Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Will I run Vanguard?
Lustmord
Member UncommonPosts: 1,114
I can run EQ2, Tabula Rasa, and Quake Wars.
Will VG run well?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Lustmord
Member UncommonPosts: 1,114
I can run EQ2, Tabula Rasa, and Quake Wars.
Will VG run well?
Comments
Vangaurd is more of a system hog than the ones you have mentioned...
I don't have the specs but I know it recommends at least 2g of Ram and a 3. something GHZ processor
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest
Ok here's the deal:
I got a 1.8 Duel Core proccessor, and 2 gigs of ram.
That's what makes me wonder..
I played a month ago with a 2ghz dual core, 2 gigs ram, and a 8600m gt card and I was able to play decently with the right settings. In the open areas I got 40-50fps, 10-30 in town. However although I generally got good fps, I hitched a lot more than people with good systems. The hitching problem I experienced was mostly in towns. Also because my settings were not very high I couldn't experience the beauty of the world which I know is there from when I tried it with the highest settings and from screenshots. If you have a tolerance for not having the best performance give it a try, but I have given up until I get a new pc.
looks like you need to upgrade your cpu (VG does not take advantage of dual cores) to at least a 2.4, would be best to get a min of a 2.8 though, a GOOD graphics card
- 2 bg ram
- cual core
- - 7900 up
+ - all max
Not flame baiting, but didnt brad at one point say that hardware was going to have to catch up to this game??????
How the crap is hardware going to catch up if it doesnt take advantage of dual core processors? Seriously I am very interested in the idea of this game, but christ they just need to scrap it already and start all over...
Well, Im truly no hardware expert, but atm my understanding is, that most of the games dont use multi-processors.
Just as an example I went to google, put in "support multi processor lotr" and this was the first hit:
forums.lotro.com/showthread.php
AoC should support multi processors, at least I hope it does. You might check the AoC forum and ask there.
VG has improved a lot but I don't know about a 1.8ghz cpu. That is pretty old by todays standards.
VG works best with 2g ram
2.4ghz cpu although this is probably got some wiggle room
Definitely need a good graphics card. You need at least 256mb of memory on the card and you need a reasonably modern card.
They have improved VG a lot since release. Memory for example is WAY down. If you really stripted an XP system down getting rid of the 3rd party stuff I'm sure you could even get VG to run in 1g. When I'm running it it rarely goes above 750MB of memory for the client. Although memory is cheap so I'd definitely go with 2g since if it starts swaping it is lag city.
Multicore support requires multitreaded code which is difficult to do. Also keep in mind that even if the game doesn't support multicore you do get some benefit. Like when I upgraded to a multicore CPU from an AMD 2800 which BTW I did play VG with, I saw a big improvement due to the OS running drivers and stuff in other cores freeing up the core running VG to only handle VG. Where this made a diff was with the logitech mouse drivers. Before I couldn't run the logitech drivers and had to use the stripted down drivers else my mouse would lag. Now I can run the logitech tools and it is snappy and never lags.
Also newer cores perform better then older cores even if the clock speeds are the same. The reason is that cpu instructions don't execute in one clock cycle. They take many cycles and newer CPUs reduce the number of cycles for instructions. So for example a compare instruction might take 8 cycles in an older CPU but only take 6 in a newer cpu.
In any event VG performance seems to be heavily tied to the graphics card and not the CPU. So it benefits largely from newer graphics cards. This is far different then EQ2 where they did most of the graphics in CPU so today EQ2 still doesn't perform hugely better then it did at release and the devs have said it would require a massive rewrite of eq2 to make it take advantage of newer graphic hardware.
---
Ethion
Yeah you are wrong, pretty much any non indie game released in the last two years supports dual cores, and some are even supporting up to quad cores, including crysis, and the unreal engine.
Which wasnt Vanguard based off the unreal engine? God they really screwed that engine up rescripting it.
Remember my true problem with all of this is Vanguard is based off the Unreal Engine. The Unreal Engine has support for multiple cores, and has for a while now, and Brad used the scape goat when the game was released that hardware would need to catch up. How is it going to catch up when you are not even supporting new hardware? Genius!
Vanguard is based on unreal 2.5 engine which did not support multicore.
Games can claim to support multicore but still not make use of them
I'm a programer and know a bit about writing multithreaded code. There are two aspects to do this one being able to do it, and two being able to do it where you get some really good bang for the buck. Case in point, AoC supports multicore and the performance still sucks.
In any event Vanguard is just a bit before multicore was prevelent and rewriting it to support multicore is probably not something that is gonna happen soon. In spite of this the performance of VG on current hardware is good so it is really a non issue.
---
Ethion
Vanguard is based on unreal 2.5 engine which did not support multicore.
Games can claim to support multicore but still not make use of them
I'm a programer and know a bit about writing multithreaded code. There are two aspects to do this one being able to do it, and two being able to do it where you get some really good bang for the buck. Case in point, AoC supports multicore and the performance still sucks.
In any event Vanguard is just a bit before multicore was prevelent and rewriting it to support multicore is probably not something that is gonna happen soon. In spite of this the performance of VG on current hardware is good so it is really a non issue.
I take back some of what I said then I was basing what I said on the first few posts that do make it seem like Vanguard is getting poor performance on newer machines. Specifically the poster that told someone that already has a core duo processor that its time to upgrade, because Vanguard does not support multicore processors. Which is just stupid, any game really should run on any core duo at this point.
Also I should make it known, that I have never played Vanguard, i would love to, because I have heard good things about it the last few months. I was more of bashing the fact that Brad said hardware would need to catch up, which is just asinine for him to have said fully knowing that at the time his game was not going to support the next big thing in hardware.
I have feeling that, his statement was just his scape goat in not giving his programmers enough time to optimize the engine, due to making them from what I have read basically rewrite the majority of the engine they had already licensed.
Ok I think I want to try VG.
This is what I run.
AMD 6000+ Windsor
4gig Corsair mem
2 XFX 7600GT overclocks in SLi mode.
Will this be good enough to play VG on higher settings?
it will run it but not on highest settings. The weak point on your system is your video card. The 7600GT isn't a strong graphics card and SLI won't buy you anything.
---
Ethion
Most games are not multi-threaded, its a shame their not then you wouldn't as many perfromance issues.
sony has already spent over 100 mil on VG (most of that was from buying the licensing rights) on a game that took a long ass time to create its not that easy to scrap it and start over, that would be like buying a new house then 3 months later demolishing it and building a new one, its a waste of a lot of money
I don't think multithreading will be effective in any software until much better development tools are created to support it. Unfortunately people think rather single threaded and creating code that is multithreaded is pretty difficult and in some cases it is just hard to come up with an algorithm that uses it.... Multicore is great for servers where there are many processes but a single process that is multicore is hard to do....
And even worse even if you do figure out some multithreading for your application it is hard to make it effective to actually get much bang for the buck...
I do think that Intel has a hot idea with a multicore graphics card. Graphics and real time 3d stuff does lend itself to multithread applications and building it into a driver or graphics library might be the best way to get a big boost in performance. The new vid card from Intel might very well blow Nvidia and ATI off the map or at least give them a serious wakup call and get them off the stupid SLI/Crossfire design.
---
Ethion
If you can run EQ2 on the highest settings, then you can run VG on medium settings. I ran both for awhile side by side. VG is more system intensive because of the landscape and detail when running on Ultra settings.
If you can run EQ2 on the highest settings, then you can run VG on medium settings. I ran both for awhile side by side. VG is more system intensive because of the landscape and detail when running on Ultra settings.
My system runs VG better then eq2... I think that the reason for that is that EQ2 is largely dependent on CPU for graphics performance where VG uses the GPU far more. Since EQ2 was designed using the CPU and really depending on the CPU to improve which it hasn't as much as expected EQ2 hasn't seen the performance improvements they had hoped for. The devs have also said rewriting the game engine to use the GPU more isn't something they can do as it is a very large project.
So for my system with a 2.6ghz quad cpu, 4g ram, vista 64, and an 8800gtx, I can run EQ2 with most things maxed although some options are killers like the option that animates grass as you move through it, can't recall the option name... Anyway some areas in EQ2 are huge memory hogs like Neriak which pushes my system upto 1.6-1.7gb of ram for the eq2 process.
VG on the other hand tends to use the GPU far more. I can play VG with every option maxed and I'm getting overal better fps then I get in eq2. When I had 2g with XP VG did a lot better compared to areas like Neriak because on high settings EQ2's memory use would cause the game to start swaping.
By contrast on memory usage I've never seen VG above 1gb and running through a couple zones and into NT my memory usage is below 800mb.
So comparing EQ2 and VG performance is difficult because the games are very different in how they work. EQ2 with a low cost or old graphics card will do better then VG on the same CPU. However VG will do better with a good graphics card and a lessor CPU.
---
Ethion