Is everyone getting terrible FPS in World in Conflict?

[JPB]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: JPB
Resolution: 1280*800
Detail Level: Very High
Average fps: 4
Min fps: 1
Max fps: 15

I have the worst results yet. :Q

I think you cpu is the culprit.

Absolutely. I am going to upgrade. But i'm not going to until Phenom Quad and the new Intels are out to decide. Barely getting by with this cpu..but barely is better than not at all.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: JPB

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: JPB
Resolution: 1280*800
Detail Level: Very High
Average fps: 4
Min fps: 1
Max fps: 15

I have the worst results yet. :Q

I think you cpu is the culprit.

Absolutely. I am going to upgrade. But i'm not going to until Phenom Quad and the new Intels are out to decide. Barely getting by with this cpu..but barely is better than not at all.

QFT. I'm waiting for the new chips as well. Too late in the game to go C2D. I dont nupgrade my CPu very often, I usually roll with what I got for 2 years or so.

It will be interesting to see what kind of performance improvements I get when I upgrade my CPU. I still am not totally convinced that my CPU is bottlenecking my 2900XT at 1920x1200. I could maybe understand if it was in World in Conflict since RTS games seem to be much more CPU dependent than FPS.

 

[LiquidFlame]

Yea Vista sucks, here were my stats with and average after four passes:

XP
AVG:36
Min:14.75
Max:80.5

Vista without DX10
Avg:27.75
Min:12.25
Max:66.25

Vista with DX10
Avg:28.25
Min:11.5
Max:65.25


This is with:
1280x1024
Detail Level: Very High
4x/4x AA/AF

 

[JPB]

Another review for World In Conflict

Here

 

[Munky]

I just tried the demo, and I think AA is always on, because even if I turn it off I still see no jaggies. That said, I played at 1024x768, and with custom medium-high settings I'm only getting about 18fps average, and 9 min in the benchmark. During gameplay it seems to hover in the mid 20s. I'm going to play around with the settings some more to see if I'm limited by the cpu or the gpu. My guess now is that the game is just too stressful on the gpu even at this resolution.

 

[daveybrat]

I'm downloading the demo at home while i work.

I'll install it later today and see how it plays on my rig below.

 

[videopho]

Demo:
16aa/16af
Latest Beta Vista 64 16x.xx & RT2.04 (o/c:621/1000)

Avg = 24
Min = 12
Max = 54

In rig #2 (sig below)

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: videopho
Demo:
16aa/16af
Latest Beta Vista 64 16x.xx & RT2.04 (o/c:621/1000)

Avg = 24
Min = 12
Max = 54

In rig #2 (sig below)

What resolution and settings are you using to get 24fps average with 16x/16x AA/AF?

 

[cmdrdredd]

The demo runs terribly for me to be honest. Hard getting 25fps averages on very high.

 

[videopho]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: videopho
Demo:
16aa/16af
Latest Beta Vista 64 16x.xx & RT2.04 (o/c:621/1000)

Avg = 24
Min = 12
Max = 54

In rig #2 (sig below)

What resolution and settings are you using to get 24fps average with 16x/16x AA/AF?

1680x1050
Game setting is to very high.

The current game frame rate is very playable or fairly smooth.

 

[TC91]

*V sync on (i dont like screen tearing)
1680x1050 very high -> 12/5/2 fps max/avg/min
1680x1050 high -> 60/26/14 fps max/avg/min
1680x1050 medium (dx10 enabled) -> 60/47/22 max/avg/min
I was in a bit of disbelief when it was so choppy even with the high setting and with a lot of different custom settings, and i gave up and set it to medium settings but enabled dx10 rendering and v sync in the options to get it very playable.