Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ness

Will this run ww2ol ;)

12 posts in this topic

canibeat.jpg

Gonna be some testing goin on tonight!

My predictions are that I won't see much of an improvement over my previous rig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, from the looks of it; that DVD/BD Disk-Rom will totally be your bottleneck and lag your game to bits. I think you should re-order everything after contemplating this glaring fault and during that time send me the bits from your first order. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost pulled the trigger on a 690... but the price for performance doesnt add up with other things on the market. 690 has 2 underclocked 680 cores basically, and 680's in SLI are faster than a single 690.

Then nvidia shot themselves in the foot with the 670 since most of the released 670's are clocked higher than the reference 670, and they end up performing better than a 680 for 200 bucks less. In the case of a 670 FTW, I believe i should be faster than a 690 where SLI applies, and for under 400 bucks a card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wont run. You have to build it first, even then you have to pray that it boots up. ;)

Edited by iperkele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It boots. Had some issues with sata 6gb reading, and had to reinstall windows a 2nd time after a firmware update for the ssd required me to format, but I DID hop in game for a bit to test it out. 30-40 fps with the game suggested high quality setting. I'm no stranger to this, as I know this game benefits from higher core clocks, and I got the 670's early and tried them in my i7 930 box and saw about a 30 fps increase in the framerate range above 60fps, but when the game bogs down, there is no stopping it.

My 930 was running at 4ghz @68 degrees c from a stock 2.8ghz, and the framerate difference is dramatic for ww2ol.

This i7 3770k is 3.5ghz stock and runs at a cool 28-35 degrees c, so I think I have some room to OC >=)

testing and results to come soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've had time to play with my new setup and get a stable configuration going.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3911831

p16064 in 3DMark 11

Intel I7 3770k @ 4.6ghz

Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3 2100mhz c11

2 GTX 670 FTWs in SLI overclocked (145% power target, +65mhz GPU offset, +400mhz Memory offset)

z77 FTW motherboard

WD Velociraptor (10,000rpm) 1TB HDD

OCZ Vertex 4 128gb SSD (1.5 firmware)

Corsair AX1200 PSU

So how does the game run? I've managed to max out all settings and stay at 60 fps almost 95% of the time (using target framerate @60fps in Precision X) with small instances of framerate drop to high 40's-mid 50's depending on the situation. That being said, how does the game look when running at 60fps consistently, or even at ~120fps with target framerate off?

Well, at least from an nvidia standpoint, not too much different to be honest. Just as I suspected, but could never confirm, the engine in this game makes infantry navigation look choppy. There is something to do with moving and looking around the world that causes some sort of lagging effect. The effect is reduced when you are a TC in a tank for example moving your head around, or when flying. It looks considerably more fluid.

I recall several years ago, that the ground would seem to jitter slightly, but only when running east/west, so perhaps infantry movement just doesnt play well with this engine. If you turn on freelook (n key by default) and look around, you can see that its slightly more fluid panning your head around the world, as opposed to doing it with free look off.

It's kinda hard to explain.

At any rate, I still cant quite pin down what this game requires in terms of a graphics card. Running my older GTX 465, average framerate was about the same as my 670 FTW, however I got higher peak framerate and a higher minimum framerate with the 670 FTW.

Ive tried several different driver level settings, such as FXAA, adaptive vsync, etc, but the game doesnt react to these settings like you would imagine. I've been running with 16x anisotropic filtering, 16x CSAA (FXAA is nice, but makes everything blurry) and multisample transparency antialiasing.

The game really likes a high clock speed. The difference between 4.3ghz and 4.6ghz was noticeable in average framerate. The game still seems to tax core 1 (out of core 0,1,2,3) primarily, but other cores are active during gameplay. Just not as much.

The most difficult part is finding a good benchmark, as the offline mode tests don't seem to provide any feedback that reflects in game scenarios. The benchinfantry and benchvehicles commands appear to do less on the GPU and CPU and just bog down the engine instead. This is all speculation for the most part of course.

tl;dr

New computer- woo!

Game engine- boo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brings back memories of building my rig, was only last year. Current one does the job must resist wanting more power....urgh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I've had time to play with my new setup and get a stable configuration going.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3911831

p16064 in 3DMark 11

Intel I7 3770k @ 4.6ghz

Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3 2100mhz c11

2 GTX 670 FTWs in SLI overclocked (145% power target, +65mhz GPU offset, +400mhz Memory offset)

z77 FTW motherboard

WD Velociraptor (10,000rpm) 1TB HDD

OCZ Vertex 4 128gb SSD (1.5 firmware)

Corsair AX1200 PSU

So how does the game run? I've managed to max out all settings and stay at 60 fps almost 95% of the time (using target framerate @60fps in Precision X) with small instances of framerate drop to high 40's-mid 50's depending on the situation. That being said, how does the game look when running at 60fps consistently, or even at ~120fps with target framerate off?

Well, at least from an nvidia standpoint, not too much different to be honest. Just as I suspected, but could never confirm, the engine in this game makes infantry navigation look choppy. There is something to do with moving and looking around the world that causes some sort of lagging effect. The effect is reduced when you are a TC in a tank for example moving your head around, or when flying. It looks considerably more fluid.

I recall several years ago, that the ground would seem to jitter slightly, but only when running east/west, so perhaps infantry movement just doesnt play well with this engine. If you turn on freelook (n key by default) and look around, you can see that its slightly more fluid panning your head around the world, as opposed to doing it with free look off.

It's kinda hard to explain.

At any rate, I still cant quite pin down what this game requires in terms of a graphics card. Running my older GTX 465, average framerate was about the same as my 670 FTW, however I got higher peak framerate and a higher minimum framerate with the 670 FTW.

Ive tried several different driver level settings, such as FXAA, adaptive vsync, etc, but the game doesnt react to these settings like you would imagine. I've been running with 16x anisotropic filtering, 16x CSAA (FXAA is nice, but makes everything blurry) and multisample transparency antialiasing.

The game really likes a high clock speed. The difference between 4.3ghz and 4.6ghz was noticeable in average framerate. The game still seems to tax core 1 (out of core 0,1,2,3) primarily, but other cores are active during gameplay. Just not as much.

The most difficult part is finding a good benchmark, as the offline mode tests don't seem to provide any feedback that reflects in game scenarios. The benchinfantry and benchvehicles commands appear to do less on the GPU and CPU and just bog down the engine instead. This is all speculation for the most part of course.

tl;dr

New computer- woo!

Game engine- boo!

Do a forum search. Long ago and far away, DOC said "textures" and "fill rate" were the gold standard for WWIIOL.

The game engine is a modified Year 2000-ish one, and *may* have culling issues (rendering triangles you cannot see because they are blocked from view, but the game is still calculating them). It's possible all I've said so far is bull-hockey because updates may have changed this. My information is from forum reading only and contains no real insider data.

You know how "the rent is too d@mn high!"? Well, in this game: "The map is too d@mn big!". The big map model and realistic ballistics lost to the shoebox frame-rate games with hit boxes... xbox console games are the most popular now... who knew? *shrugs* 10 years ago and more, when this game was developed it was not clear that the future would go towards my mobile phone being a game rig and able to Skype video live.

What your rig will *really* do well - IF - you have a fast, bad-arse internet pipeline: Render all near and middle distance enemies who can *target* you. THAT is worth a bad-arse rig.

Congrats and enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.