with Windows 8.1 and GTX 580.
FPS jumps from 25-80 with average somewhere in 35-45.
They have not acknowledged this as a "known issue", as this has been complained about since the beginning of Closed Beta, and the official forum response is always the same: different computer setups behave differently and they are slowly working on making the game efficient for all setups. This is damage-control speak for "we hope people will believe the problem is their hardware specs and not our game engine".
The framerate HAS NOT IMPROVED SINCE CLOSED BETA through all the complaint megathreads on the Closed Beta forum. People that tell you otherwise have not done proper benchmarks - they are the fanboi players that Carbine are counting on to convince everyone else that the game is running fine.
Every week, I would check the game during Closed Beta, again and again, hoping each patch would make a single frame of improvement, but it never did. Truly a sad story for Wildstar as the game has great potential.
you're right, during closed beta it ws never fixed, they didnt care about optimization
but since the beta weekends, beta 10 days and now OPs week... every patch the optimization gets better and better
before used to get like 40fps or something, not on average between 75 - 90 fps.. and in low pop areas it goes as high as 120
i actually made a post about this not long ago with screenshots. It's becoming less and less of an issue, maybe actually try the game now instead of speaking about closed beta and say the devs are doing nothing, because every patch lately you can see the patch notes for optimization and see the frames improving in game
Originally posted by holyneo Maybe the AMD/Nvidia need to teak there drivers for this game. I've seen al lot of games come out and new drivers release in same time frame.
This is one of the places where a lot of hype for a game probably helps. A couple hundred posts on the AMD site about their drivers sucking while Nvidia's gets tripple digit FPS (or vice versa) will likely light a fire under the AMD driver devs.
A game no one cares about may just get a "sucks to be you", or "have you tried turning it off and back on?" reply.
Someone from Carbine recently posted that the game will be getting official support from AMD with the next ATI driver.
So my guess is that Carbine won't do anything in regards to the bad performance on ATIs until then.
How is it Carbines fault? Last I checked they made games not videocards.
FIrst of all, I did not say its Carbine's fault.
And last time i checked, Carbine recommends ATI 5830 (or better), while actually the game doesnt run properly on ATis of the latest series.
It is however their fault to release a game that runs below any reasonable performance on machines way above their own "recommended machine specs". You can do that with some F2P crap, but not a $60 title that comes with a sub.
Originally posted by holyneo Maybe the AMD/Nvidia need to teak there drivers for this game. I've seen al lot of games come out and new drivers release in same time frame.
This is one of the places where a lot of hype for a game probably helps. A couple hundred posts on the AMD site about their drivers sucking while Nvidia's gets tripple digit FPS (or vice versa) will likely light a fire under the AMD driver devs.
A game no one cares about may just get a "sucks to be you", or "have you tried turning it off and back on?" reply.
Someone from Carbine recently posted that the game will be getting official support from AMD with the next ATI driver.
So my guess is that Carbine won't do anything in regards to the bad performance on ATIs until then.
i have an i7 4770k and 2 x Radeon R9 290s - only running 1 in my gaming rig at the moment, the other is in another PC... but i'm getting fine FPS, like i said i made a detailed post about it last week or something with screenshots and all.... the ATI driver support will only make it better, not playable.
Originally posted by holyneo Maybe the AMD/Nvidia need to teak there drivers for this game. I've seen al lot of games come out and new drivers release in same time frame.
This is one of the places where a lot of hype for a game probably helps. A couple hundred posts on the AMD site about their drivers sucking while Nvidia's gets tripple digit FPS (or vice versa) will likely light a fire under the AMD driver devs.
A game no one cares about may just get a "sucks to be you", or "have you tried turning it off and back on?" reply.
Someone from Carbine recently posted that the game will be getting official support from AMD with the next ATI driver.
So my guess is that Carbine won't do anything in regards to the bad performance on ATIs until then.
How is it Carbines fault? Last I checked they made games not videocards.
FIrst of all, I did not say its Carbine's fault.
And last time i checked, Carbine recommends ATI 5830 (or better), while actually the game doesnt run properly on ATis of the latest series.
It is however their fault to release a game that runs below any reasonable performance on machines way above their own "recommended machine specs". You can do that with some F2P crap, but not a $60 title that comes with a sub.
"So my guess is that Carbine won't do anything in regards to the bad performance on ATIs until then."
My 7970 is doing fine, and i'm running eyefinity. I know AMD needs to tweak the drivers on this game.
"You can do that with some F2P crap, but not a $60 title that comes with a sub." Blizzard has always had crossfire/eyefinity issues. Trust me I know.
This game still has 7 days till release. Give them a chance. Have you forced the game to run in dx9?
Performance is awful for a game that is graphically inferior to most other games out right now. I have been doing this for 15 years, I know a badly written/poorly optimized game when I see it. I was going to buy Wildstar, but I won't because it runs like garbage. Their decision to ignore the issue has only solidified my opinion that it will be some time before they work this out, if ever.
There's still a lot of optimisation they can and probably will do on their side. From what i've read over the past couple of months it seems to be the CPU holding most people back. Even overclocked i5's (which i also use) seem to be bottlenecking resulting in low GPU usage. Personally i've never seen GPU usage above 81%, even when i swap out my 280x for my old 7850 it's the same framerate.
Originally posted by TerminalDeity Performance is awful for a game that is graphically inferior to most other games out right now. I have been doing this for 15 years, I know a badly written/poorly optimized game when I see it. I was going to buy Wildstar, but I won't because it runs like garbage. Their decision to ignore the issue has only solidified my opinion that it will be some time before they work this out, if ever.
I highly doubt anything you say because what your describing is their art style and not the " graphics " you so fondly are throwing around and if you have been in this field for fifteen years and also believe graphics are " written " within a engine then i have to question your experience because the reason games like wild-star and guild wars 2 use these proprietary engines is because of the technical overlay of systems in actions to receive and send data packets to orchestrate simple run animations with trajectory and in pvp these subsystems work overtime. Because the art style is less demanding the engine has more forward functionality. The optimization at the current crossroads is inline with what is expected. Incremental patches are much more progressive then "super patches" as someone else already stated. This way performance can be monitored and increased efficiently. So please state your argument as a opinion and not a fact because what you have said is not relevant nor constructive.
Originally posted by TerminalDeity Performance is awful for a game that is graphically inferior to most other games out right now. I have been doing this for 15 years, I know a badly written/poorly optimized game when I see it. I was going to buy Wildstar, but I won't because it runs like garbage. Their decision to ignore the issue has only solidified my opinion that it will be some time before they work this out, if ever.
I highly doubt anything you say because what your describing is their art style and not the " graphics " you so fondly are throwing around and if you have been in this field for fifteen years and also believe graphics are " written " within a engine then i have to question your experience because the reason games like wild-star and guild wars 2 use these proprietary engines is because of the technical overlay of systems in actions to receive and send data packets to orchestrate simple run animations with trajectory and in pvp these subsystems work overtime. Because the art style is less demanding the engine has more forward functionality. The optimization at the current crossroads is inline with what is expected. Incremental patches are much more progressive then "super patches" as someone else already stated. This way performance can be monitored and increased efficiently. So please state your argument as a opinion and not a fact because what you have said is not relevant nor constructive.
and to add to this, while the art style clearly isnt to his liking, that also has nothing todo with the way the graphics run, character and object textures are actually pretty high quality in detail... the grass and grounds arent amazing even with clutter turned up but that also comes down to design choice, the game isnt meant to look like it has "realistic grass" it's not meant to be a realistic looking game... but again the textures and poly counts are fairly high in max settings... so while the art style might not be to his liking, the graphics are fairly high quality for what they have gone with. I too question his 15 years of experience... maybe more to the point "15 years of playing games so i'm an expert on the inner workings of game engines and graphic design"
Why bother with ATI? (as a consumer for video games)
This seems to be more of an issue with ATI driver instability rather than WS.
If people just bought nvidia for video games then they wouldnt have to worry about driver issues.
i dont see how you figure that, my AMD r9 290's have no trouble playing anything, i think it comes down more to user end, people using outdated drivers, people not caring for hardware properly...
like i said previously my R9 290 in single card mode plays anywhere between 75 - 90 and in some open areas anywhere upto 120 fps and thats without updated drivers from ATI.. the fact is, AMD cards are actually starting to become better then nvidia cards video wise, i'd still take an intel chip over a AMD chip anyday, for a lower price point. As more games also start to support AMD mantle, it'll really start to blow nvidia cards out of the water.
Now i was always Nvidia, i've had nvidia cards for years, 6800, 9800, 280, 480, 580, 2 x 680s and even older models i dont really remember anymore to be quite honest. but after looking at hardware reviews when i was updating my video cards
compared to a GTX780 my card in basically all benchmarks tested to be about 1% less in performance on stock settings, for a card that is on average $200 - $300 cheaper depending on brands n such.
I read that crap over and over and over again. It's false, lies, mumbojumbo. If you want a game to run well you bet your money on your GPU. Any kind of modern game, you bet your money on your GPU. Just make sure your CPU isn't bottlenecking your GPU too much and you're good to go.
I've seen people spending money on a SSD and/or CPU instead of replacing their poor GPU just to be stuck on the same crappy FPS situation. Get a good balance between CPU and GPU but always go for a better for a better GPU if you have to choose between those 2.
Originally posted by fivoroth Buy Geforce GTX 790. Then if you can't run at max, come back.
Want to address those two posts.
Suggesting a buy a dual gpu solution (GTX x90 cards are 2x x80 cards in one) is never a good solution because most of the time SLI is not properly supported and require first of all full implementation in the game engine to offer full support + a driver profile!. If those two aren't present you might as try to try to win an offroad race with speedboat Known problems of bad SLI implementation "Microstutter" and worse FPS than using a single card. And to remedy this you'd need to disable the second gpu.
Not saying SLI isn't valid if it is properly used it is great! But as of right now its a buzzword not being worth the extra money spend 80% of the time.
Now to the CPU dependency issue. As of right now MMOs and most of the online games are more reliant on your CPU. To be more precise on strong single thread performance. There are not alot of MMOs that make use of 2+ cores. So you usually see if you check your task manager during MMO play that1 or two of your threads are around 80-90% percent and the rest hovers around 20-30%. Which shows that the game is no making use of all available resources. So the game needs great single threaded performance.
Because of the newer console generation (which make us of more than 6 cores) we will see a shift of more and more games making use of all your cores but for that transition to happen we still need to wait a bit.
Same goes for offloading more and more stuff to the GPU which is hard to do in online games because most of the calculation done is related to network stuff. (Hence why in mmos the more players you have on the screen the more your cpu has to work to process all the registered inputs of the other players)
Sure a strong GPU doesn't hurt! But when your cpu is already overworked it has a hard time sending data to the GPU (i.e bottlenecking).
All in all Kinado isn't that wrong. It just depends a whole lot on what you are playing. So don't think of upgrading your GPU first everytime a game doesn't work that good for you.
Especially if a game is still in beta. Wait until release and maybe for the first driver update dedicated to the game. (If its a highprofile one usually GPU manufactures will work on increasing fps in those games)
And of course there is always the possibility that low fps aren't your fault and is simply a game problem that hopefully gets addressed.
P.S Don't buy SSD and expect an FPS boost. They will improve your loadtimes and most of the time remedy if you get stutter when the game has to load assets.
Originally posted by redbug Originally posted by AxxarYeah, getting low framerates in a low graphics game on a rig that runs Skyrim maxed at a steady 60 FPS is not very enjoyable. But Carbine says they are working on it, so my advice to OP is to check back later and see if it's improved.
How can you compare a RPG with a MMO? Besides Skyrim is a 2011 game, a crappy 2014 laptop should run it just fine.A crappy 2005 laptop should be able to run Wildstar fluidly then since its graphics are comparable to games released back then. Which is why it's a problem that vastly superior games in terms of graphics such as Skyrim, Far Cry 3 and Elder Scrolls Online run fluidly whereas WildStar does not, for many users with powerful hardware.
Comments
Not true, for me, I was getting around 15-25 fps and now I get a constant 55-70. So for me, it has improved with every closed beta that they did.
See and this reply right here is why youll probably never get any help. You clearly know it ALL and yet can fix nothing. And for you to be computer gaming and NOT know your CPU specs right off the bat is a F'n shame.
Again pointless, if you have nothing more inteligent to say don't waste my time.
This reminds me just of that one guy who posted in the official forums, blaming the player's PCs and telling them to upgrade but in the same post stated that he has to check his own specs when he gets home from work.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
This is one of the places where a lot of hype for a game probably helps. A couple hundred posts on the AMD site about their drivers sucking while Nvidia's gets tripple digit FPS (or vice versa) will likely light a fire under the AMD driver devs.
A game no one cares about may just get a "sucks to be you", or "have you tried turning it off and back on?" reply.
Someone from Carbine recently posted that the game will be getting official support from AMD with the next ATI driver.
So my guess is that Carbine won't do anything in regards to the bad performance on ATIs until then.
How is it Carbines fault? Last I checked they made games not videocards.
you're right, during closed beta it ws never fixed, they didnt care about optimization
but since the beta weekends, beta 10 days and now OPs week... every patch the optimization gets better and better
before used to get like 40fps or something, not on average between 75 - 90 fps.. and in low pop areas it goes as high as 120
i actually made a post about this not long ago with screenshots. It's becoming less and less of an issue, maybe actually try the game now instead of speaking about closed beta and say the devs are doing nothing, because every patch lately you can see the patch notes for optimization and see the frames improving in game
FIrst of all, I did not say its Carbine's fault.
And last time i checked, Carbine recommends ATI 5830 (or better), while actually the game doesnt run properly on ATis of the latest series.
It is however their fault to release a game that runs below any reasonable performance on machines way above their own "recommended machine specs". You can do that with some F2P crap, but not a $60 title that comes with a sub.
i have an i7 4770k and 2 x Radeon R9 290s - only running 1 in my gaming rig at the moment, the other is in another PC... but i'm getting fine FPS, like i said i made a detailed post about it last week or something with screenshots and all.... the ATI driver support will only make it better, not playable.
"So my guess is that Carbine won't do anything in regards to the bad performance on ATIs until then."
My 7970 is doing fine, and i'm running eyefinity. I know AMD needs to tweak the drivers on this game.
"You can do that with some F2P crap, but not a $60 title that comes with a sub." Blizzard has always had crossfire/eyefinity issues. Trust me I know.
This game still has 7 days till release. Give them a chance. Have you forced the game to run in dx9?
There are some areas it acts a little weird by my FPS is consistent. It could be better though and I am hoping it does improve.
But the FPS is already around 40 most of the time. I can live with that.
I highly doubt anything you say because what your describing is their art style and not the " graphics " you so fondly are throwing around and if you have been in this field for fifteen years and also believe graphics are " written " within a engine then i have to question your experience because the reason games like wild-star and guild wars 2 use these proprietary engines is because of the technical overlay of systems in actions to receive and send data packets to orchestrate simple run animations with trajectory and in pvp these subsystems work overtime. Because the art style is less demanding the engine has more forward functionality. The optimization at the current crossroads is inline with what is expected. Incremental patches are much more progressive then "super patches" as someone else already stated. This way performance can be monitored and increased efficiently. So please state your argument as a opinion and not a fact because what you have said is not relevant nor constructive.
Just played it on ultra-high on an i5 4670K w/ AMD R9 200. FPS around 40 most of the time, no noticeable slowdown in PvE or battlegrounds.
If they are still optimizing the AMD side the future looks so bright, I'll need shades!
Why bother with ATI? (as a consumer for video games)
This seems to be more of an issue with ATI driver instability rather than WS.
If people just bought nvidia for video games then they wouldnt have to worry about driver issues.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
and to add to this, while the art style clearly isnt to his liking, that also has nothing todo with the way the graphics run, character and object textures are actually pretty high quality in detail... the grass and grounds arent amazing even with clutter turned up but that also comes down to design choice, the game isnt meant to look like it has "realistic grass" it's not meant to be a realistic looking game... but again the textures and poly counts are fairly high in max settings... so while the art style might not be to his liking, the graphics are fairly high quality for what they have gone with. I too question his 15 years of experience... maybe more to the point "15 years of playing games so i'm an expert on the inner workings of game engines and graphic design"
i dont see how you figure that, my AMD r9 290's have no trouble playing anything, i think it comes down more to user end, people using outdated drivers, people not caring for hardware properly...
like i said previously my R9 290 in single card mode plays anywhere between 75 - 90 and in some open areas anywhere upto 120 fps and thats without updated drivers from ATI.. the fact is, AMD cards are actually starting to become better then nvidia cards video wise, i'd still take an intel chip over a AMD chip anyday, for a lower price point. As more games also start to support AMD mantle, it'll really start to blow nvidia cards out of the water.
Now i was always Nvidia, i've had nvidia cards for years, 6800, 9800, 280, 480, 580, 2 x 680s and even older models i dont really remember anymore to be quite honest. but after looking at hardware reviews when i was updating my video cards
compared to a GTX780 my card in basically all benchmarks tested to be about 1% less in performance on stock settings, for a card that is on average $200 - $300 cheaper depending on brands n such.
Want to address those two posts.
Suggesting a buy a dual gpu solution (GTX x90 cards are 2x x80 cards in one) is never a good solution because most of the time SLI is not properly supported and require first of all full implementation in the game engine to offer full support + a driver profile!. If those two aren't present you might as try to try to win an offroad race with speedboat Known problems of bad SLI implementation "Microstutter" and worse FPS than using a single card. And to remedy this you'd need to disable the second gpu.
Not saying SLI isn't valid if it is properly used it is great! But as of right now its a buzzword not being worth the extra money spend 80% of the time.
Now to the CPU dependency issue. As of right now MMOs and most of the online games are more reliant on your CPU. To be more precise on strong single thread performance. There are not alot of MMOs that make use of 2+ cores. So you usually see if you check your task manager during MMO play that1 or two of your threads are around 80-90% percent and the rest hovers around 20-30%. Which shows that the game is no making use of all available resources. So the game needs great single threaded performance.
Because of the newer console generation (which make us of more than 6 cores) we will see a shift of more and more games making use of all your cores but for that transition to happen we still need to wait a bit.
Same goes for offloading more and more stuff to the GPU which is hard to do in online games because most of the calculation done is related to network stuff. (Hence why in mmos the more players you have on the screen the more your cpu has to work to process all the registered inputs of the other players)
Sure a strong GPU doesn't hurt! But when your cpu is already overworked it has a hard time sending data to the GPU (i.e bottlenecking).
All in all Kinado isn't that wrong. It just depends a whole lot on what you are playing. So don't think of upgrading your GPU first everytime a game doesn't work that good for you.
Especially if a game is still in beta. Wait until release and maybe for the first driver update dedicated to the game. (If its a highprofile one usually GPU manufactures will work on increasing fps in those games)
And of course there is always the possibility that low fps aren't your fault and is simply a game problem that hopefully gets addressed.
P.S Don't buy SSD and expect an FPS boost. They will improve your loadtimes and most of the time remedy if you get stutter when the game has to load assets.
A crappy 2005 laptop should be able to run Wildstar fluidly then since its graphics are comparable to games released back then. Which is why it's a problem that vastly superior games in terms of graphics such as Skyrim, Far Cry 3 and Elder Scrolls Online run fluidly whereas WildStar does not, for many users with powerful hardware.