Post your performance

[Snowy]

Hey everybody, I'm trying to get a good idea on how H2V will run on my computer... If you could, post your specs (including the resolution you play on) and post how much FPS you get.

Thanks!

[Roostervier]

I get 40-75 fps in MP, and it varies in SP, depending on the number of AI on screen. My res is 1024x768, and you can see my specs through my profile.

[Snowy]

Oh yeah, and could you include what settings you have? (Including AA and AF) Thanks :)

[Roostervier]

Using my Catalyst Control Center for ATI cards, I use 4xAA and AF.

[blank98]

e6600 OC 3.0GHz
Nvidia 7900GS
2 gigs

I thinks that's all you need. I run the game on high at 1024x768 and 2x AA. Most multiplayer maps it runs fine, maybe 40+ fps at all times but some maps I get dips to 20. In singlie player most of the time it's 40+ but when theres a lot of shit happening I get uinder 20 and it get pretty choppy. The game is very poorly optimized, especially for a 3 year old game.

[MrUncool]

E6400
8800GTS 640MB in SLI
2 gb ddr2-800

16xaf/4xaa (only b/c it crashes if its different from ingame aa) 1680x1050 I consistently get over 40-50 FPS, I have yet to experience any lag. Same with only one 8800 installed.

[PTS]

AMD Athlon 3500+
1 GIG DDR RAM
8600 GTS


1200 x 900 Resolution at High Detail and AA disabled. I get 40-70 FPS, with VSYNC on.

Great performance. Once in awhile it will get choppy, but not often enough to complain about.

[Xetsuei]

c2e qx6800 OC to 4ghz
8800GTX SLI
2 gigs ddr2 1200

1920x1080 res high settings 4xAA 100+ fps all the time. Kinda sad seeing as my specs are so fucking high. :/

[InnerGoat]

Add more AA, Xet. :lol:

Opteron 165 @ 2.6Ghz
7950GT
2gb pc4000

1680x1050 4xAA (gamma corrected and transparency AA :D) 16xAF
Plays pretty good around 30-50fps.
Some dips into the 20's when a rocket or nade blows up covering the whole screen. :-3

[Syuusuke]

Let's see...

ATI radeon x1600xt (128 mb)
AMD athlon 3800+ (that dual core one)
1gb + 470mb flashy drive

I run at medium settings, I get about 60 fps in a few maps (i get 25+ in District) And in SP, well....pFFRRRTT

[Bossniak]

x1600
512MB RAM
Low settings 60-70 FPS usually.
:haw:

[InnerGoat]

At what resolutions? :v

[Con]

1280x1024
highest settings

75+ fps

<-----see comp stats

[soccerbummer1104]

40-75 fps
all high settings
look at specs in profile.

[Mr Buckshot]

Crap...some of you guys have better computers than I do and you get lag at 1024x768 on high? I was expecting to be running at 1680x1050 on full with 60 fps...the game seems to be more poorly optimized than I thought. Then again, Bungie no longer specializes in PC gaming, so it's to be expected.

There are far better looking games out there (Far Cry, Doom 3 engine, FEAR, etc) that may not be as well optimized as Source but can still be run on a 7600 GT at 1280x800 on high without lag.

I'm buying the game once I get off my lazy ass and go to the store. I predict to be stuck at 1024x768 on high with 30 fps?

[jahrain]

256 7600 Go
1gb ram
1.66 core 2 duo
800x600 screen res

40 - 60 fps on low settings for the first 15 minutes of gameplay, then it drops down to 10 - 20 fps. Must be damn memory leaks, never knew an xbox game could eat up so much ram so fast. Most other games, run great on my PC without this slow down 15 mins into gameplay.

[leorimolo]

Jaharin reading your reply worries me with my specs. I have a 7300 go and if your card gave you that performance then mine will...well =X

[Bossniak]

At what resolutions? :v

800x600 :awesome:

[Xetsuei]

I feel so sorry for you people with horrible comps. :-3

[InnerGoat]

800x600 :awesome:You poor thing. Are you going to upgrade that box ever? :-3

[SuperSunny]

Obviously after reading this thread, one must assume that something is wrong with the engine's optimization. I hope this is fixed in a patch. It's REALLY REALLY bad. A computer with at LEAST a 7600 and a gig of ram should be able to run H2V at a high res at high mode. Hell, FEAR looks better on a 9600xt with 512 mb ram than H2V on an x700 with a gig of ram. WAY better.

Considering which, I run Halo PC on a 9600xt with 512 mb ram, and H2V on an x700 with a gig of ram.

[Shaunington]

AMD 5000+ X2 (216MHZ x 12 Multi to get proper memory clocks)
G.Skill DDR II 800MHZ (running at 437MHZ. 874MHZ effective)
ATi x1950 Pro (Stock clocks and sometimes OC to 620/1650)

I can play at 1280 x 1024 (as high as monitor goes) and get 60FPS constant(vsync).

I chose to play:

1152 x 720 (window>fullscreen for h2v)
Medium Textures
2xAA
Record in FRAPS at half size (576 x 360) 50 - 60FPS.

For my specs (not the best, but fairly high up) this game runs fairly bad.

Especially seeing its November 9, 2004 stuff....

To put it into perspective, the Xbox had:

733MHZ INTEL MOBILITY CELERON!?!!!!(My processor is 2600MHZ per core essentially 5200MHZ) [HIGH PERFORMANCE CPU, NOT INTEL MOBILITY CELERON...]
64MB Samsung or Hynix (depending on Xbox revision) RAM (I have 32 x more ram than the xbox, and mine has a much higher speed/bandwidth...)
8 or 10GB HDD (I have about 170GB free across all drives)
Geforce 4 prototype graphics card (equivilent to GF4 MX440)(x1950 Pro. Nuff said)

It could run the game at 30FPS 99.99&#37; of the time at 640 x 480 or 720 x 480 (widescreen)

3 years on, we're using machines superior by rediculous amounts and its still not conistant FPS.

Go Figure MGS.

[Mr Buckshot]

Well, don't forget that the Xbox doesn't have a complex OS to handle, plus the game only needed to be optimized just for ONE set of parts since one Xbox won't have different specs from another - that's how console games can look and run so well.

On a PC, you have to accommodate so many parts it's not even funny. But many Xbox-to-PC ports like the Splinter Cell series and PS2-to-PC ports like GTA have done the job properly in less time than Hired Gun took to port the game, so that's no excuse. Sure, GTA for the PC has never taken that much advantage of PC hardware, but at least the framerates are good and the system requirements are justified, thus maintaining that fun factor. Hired Gun gives us terrible framerates on systems that should run the game well and ridiculous system requirements, thus removing the fun factor

[Shaunington]

Indeed, This port was done pretty badcore.

My PC would happily run Halo PC at 250 - 320FPS (down to about 150 on damnation) with everything on Full.

I can run Halo 2 Vista on medium settings at 150FPS at best on midship (vsync off, though vsync off sucks for mouth smoothness, so I play vsync on) Thats upto and including a 50&#37; decrease (without taking into account the fact I'm running the game on MEDIUM at a LOWER resolution.

...patches..

EDIT: Also, I understand the optimisation business, but did HG actually try? Gearbox didnt optimize for new hardware that well(becuase, well, it didnt exist at time of release) but it sure shat on this port.

And also, as anyone found a decent tradeoff between value and performance? It seems this game is so brutally inefficient that you need to fork out megabucks just to play the game at a decent resolution.

Surely during testing HG would have used atleast 4 or 5 different set of specs, and tried to make the game efficient across the board. Doesn't seem to have worked.

[Cortexian]

Are said FPS numbers coming from fraps, or is there a ingame debug code?

[Xetsuei]

(My processor is 2600MHZ per core essentially 5200MHZ)

FFS. YOU. CAN. NOT. ADD. UP. THE. SPEED. OF. YOU. CORES.

IF IT WAS LIKE THAT, MY PROCESSOR WOULD BE 16GHZ. I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE THATS NOT RIGHT.

[Bossniak]

You poor thing. Are you going to upgrade that box ever? :-3

As long as I own you I'm fine. :DAnd yes I am upgrading later this month.

[mech]

Send me cash now so I can sodomise everyone in h2v http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/captnkill.gif

[InnerGoat]

As long as I own you I'm fine. :DAnd yes I am upgrading later this month.Own this annoying mouse issue, you jerk. :o

[Mr Buckshot]

Still haven't gotten the game yet although I have Vista...

Yes, I was right - a short development cycle and stuff is no excuse for Hired Gun's shitty job at porting this game.

There are many games that were ported from consoles to PC's in short periods of time and they still ran well. The first Splinter Cell (the next games were released for multiple platforms at the same time) showed an excellent porting job, with the game truly taking advantage of good hardware while maintaining fair system requirements.

the GTA games, ported from the PS2, did not take much advantage of PC hardware, but ran well and had fair requirements. And they contained tiny enhancements (custom MP3s, replay mode, etc) that made GTA even better.

Metal Gear Solid 2 had some compatibility issues but a patch was released immediately, and the only bad thing is the controls, but a gamepad solves that. Framerates/graphics were decent.

And so on. As you can see, other companies have done decent, even terrific jobs when it comes to porting console games to PC. Hired Gun, hang your head in shame.

[Snaver]

1280x720@75hz
High Level of detail
2xAA
4xAF

50fps average id say

[Mr Buckshot]

Ok, I finally got the game!

1024x768 @ 60hz in window, medium settings, no AA or AF (you don't really need AA if you put the game in windowed mode)
30 fps mostly, around Xbox performance I'd say

Disappointing. Halo 1 runs at 1280x1024 (windowed) on maxed, and I get 100 fps (80 minimum).

Disappointing

[Skyline]

30 - 40 FPS on multiplayer.
1680 x 1050 resolution.

Specs:
-AMD 64 x2 dual core 2.5 GHz
-2 GB DDR2
-Nvidia 8600 GTS 256 mbs

[Shaunington]

Xetsuei™;77393']FFS. YOU. CAN. NOT. ADD. UP. THE. SPEED. OF. YOU. CORES.

IF IT WAS LIKE THAT, MY PROCESSOR WOULD BE 16GHZ. I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE THATS NOT RIGHT.

Caps is cool.

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/5954/rightttot5.jpg

2600MHZ Per core. 2 Cores.

Each core is independant in that it can use 100&#37; while the other core is using 0%

Each core acting as a singular processor, both having individual caches and linked at the SRI/Crossbar switch.

Now, If I have 2 x 2600 MHz, How many MHz does that make?

I'm not saying my computer is leet becuase it has '5200MHz' if there was a 5200MHz 64 bit single core processor it would probably rape my processor (There is only 10-15% difference between AMD 3800 and AMD 3800 X2)

Though, what I am saying is essentially i have 5200MHZ.:lol:

Assuming you have an amount of cores running at X mhz that multiply to 16GHZ, then you can say essentially you have 16 ghz :). This does not make it so.

Back on topic:

Also, as I said previously, There doesn't seem to be any perticular hardware (that does not have alot of raw power) that is running this game well.

It still seems that we're relying on the brute force of expensive hardware to get us good frames in a game that should ultimately, run well on a lower set of specs.:mad:

Ahwell, Did anyone notice any performance increases after halo 1 patches? I built my computer a few months ago (replacing an old shit kicker) so I dont know if they introduced any performance boosting features.

We can only hope that they do for H2v if it continues this way.

[Snowy]

Dual core CPUs work together, not individually. If you're running something, each core will be running at 50&#37;, you'll never have one running at 100% and the other at 0%. You do not have a 5200MHZ CPU, A 5.2ghz CPU would be slower than a dual core 2.6ghz when it comes to multi-threaded applications.

[Skyline]

On windows vista you can have a little program on the sidebar which monitors all the cores and when I'm loading halo 2 in a window i can see only one of my cores goes to 100% and the other is around 5-10%.

[Shaunington]

On windows vista you can have a little program on the sidebar which monitors all the cores and when I'm loading halo 2 in a window i can see only one of my cores goes to 100&#37; and the other is around 5-10%.
^ Ditto.

And, yes they work together, but not always. one core can be running program X while another program executes program Y.

Anyway, back on topic.

EDIT: Also, if I'm wrong then my bad, but thats just what we were told in Aries by my teacher. And to clarify i'm NOT saying I have 5200MHZ processor.

I'm saying, if each core can execute a different program at 100% CPU, then in ESSENCE I would have a 5200MHz processor and I remember myself saying that this does not make it so.

But yeah, if I'm wrong I'm over it :P

Sorry guys :)

[Xetsuei]

Where the fuck are you getting this shit? They're not "essentially" running at 5.2ghz. Put it like this, two cars are next to each other going 260 mph. Does that mean you can put their speeds together to make 520 mph? No.

[Mr Buckshot]

Yes, the real benefits of dual-core processors are essentially being able to carry out more tasks at once. Think about it - every application you leave running will eat up some CPU power, so the more programs you open, the slower your computers becomes. Now, if you have tons of stuff in the system tray (instant messaging, antivirus, etc), and you're running demanding applications, the performance gets bogged down.

Here's where the second core comes in - it helps to take over some of the tasks and allows the computer to maintain its normal speed while the first core is bogged down with tasks. In fact, on my dual-core processor, I can run Half-Life 2 in a window and some schoolwork in another window, and when my mom comes in to check, I quickly close HL2 and pretend to do my book report.

You can also use Xetsuei's example - if you have two cars running at 260 mph each, you can't make it one car at 520 mph, but you can increase the number of passengers you are able to transport by having that second car.

[Skyline]

No, but you can have car#1 carrying car#2, then when car#1 runs out of gas car #2 can carry car#1 making for a longer distance.

[Shaunington]

OK, I'm going to print some of this shit out and take it to my aries teacher haha.

Sorry guys, now I feel like a dumbass.. well maybe becuase I am, but thats another story.