Video or CPU upgrade for Warhammer Online?

[Scrimmy]

Just picked up Warhammer Online and I'm having a real blast with the RvR. My system was new and mid-range last year so it may be getting a little long in the tooth already and I'd just like up to upgrade the performance a bit to handle large-scale battles better.

Here's my current system:
Asus IP35-E
Intel e2160 CPU clocked at 3.0
Nvidia 8800GT, 512meg
4gig RAM
Windows Vista Home Premium x64
Playing at 1680x1050 but upgrading to a bigger monitor that'll play at 1920x1200 soon.

In general the performance is excellent and I have few issues. I do, however, get some serious choppiness in larger battles when you've got 30+ people on the screen at once, especially in a keep setting.

My initial thought was just to upgrade the video card, but I know MMOs tend to be a bit on the CPU-heavy side rather than purely video card-intensive.

I'll probably end up upgrading both at some point, but I'm considering either
a) upgrading to a Q6600 or comparable CPU
b) upgrading an ATI 4870 video card.

I know I'll probably need to upgrade the video card anyway to run well at higher resolutions, but mostly right now I'm curious which of the two upgrades would help run it best at 1680x1050 for the short haul.

Thanks!

 

[SneakyStuff]

Not really sure how to answer this since you are going to be upgrading everything. But if that were my system I would get a new CPU first. Your video card should be more than enough for that game at your current resolution.

 

[imported_Maz]

You really don't need an upgrade to handle the game imo... 1680x1050 in warhammer is cake for a single 8800gt. I would dare to say your choppiness in those battles won't go away with a quad core and 4870. Good luck though.

 

[Scrimmy]

Originally posted by: Maz
You really don't need an upgrade to handle the game imo... 1680x1050 in warhammer is cake for a single 8800gt. I would dare to say your choppiness in those battles won't go away with a quad core and 4870. Good luck though.

Actually, that's a good point I forgot to mention; I know there are a lot of other limitations upstream that could affect performance on my end, especially server latency with that many people packed into one area. I'd be curious to hear what kind of luck someone with a good, current high-end system was having in large RvR battles.

I'm currently running everything on high, I'll have to mess around with some lower settings to help get a sense of how much of it is coming from computer and how much is coming from the servers.

 

[imported_Maz]

That's where I would start.

 

[Concillian]

I don't know about WHammer RvR, but my guess is the thing you have the most control over is the CPU.

I did some pretty extensive experiments on my own system when I was big into WoW, and basically the CPU was the important part in ALL of the times I experienced slowdowns in WoW (lots of people in Shatt, Hyjal trash, SSC water areas, etc...) I wouldn't expect WHammer to be all that different in that aspect.

That being said, I really don't think you'll see a big difference from a C2D at 3.0 to a C2Q that you'll probably get to OC to about 3.0.

If you want to be positive, play some RvR at 1280x
then go back to 1680x and play some at stock CPU speed

See which is worse, or if slowdowns are server / lag related. Make decision accordingly.

 

[soccerballtux]

Going to the C2Q might help. A Q6600 @3Ghz is like 2 of my E2180's (or your e2160's) at 3.4Ghz. If you can go to 3.6Ghz on the quad (possible) all the better). Anybody know how Warhammer handles multiple cores?

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Anybody know how Warhammer handles multiple cores?

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6197926/p-5.html

was all I could find. Not the most detailed review, but they saw ~7% better with C2Q vs. C2D at the same speed.

Average framerate is almost useless though. My experience with MMOs like this is you spend a bunch of time alone or in small groups with perfect performance and then you get into a situation where 40+ people are on screen and only then do things matter.

The tested scenarios are usually when there is less going on, and the factors impacting performance are inevitably different from when you actually care about performance.

 

[toronado97]

I'm not sure what you're using for HD's, as you didn't post it, but the single biggest upgrade I made in terms of choppiness for WoW was adding a second HD. Put Windows on drive #1, and all program files/games on drive #2 and you should see a significant decrease in load times, any type of load lag associated with disk access, etc. You already have 4GB of RAM which should be fine. Assuming you're already using the dual HD method, I would suggest grabbing an E8400 and OCing the heck out of it as that would be the next logical performance increase imo.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Maz
You really don't need an upgrade to handle the game imo... 1680x1050 in warhammer is cake for a single 8800gt. I would dare to say your choppiness in those battles won't go away with a quad core and 4870. Good luck though.

Yes. My friend's rig is an E5200 @ 3.75Ghz, and a 9600GSO (8800GS rebranded) at 600/1500/1000. He gets choppiness sometimes, and not in a keep scenario, just questing in the starting maps. I daresay it's the WAR servers themselves that cause choppiness, and not the hardware. The identical hardware plays mostly smooth as silk in WoW, in fact that was with an E2200 @ 2.93Ghz and a 6600GT.

He plays at 1280x768.

I noticed another thing, there's no in-game option that I can find to enable AA. Has anyone else figured out how to enable AA in this game?

 

[toronado97]

Force it in your nVidia control panel.

 

[Scrimmy]

Just a quick note: I've been doing some more reading about WAR performance, and apparently part of the problem with the choppiness in large-scale RvR has to do with client-side updating of status effects, along with a few other issues. I'm at work and game sites are blocked, unfortunately, so I can't provide any links.

I'm actually still considering a CPU upgrade just for more cache and a bit of a performance boost, so would the consensus for this generally be that a quad-core or a higher-clock dual-core would be better for a game like this? Basically considering either a Q6600 or an E8400.

 

[imported_TimBob]

I don't know first hand whether the game is optomized for quad core, but many on the Warhammer Alliance forums seem to think it does utilize all four cores although not that efficiently.

For those wondering how it runs with a high end machine, I have a fairly high end machine, so here you go. I'm currently running the game with an e8400@4.0, 2x4870s, 8GB memory at 1920x1200 with 24xAA and 16AF. I play on Skull Throne which is usually a full server and in normal PVE areas I'm at 85-100 FPS. Warcamps, crowded areas and RVR (30+ people) is anywhere from 50-100. It's pretty flawless. Only issue with the game so far is alt-tabbing which sometimes screws up textures or just gives me a black screen requiring that I kill the game.

 

[imported_TimBob]

Originally posted by: Scrimmy
Just a quick note: I've been doing some more reading about WAR performance, and apparently part of the problem with the choppiness in large-scale RvR has to do with client-side updating of status effects, along with a few other issues. I'm at work and game sites are blocked, unfortunately, so I can't provide any links.

I'm actually still considering a CPU upgrade just for more cache and a bit of a performance boost, so would the consensus for this generally be that a quad-core or a higher-clock dual-core would be better for a game like this? Basically considering either a Q6600 or an E8400.

In my opinion and experience, the higher clocked e8400 is better for gaming. I have had both in the same machine and preferred the e8400 for my gaming system. That was q6600@3.2 and e8400@4.0. I didn't do any specific benchmarking to prove it, but it just felt better. I don't think you could go wrong with either though.

Also, I have a bad taste in my mouth from my q6600 because I spent so much time trying to get 3.6 and just couldn't do it.

 

[Scrimmy]

Originally posted by: TimBob

Originally posted by: Scrimmy
Just a quick note: I've been doing some more reading about WAR performance, and apparently part of the problem with the choppiness in large-scale RvR has to do with client-side updating of status effects, along with a few other issues. I'm at work and game sites are blocked, unfortunately, so I can't provide any links.

I'm actually still considering a CPU upgrade just for more cache and a bit of a performance boost, so would the consensus for this generally be that a quad-core or a higher-clock dual-core would be better for a game like this? Basically considering either a Q6600 or an E8400.

In my opinion and experience, the higher clocked e8400 is better for gaming. I have had both in the same machine and preferred the e8400 for my gaming system. That was q6600@3.2 and e8400@4.0. I didn't do any specific benchmarking to prove it, but it just felt better. I don't think you could go wrong with either though.

Also, I have a bad taste in my mouth from my q6600 because I spent so much time trying to get 3.6 and just couldn't do it.

Great, thanks for the info.

The E8400 does sound more like what I'm looking for. I don't really do much video processing or anything like that, so unless there are any games that are really optimizes for quad-core I won't get too much benefit from it. They seem overclockable as hell, too, which is a nice bonus. Have to say, I was thrilled when I got my E2160, dropped it in, and it's been running beautifully for a year at 3.0 with the stock fan. Hopefully I'll have similar luck with an E8400.

 

[toronado97]

TimBob, run Warhammer in windowed mode, with the window frame off, at the same resolution as your desktop. It will look just like fullscreen mode, except you don't get the alt-tab bug.