PDA

View Full Version : PSO2 Benchmark Results



Genoa
Apr 28, 2012, 07:22 PM
I've never really run benchmarks for anything before, but since the PSO2 Character Creation happen to have benchmark as well, I thought I would test it out. My problem, I have no idea what a high score is. I'm pretty sure I can play the game fine, I just don't particularly understand the results of my score.

[SPOILER-BOX]http://iforce.co.nz/i/brxamwv0.nin.png[/SPOILER-BOX]

KyAniki
Apr 28, 2012, 07:35 PM
Scores over 5000 are very good.

Genoa
Apr 28, 2012, 07:50 PM
Oh goodie :D
What score would make the minimal requirements? Maybe my craptop can play it too :x

ashley50
Apr 28, 2012, 07:57 PM
copied from
http://bumped.org/psublog/pso2-the-character-creator-demo-is-up-plus-mini-guide/



★ Less than 2000: Please adjust your game settings because the processing load is quite heavy.
★★ 2000 through 5000: The game runs fine at the setting, if you have room, you can adjust some settings.
★★★ 5001+: The game works wonderfully at this setting.

Powder Keg
Apr 28, 2012, 08:19 PM
How does it run so far compared to PSU? Does it seem to need less/more/about the same?

Convex10Wolf
Apr 28, 2012, 08:42 PM
I'm also interested in the minimum score required for computers and laptop.


Edit: Forgot to refresh the screen my question has already been answered.

monsys
Apr 29, 2012, 04:47 AM
PSO2 Requires allot of horsepower then PSU if playing on the highest settings
I could play psu like a charm on a 8800gts but it runs poorly now on pso2

KyAniki
Apr 29, 2012, 02:01 PM
I'm not really sure if there's a "minimum" score to play. I think someone on here was playing with a score of 4.

Taitu
Apr 29, 2012, 02:32 PM
I'm not really sure if there's a "minimum" score to play. I think someone on here was playing with a score of 4.

Sounds like an excellent way to kill an already dying computer.

XwarmachineX
May 7, 2012, 08:08 AM
Did the benchmark test twice with max settings up and got 99999 that should hopefully be enough to play the game.

Porkmaster
May 7, 2012, 08:49 AM
Did the benchmark test twice with max settings up and got 99999 that should hopefully be enough to play the game.

What do you run PSO 2 on, a potato? Upgrade that thing, that's WAY too low.

Boodendorf
May 7, 2012, 09:23 AM
At max settings I got a score of around 250.
With ShaderQuality= False, I got a score of 2600.
No nice graphics for me.

Porkmaster
May 7, 2012, 09:28 AM
At max settings I got a score of around 250.
With ShaderQuality= False, I got a score of 2600.
No nice graphics for me.

The character creator benchmark doesn't have the optimizations that closed beta had. During the benchmark with Shaders on, I'd dip down to around 35 FPS. With it off, I'd take a huge jump up to 120+ FPS. During closed beta, I could have Shaders on, Texture quality maxed, bloom enabled, with the Shadow Quality slider at 4 and still maintain 60 FPS, even in giant PSE bursts and random boss fights.

Boodendorf
May 7, 2012, 09:40 AM
The character creator benchmark doesn't have the optimizations that closed beta had. During the benchmark with Shaders on, I'd dip down to around 35 FPS. With it off, I'd take a huge jump up to 120+ FPS. During closed beta, I could have Shaders on, Texture quality maxed, bloom enabled, with the Shadow Quality slider at 4 and still maintain 60 FPS, even in giant PSE bursts and random boss fights.

That's pretty cool to know. Thanks.

LokinModar
May 7, 2012, 10:02 AM
I think the character creator runs far worst than the actual game... In the game i got all things way up and got much better performance...

Kion
May 7, 2012, 10:26 AM
There's no minimum score. The game will at least run on most computers. My comp is an e350 (with 4GB) netbook. With everything turned down, running virtual full screen at 854x480 my computer hovers just around 30fps. But it's not really playable at that level. You don't need a great computer, but at least something with a semi-fast cpu, and dedicated graphics should be able to run it smoothly with the settings adjusted appropriately.

Kraiseson
May 7, 2012, 10:32 AM
Just realized the big boss from the dessert, that beetle bug thing is actually in the Benchmark.

Chik'Tikka
May 7, 2012, 10:59 AM
hrmmmm..... the benchmark gives me a score of 75 average, yet there's no screen lag and the CBT played perfect at 1080 with maxed settings+^_^+ about as smooth as my Xbox 360 games play anyway and smoother then PSU (which is quite smooth)+^_^+
EDIT: here's my most recent result with slider at five and res set to 1920x1200
[spoiler-box]http://i46.tinypic.com/2mevnug.png[/spoiler-box]

Peejay
May 7, 2012, 11:04 AM
Running at max gets me just 2900. That's fullscreen, too. It seems it has a much harder time if you increase the window size, since using the default ran me like 15000.

Terrible benchmark.

Kraiseson
May 7, 2012, 11:04 AM
I got a 3342.

LokinModar
May 7, 2012, 11:27 AM
I get ~4200 with my PC (it is a Core2Quad Q9550 with 8GB of ram and GTX560 1GB) but the game itself runs smoothly with everything set to high and FullHD resolution in window mode or fullscreen....


While in my notebook (AMD Athlon II X2, 4GB + HD4200 graphics) it does ~200, If i set everything down and run windowed at 1280x720, it runs perfectly fine with only some sound glitch here and there.

My main problem here is my internet connection though...

Aewyn
May 7, 2012, 12:40 PM
Without SLI:
[spoiler-box]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o305/Aewyn_Murayama/PSO2/pso20120420_014339_000.jpg[/spoiler-box]

With SLI:
[spoiler-box]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o305/Aewyn_Murayama/PSO2/pso20120420_225438_000-1.jpg[/spoiler-box]

System:

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-biit
Motherboard: EVGA X58 Classified 3-Way SLI
CPU: Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.26ghz (screenshot doesn't account for OC)
Memory: 6GB DDR3 1600
GPU: GTX 470 x 2 (SLI)

Overall the game ran perfectly, but I assume the build we were testing wasn't fully optimized yet. I would occasionally get massive FPS drops in the lobbies, but none anywhere else, ever-- even when tons of stuff was going on, monsters and players everywhere. Smooth as butter in action areas.

Garteal
May 7, 2012, 03:38 PM
EDIT: here's my most recent result with slider at five and res set to 1920x1200
Woah 284... what FPS did you get?
Got the same laptop so I'm curious. :P

This game clearly seems to favor NVIDIA.
Getting low scores in comparison to competitor NVIDIA cards.

FPS was around 60-120 though. It only dropped to 50 or so when the characters spawned.

Everything at max, naturally and at 1680x1050 resolution.
2500K @ 4.5GHz
AMD Radeon HD 6870

click to view in full resolution
http://i.imgur.com/2aHvYl.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/2aHvY.jpg)

monsys
May 9, 2012, 08:33 AM
That's a normal score for a 6870.
I get around 7-8K on a 570GTX OC and i5 2500k
People are just forgetting to turn on everything to the max due to the confusion of japanese in the setup configuration

LokinModar
May 9, 2012, 08:36 AM
That's a normal score for a 6870.
I get around 7-8K on a 570GTX OC and i5 2500k
People are just forgetting to turn on everything to the max due to the confusion of japanese in the setup configuration


Oh, as you mentioned that, is there any place where i cans see some screenshot of the configs translated??

Drithe
May 9, 2012, 09:24 AM
It's over 9000!!!!!!!

End of Line.

amtalx
May 9, 2012, 10:18 AM
Since we're all e-peen measuring...

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Motherboard: ASUS Formula Rampage
CPU: Intel Core2Duo E8500 @3.02Ghz
Memory: 4GB DDR2
GPU: ATI Radeon HD4870

PSO2 Benchmark: 4480


OS: Windows 7 Professional N x64
Motherboard: ASUS Maximus IV Extreme
CPU: Intel Core i7 2600k @4.2Ghz
Memory: 8GB DDR3
GPU: Nvidia GTX 680

PSO2 Benchmark:29671

stheno
May 9, 2012, 01:35 PM
I noticed the benchmark score is just the number of frames displayed. Thats kind of crappy for people who have VSYNC on.

Aewyn
May 9, 2012, 01:37 PM
I don't think vsync is enabled in the benchmark test.

stheno
May 9, 2012, 01:45 PM
I don't think vsync is enabled in the benchmark test.

I have it as a global default at the driver level. My framerate never goes above 60 on the benchmark.

Mr Champloo
May 9, 2012, 02:02 PM
The benchmark is a not a good way to tell. But i'll play the game this is FULL SCREEN - MAX SETTINGS

http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i402/MrChamplooo/Gaming%20or%20Rig/pso22012-05-0913-59-16-73.jpg

Aewyn
May 9, 2012, 02:39 PM
Interesting. I have that setting enabled as well, but it still goes above 60 during the test.

Ryno
May 9, 2012, 09:55 PM
I wonder does using a graphics card help if i buy one? becuase I have a low bench mark.

Chik'Tikka
May 9, 2012, 10:37 PM
I wonder does using a graphics card help if i buy one? becuase I have a low bench mark.

+^_^+ i see what you did there......

Ryno
May 9, 2012, 11:26 PM
+^_^+ i see what you did there......

huh? LoL what do you mean?


++++++^++++++
+++++^_^++++++
+++++____+++++

dias_flac_0g
May 9, 2012, 11:49 PM
Oh really? So 5k plus means that it's really good?

On the benchmark I get 5430 yet when I played the open beta I was getting massive frame drops in the lobbies =/

So much for the benchmark.

Zyrusticae
May 10, 2012, 01:27 AM
The frame rate drops in the lobbies have absolutely nothing to do with your GPU or CPU performance. It is simply a result of Sega's rather piss-poor system for streaming in models and textures, which forces your client to wait for models to load rather than simply allowing them to stream in from the background without intrusively forcing you to stall.

Hopefully, it's one of the first things they fix for OB, if not release.

Wash
May 10, 2012, 01:49 AM
wait so is there a way to decrease some of the settings for the benchmark? or are the settings static and the benchmark is simply at the highest quality?

stheno
May 10, 2012, 02:13 AM
wait so is there a way to decrease some of the settings for the benchmark? or are the settings static and the benchmark is simply at the highest quality?

You can go into the options on the client launcher and select high/med/low textures and normal/simple shaders.

Dabian
May 10, 2012, 10:49 AM
Wondering if anyone's got their hands on an Ivy Bridge i5/i7 already. If so, could you try the benchmark with the Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics? :]

Rauten
May 10, 2012, 11:14 AM
Wondering if anyone's got their hands on an Ivy Bridge i5/i7 already. If so, could you try the benchmark with the Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics? :]

From what I've heard, Ivy bridge barely has any performance advantage over Sandy (there is an advantage, but it's very small), I doubt it'll be noticeable on PSO2.

LokinModar
May 10, 2012, 11:27 AM
From what I've heard, Ivy bridge barely has any performance advantage over Sandy (there is an advantage, but it's very small), I doubt it'll be noticeable on PSO2.



I think he meant to test it running the game through the integrated graphics... to compare with the discrete graphics cards results...

Rauten
May 10, 2012, 11:33 AM
I think he meant to test it running the game through the integrated graphics... to compare with the discrete graphics cards results...

Ohh, true. My bad.

Wash
May 10, 2012, 01:34 PM
You can go into the options on the client launcher and select high/med/low textures and normal/simple shaders.



thank you very much :)

Mr Champloo
May 10, 2012, 03:58 PM
I think im just gunna SLI my gtx 280's instead of buying another single card =/

Kion
May 10, 2012, 04:46 PM
This is for the desktop ivybridge chips, but it gives you an idea. Personally I'd like to grab Asus's UX21A if it can manage PSO2 on medium settings.

http://uk.hardware.info/productinfo/grafiek/6041/129535,127190,127545,125966,132938,125657,132937,1 27008,127007,127006,127005,129484,129482,115243,11 5244,124076,115242,129474,129475,114938,124077,115 217,115218,115219,124078,115213,113039,150030,1152 12,114150,115214,130903,148845,131457,131430,13095 5,124073,124072,129479,124074,124075,129478,148847/?colors=00FF00,00FF00,00FF00,00FF00,00FF00,00FF00, 00FF00,00FF00,00FF00,00FF00,00FF00,0000FF,0000FF,0 000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,00 00FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,FF0 000,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,FF0000,0000FF,0000 FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000FF,0000F F,FF0000

Silenttank
May 10, 2012, 05:35 PM
That was actually really helpful Kion, thank you. I was wondering where processors stood in usefulness.

cheapgunner
May 11, 2012, 06:25 PM
Ran the benchmark w/o changing any of the settings and got 45 FPS and a score of 1168. :(

Ran it again tweaking some of the graphic's settings and got this with a FPS of 262. :)

http://i875.photobucket.com/albums/ab318/cheapoman/News%20pictures/Screenshot1.png

Seems like a bit of adjusting the settings goes a long way.

MoonlightMyau
May 11, 2012, 06:54 PM
My benchmark score is always around 430, with the settings on the lowest & full screen. I am planning on upgrading but will this play it adequately enough in the meantime?

Fujiko
May 12, 2012, 12:38 AM
I just upgraded to the new GTX 670 released on May 10th. My score more than doubled from my GTX 580.

I went from 9562 to 21109! This GTX 670 is smoking fast, I highly recommend it over any card on the market right now. When overclocked, it is faster than a stock GTX 680.

Max settings 1080P
[spoiler-box]http://i.imgur.com/IQs1v.jpg[/spoiler-box]

Chik'Tikka
May 12, 2012, 12:54 AM
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$ $$

Max settings 1080P
[spoiler-box]http://i.imgur.com/IQs1v.jpg[/spoiler-box]

sorry, had to troll ya+^_^+ the one negative thing about being a poor college student is.... well..... being poor+^_^+

Fujiko
May 12, 2012, 01:05 AM
sorry, had to troll ya+^_^+ the one negative thing about being a poor college student is.... well..... being poor+^_^+

I traded the GTX 580 for the GTX 670, I wouldn't of bothered otherwise :)

Funny that the GTX 670 is 5% (average) slower than the GTX 680, but cost $100+ less.

Chik'Tikka
May 12, 2012, 01:12 AM
I traded the GTX 580 for the GTX 670, I wouldn't of bothered otherwise :)

Funny that the GTX 670 is 5% (average) slower than the GTX 680, but cost $100+ less.

lolz, yeah prices hopping all over the place, I'm looking at building a new rig as soon as i land a job (I want that SABERTOOTH (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007RIFKUS/ref=ox_sc_act_title_8?ie=UTF8&m=AZ8ZZL30AH7DI)!), and the card I'm looking at is a gtx 550 ti for $138 where as the cheapest 670 i could find was $450.... i aught to get a car 1st before a new PC, my laptop ran CBT fine at full settings so i can hold out awhile+^_^+

Rauten
May 12, 2012, 01:31 AM
I want that SABERTOOTH (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007RIFKUS/ref=ox_sc_act_title_8?ie=UTF8&m=AZ8ZZL30AH7DI)!

Holy crap, I think I just wet my pants. SEEEEX-AYH.

Fujiko
May 12, 2012, 01:32 AM
lolz, yeah prices hopping all over the place, I'm looking at building a new rig as soon as i land a job (I want that SABERTOOTH (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007RIFKUS/ref=ox_sc_act_title_8?ie=UTF8&m=AZ8ZZL30AH7DI)!), and the card I'm looking at is a gtx 550 ti for $138 where as the cheapest 670 i could find was $450.... i aught to get a car 1st before a new PC, my laptop ran CBT fine at full settings so i can hold out awhile+^_^+

I got my 670 for $399 on Amazon, looks like they all sold out and now the price gougers are taking over :(

Only reason I got it is because I am building my friend a system. Ivybridge CPU 3570k 8gb ram and that GTX 580. Microcenter has a deal when you buy the 3570k you get $60 off any mobo for it. Got the CPU and mobo both for under $270, a great deal.

Really though the CBT was way more optimized than the benchmark, really impressed with the PSO2 engine :D

Anyone with lower numbers could still probably play PSO2 comfortable. The benchmark at a constant 60 frames does not hit the recommended 2000 score, at least it didn't on my machine. Came out to around 1700...

Chik'Tikka
May 12, 2012, 03:12 AM
Microcenter has a deal when you buy the 3570k you get $60 off any mobo for it. Got the CPU and mobo both for under $270, a great deal.



hmm... hopefully that deal is still going by July+^_^+ i could through extra dough into a hdd then+^_^+ (i was just gonna use an ancient 2.53 gb ibm 3380)
http://www.paseban.com/image/public/news/large/76999c1f571fe42d86da9c5a8ccb593309908abce720a50750 b06bde0bdd319f.jpg

Ark22
May 12, 2012, 03:24 AM
hmm... hopefully that deal is still going by July+^_^+ i could through extra dough into a hdd then+^_^+ (i was just gonna use an ancient 2.53 gb ibm 3380)
http://www.paseban.com/image/public/news/large/76999c1f571fe42d86da9c5a8ccb593309908abce720a50750 b06bde0bdd319f.jpg

This is why the fuck I didn't get a desktop. I rather finish Supping up my car xD

Also that Sabertooth thing...I have no idea what that does. All I know is...THE MORE PORTS THE BETTER.

dias_flac_0g
May 12, 2012, 03:25 AM
I just upgraded to the new GTX 670 released on May 10th. My score more than doubled from my GTX 580.

I went from 9562 to 21109! This GTX 670 is smoking fast, I highly recommend it over any card on the market right now. When overclocked, it is faster than a stock GTX 680.

Max settings 1080P
[spoiler-box]http://i.imgur.com/IQs1v.jpg[/spoiler-box]

Someone is rich :o

I wish I could upgrade from my GTX 460 :(

You upgraded from a 580 which is already much faster than mine to a new 670 crazy but cool :)

Chik'Tikka
May 12, 2012, 03:48 AM
This is why the fuck I didn't get a desktop. I rather finish Supping up my car xD

Also that Sabertooth thing...I have no idea what that does. All I know is...THE MORE PORTS THE BETTER.

can't tell if trollin my troll post....+^_^+ that 3380 cost $142K when it came out and was about as big as three 1 gallon milk jugs and that's just the platters, the whole assembly and case was about the size of a fridge+^_^+

Ark22
May 12, 2012, 03:51 AM
can't tell if trollin my troll post....+^_^+ that 3380 cost $142K when it came out and was about as big as three 1 gallon milk jugs+^_^+

I wasn't trolling but.....if you spend all your money on that please, donate 1,000 to me.

But in all seriousness, I never got a desktop yet because I know if I got one I would hook it up with an I7 with the best graphics/motherboard you can buy.

But my college Laptop which cost about 800 is doing a great job so far.

But anyone of you rich people want to shove awesome computer parts my way feel free ;D.

Chik'Tikka
May 12, 2012, 03:59 AM
I wasn't trolling but.....if you spend all your money on that please, donate 1,000 to me.

But in all seriousness, I never got a desktop yet because I know if I got one I would hook it up with an I7 with the best graphics/motherboard you can buy.

But my college Laptop which cost about 800 is doing a great job so far.

But anyone of you rich people want to shove awesome computer parts my way feel free ;D.

same here, I'm on a $800 Toshiba, I'm just dreaming big with the sabertooth and stuff+^_^+ more likely whatever desktop i build wont beat my laptop+^_^+

moorebounce
May 12, 2012, 07:10 AM
Here's my settings
Shader 3
Window mode
1024X600
High Resolution
Shader Quality Standard

Fujiko
May 12, 2012, 09:34 AM
Someone is rich :o

I wish I could upgrade from my GTX 460 :(

You upgraded from a 580 which is already much faster than mine to a new 670 crazy but cool :)

I wish I was rich, I just have bad priorities ;)

I didn't pay a dime to upgrade to the 670, was a 1:1 even trade.

The tower I built my friend came to a total of about $900 (ivy bridge cpu, gtx 580, 8gb ram, 1tb hdd, etc), but he needed a keyboard, mouse and monitor too so that was all extra. With alot of shopping around and sales, I was able to shave off around $300 off that price tag.

Hope Sonic Team releases a new updated benchmark running the optimized engine from CBT or whatever improvements they put in for OBT/Release.

stheno
May 12, 2012, 12:06 PM
I wish I could upgrade from my GTX 460 :(


Whats wrong with 460? :-?

I played cbt at a constant 60fps at 1920x1200

dias_flac_0g
May 12, 2012, 01:09 PM
Whats wrong with 460? :-?

I played cbt at a constant 60fps at 1920x1200

Haha nothing wrong with it. I played the game just fine at max settings 1920/1080 etc etc.

I wouldn't mind having a GTX 670 tho is all i'm saying.

The game seems to run very smooth even though I have a very old cpu (core 2 duo E8500)

The only times where I had brutal slowdown or slowdown at all was in the lobbies =/

But during quest the game ran at a contant 60 frames.

Ark22
May 12, 2012, 01:25 PM
same here, I'm on a $800 Toshiba, I'm just dreaming big with the sabertooth and stuff+^_^+ more likely whatever desktop i build wont beat my laptop+^_^+

I just found a beast laptop =/ for a thousand bucks, but it's GPU sucks compared to mine B) So I wouldn't even get it.

On a side not: **** you guys and your bad ass desktops. :'( I get 40 FPS on 1360......on Med High settings...

cheapgunner
May 12, 2012, 02:12 PM
I just found a beast laptop =/ for a thousand bucks, but it's GPU sucks compared to mine B) So I wouldn't even get it.

On a side not: **** you guys and your bad ass desktops. :'( I get 40 FPS on 1360......on Med High settings...

Getting a great desktop wasn't easy man. Been saving since last year. My labtop can barely reach ~1000 with the lowest settings and smallest sized window. :(

Ark22
May 12, 2012, 02:34 PM
Getting a great desktop wasn't easy man. Been saving since last year. My labtop can barely reach ~1000 with the lowest settings and smallest sized window. :(

I can only imagine, I am trying to save up money for college, car parts AND a desktop. May take me a year and a half to get these things.

Chik'Tikka
May 12, 2012, 04:26 PM
Getting a great desktop wasn't easy man. Been saving since last year. My labtop can barely reach ~1000 with the lowest settings and smallest sized window. :(

lolz, i get about 10K with my laptop if i set all the settings to the lowest and use smallest window, but, i kinda made some *adjustments* to it, it's not uncommon for me to pop 90C with it+^_^+ hopefully by July i can start buying stuff for my desktop+^_^+

Kion
May 14, 2012, 02:01 AM
I realized this has probably been answered somewhere before. But I finally figured out how to disable the Radeon 6470M on my wife's Sony Vaio YB to test out the intel HD graphics on the benchmark. Both of these were tested with low shaders and medium textures full screen 1280x720 resolution.

Sony Vaio SB
CPU: Core i3 2330M
Memory: 6GB

GPU: Intel HD family
Result: 4047

GPU: AMD Radeon 6470M
Result: 5954

So for anyone interested in playing PSO2 on their laptops. Intel HD 3000 is somewhat viable. The Intel HD 4000 should be able to play the game fine assuming you're fine with medium/low settings.

Dabian
May 14, 2012, 06:07 AM
Thanks for testing it out Kion. The Intel HD series does seem to get better. Certainly not high settings/resolution, but good news for those on a budget.

Misaki Ki
May 28, 2012, 01:07 AM
Got a laptop yesterday, and just going with what was said about the Intel HD.

i5 2450 2.5GHz
Intel HD 3000
Resolution: 1366 x 768
Score: 4301

Everything else is maxed out but the shaders. The shaders, they kill it.

kyuuketsuki
May 28, 2012, 01:30 AM
Hope Sonic Team releases a new updated benchmark running the optimized engine from CBT or whatever improvements they put in for OBT/Release.
I know that even the wikipedia page of games developed by Sonic Team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_developed_by_Sonic_Team_%28AM8%29_and_affili ates) lists PSO2 as a Sonic Team game, but... is that actually true? I thought Sakai and his team weren't a part of Sonic Team. Also, the lack of any sort of Sonic Team splash screen or logo anywhere in the game would suggest this is not a Sonic Team game.

Everything else is maxed out but the shaders. The shaders, they kill it.
Yep, that'd be because modern game design revolves around using the shaders for... pretty much everything. Most games don't allow you to turn the shader effects off the way PSO2 does because it makes the game look pretty terrible. SEGA just decided that enabling the game to scale down to really poor GPUs was more important than preserving the look of the game.

Misaki Ki
May 28, 2012, 02:39 AM
I'm aware, was just stating things as they were. I'm actually more impressed that it still looks half decent with them off honestly, was far better than what I was expecting.

soulpimpwizzurd
May 28, 2012, 03:26 AM
I'm aware, was just stating things as they were. I'm actually more impressed that it still looks half decent with them off honestly, was far better than what I was expecting.

i'm playing with a laptop too and i can get 60 fps, however the main problem is that so many extra particle effects are added when you turn shaders on.

when shaders are on and my computer has to process stuff like point blank launcher explosions / gibarta spells (those ice shards multiply by like 10 with shaders on, and each time it hits an enemy, it shows an attack effect that also splits into another 20 shards)

it bugs me because i couldn't care less about the flying particle effects or a super detailed launcher explosion. i just want the shader effects :(.

i wish sega had an option to have super weak particle effects with shaders on.

Scotty T
Jun 1, 2012, 12:25 PM
Got a new PC today
HD max settings at 1280x720 with shader on 3
[spoiler-box]http://i50.tinypic.com/1zv72pc.jpg[/spoiler-box]

KunoMochi
Jun 1, 2012, 05:35 PM
I guess I'll post my score, too. XD

CPU @ 3.20GHz
Stock clock GPU
1280x1024 resolution (highest my current monitor can go)

At max settings, my average frame rate is about 60fps. Earns me with an average score of about 3000.

Turning the shader off bumped my score up...to almost 20x more. rofl My average frame rate for that one was around 270fps. :wacko:

But I'm a sucker for eye candy, even if some of the cast-shadows are still a bit glitchy. It's not the first game that I've played that had the problem.

Mega Ultra Chicken
Jun 6, 2012, 12:58 AM
I'm expecting a new computer soon, so I'll post my Benchmark results when I get it and move all my stuff onto it.

dooby613
Jun 6, 2012, 02:44 AM
didn't we do this thread before when it was new? The problem with that one and it appears to be this one too, is that people are using uniformed settings and someone like the first poster gets something like double the score that I have with the same GPU for example.

These kinda threads are still fun and I'd put my score but for some reason I'm having issues with that atm. It is a 6355 with an Nvidia Gefore GTX 560(oc), i5 760 @2.8Ghz, 4 GBs RAM.

[

thematesV2
Jun 6, 2012, 04:50 PM
I finally got my new PC build up and running. I was using a Quadro FX card for the last 4 years, as I do 3-d and CAD for work stuff. but it was an older card, and I decided to go from workstation card to game card, to save money and get more game-devoted hardware. I picked up a Radeon 7850, and my score with the standard settings went from 1200 to 25k. my jaw dropped, it was awesome. I got more points with the new hardware in about 5 seconds than I did with the old during the whole test.

RebhtheDark
Jun 6, 2012, 04:59 PM
My score............
[spoiler-box]http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f350/Rebh/PSO%202/PSO2Score.png[/spoiler-box]
Thats a THE most lowest settings POSSIBLE! Yah I need a new PC T_T;

Mitz
Jun 8, 2012, 07:25 AM
Upgraded PC, was expecting higher score but oh well. This is at max settings, card was 5870.

[spoiler-box]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7232/7351201890_bcf772fa6a_h.jpg[/spoiler-box]

FerrPSO
Jun 18, 2012, 06:59 AM
I wonder if its possible to run the benchmark at a higher resolution that my monitor allows.

Thing is im now with a 1280x1024 monitor, and I want to upgrade it, but I want to know how the game would fare in a 1080p resolution (atm im scoring 7000ish at 1280).

I tried to simply put another resolution and run it but it would ignore the settings and run at my native resolution.

Other benchmarks allowed me to do that (for example FFXIV, even the game can run at 1080p in a lower resolution monitor, though you would only see part of the screen) so I dont know if im missing something.

MasterSpark
Jun 18, 2012, 07:18 AM
I invested in a new PC shortly before the pre-open beta last week, and so far it lives up to my expectations. With the graphics set to 5 in windowed mode (1920x1080) I get between 14500-15000 in a benchmark test. If I record the same benchmark with Fraps in full size I get 3488.

It was expensive, but I regret nothing. :D

Edit: Unfortunately, the internet connection I'm currently using isn't quite up to the same standards. My average loading time during the test was about 20 seconds long. :nono:

LuneFox
Jun 18, 2012, 07:31 AM
[SPOILER-BOX]http://www.pso-world.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1950&pictureid=28448[/SPOILER-BOX]

All settings max (texutres and shaders), 1680x1050 fullscreen, antialiasing 4x, anisotroping filtering 16x.
Stable 60-70 FPS.

My ASUS K40AF Laptop showed around 2800 without shaders (turning on shaders resulted in crash). Around 30 FPS and 1380x768 resolution.

Alucard V
Jun 18, 2012, 08:23 AM
My best score so far.
[SPOILER-BOX]http://www.pso-world.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1973&pictureid=28453[/SPOILER-BOX]

Gama
Jun 18, 2012, 09:28 AM
well one thing that does tick me is that the benchmark config file even if you change some parameters "like disablind reflections" it dosent aply on the benchmark, also in my lappie the diference between hd textures and low res textures was about 35 points, so textures arent really stressing the system, also on the pre open beta i used these settings
[spoiler-box]
},
Draw = {
ShaderQuality = true,
Shadow = {
Quality = "middle",
},
Display = {
ShadowQuality = 2,
ReflectionQuality = 2,
DitailModelNum = 8,
},
TextureResolution = 1,
Function = {
Blur = true,
LightGeoGraphy = true,
Reflection = true,
LightShaft = false,
SoftParticle = false,
Bloom = true,
Depth = false,
LightEffect = true,
AntiAliasing = false,
},
[/spoiler-box]

it ran decently but i had some slowdowns in the desert sandstorm. and some mild chaotic and explosive multiplay areas.

and ill be testing this settings on the opb

[spoiler-box] },
Draw = {
ShaderQuality = true,
Shadow = {
Quality = "low", to see how performance might go.
},
Display = {
ShadowQuality = 1, to get more performance
ReflectionQuality = 1, more performance
DitailModelNum = 15, i don't like gray people.
},
TextureResolution = 2,
Function = {
Blur = true,
LightGeoGraphy = false, to see how performance goes.
Reflection = false, -/-
LightShaft = false,
SoftParticle = false,
Bloom = true,
Depth = false,
LightEffect = false,
AntiAliasing = false, ill change it to true if i get enough performance from the other tweaks.
},[/spoiler-box]


my objective is to run the game with shaders on to get a pleasing result. its a laptop so i cant get greedy.

i am able to play on max settings but i get some anoying slowdows on the sandstorms and when rangers get overly explosive with mobs. so id rather have better performance.

what do you guys think?

is there any setting that i can leave on that wont affect performance but make a huge difference on the game?

let me know.

^^

mctastee
Jun 18, 2012, 11:07 PM
Scores over 5000 are very good.
Then scores over 27000 must be fucking amazing.

Mitz
Jun 19, 2012, 03:09 AM
I invested in a new PC shortly before the pre-open beta last week, and so far it lives up to my expectations. With the graphics set to 5 in windowed mode (1920x1080) I get between 14500-15000 in a benchmark test. If I record the same benchmark with Fraps in full size I get 3488.

It was expensive, but I regret nothing. :D

Edit: Unfortunately, the internet connection I'm currently using isn't quite up to the same standards. My average loading time during the test was about 20 seconds long. :nono:

What? Get an SDD.

Vylera
Jun 19, 2012, 04:17 AM
What? Get an SDD.

I don't think SSD is the primary choker on his loading speed. On most games, an SSD will only influence a loading screen by roughly 1/4th. 20 seconds dropping to 15 isn't exactly a big improvement.

I'm on an HDD with < 3 seconds of loading screen.

Hard drive is hardly the first concern.

MasterChuck
Jun 19, 2012, 07:00 AM
Not so subtle stealth brag.

MasterSpark
Jun 19, 2012, 07:14 AM
What? Get an SDD.

I have an SSD already. I'll be doing a network speed test from a different place later today.

Edit: Also, it made no difference if I turned the graphics setting down to 1. Same loading time.

sugarFO
Jun 19, 2012, 07:22 AM
where do i do the benchmark test?

AlMcFly
Jun 19, 2012, 07:25 AM
where do i do the benchmark test?

In the downloadable character creator.

Gama
Jun 19, 2012, 07:25 AM
well if i'm in the living room "where the wireless router is" i get faster loading screens, so i think its network related, but i did get a overall speed boost after i defragged the hard drive.

try it out, im going to try connecting the game directly with a cable to the modem to check how much faster would it load.

but it might not be related xD

MasterSpark
Jun 19, 2012, 07:31 AM
I built the computer last Tuesday, the drive can't be clogged up already. Looking at some footage that I recorded during the pobt, it takes roughly 14-16 seconds for that little image to appear in the bottom left during the loading screen. After it shows up, the loading is done in about 2-4 seconds. When I view the clips of others I see that they get the little image pretty much instantly.

I know for a fact that the router here is screwy, but I can't do much at the moment. I'm watching my brother's apartment while he's away, and I'll be here for two more weeks. I'll be bringing my laptop home to my own place later today and do a network speed test to compare the results from here, although that might not be conclusive..

Vylera
Jun 19, 2012, 07:38 AM
I built the computer last Tuesday, the drive can't be clogged up already. Looking at some footage that I recorded during the pobt, it takes roughly 14-16 seconds for that little image to appear in the bottom left during the loading screen. After it shows up, the loading is done in about 2-4 seconds. When I view the clips of others I see that they get the little image pretty much instantly.

I know for a fact that the router here is screwy, but I can't do much at the moment. I'm watching my brother's apartment while he's away, and I'll be here for two more weeks. I'll be bringing my laptop home to my own place later today and do a network speed test to compare the results from here, although that might not be conclusive..

Sounds to me like it's fraps pooping on your computer.

My system benchmarks at 11k-13k. Let me see what happens to me when i'm frapsing.

MasterSpark
Jun 19, 2012, 07:40 AM
Sounds to me like it's fraps pooping on your computer.

My system benchmarks at 11k-13k. Let me see what happens to me when i'm frapsing.

I don't keep fraps going all the time. My HDD is only 500GB, it'd be full within an hour. :-)

Vylera
Jun 19, 2012, 07:43 AM
I don't keep fraps going all the time. My HDD is only 500GB, it'd be full within an hour. :-)

Did you get really long load screens ONLY while fraps was recording, or REGARDLESS of fraps recording?

Benchmarked at just under 2.2k with fraps aiming for 60 fps cap on recording. Loading screens were about 2x longer than usual, but definitely no where close to even 10 seconds.

-rubs chin-

MasterSpark
Jun 19, 2012, 07:44 AM
Nah, my loading times were consistant. Fraps didn't effect the performance of the game to any noticeable degree.

Vylera
Jun 19, 2012, 07:50 AM
Nah, my loading times were consistant. Fraps didn't effect the performance of the game to any noticeable degree.

Come to think of it, one of my friends had your problem, but worse.

The little PSO2 image wouldn't even show up at all in the tunnel, and he would be forced to D/C and reconnect.

The strange thing with him though is that it would be every other 5 load screens that would screw him over. Otherwise, he would load in the blink of an eye.

He runs on ethernet cable, so my only assumption can be the strength of the connection, not the stability.

Apparently this is how my internetz handles Japan:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2017208421.png

MasterSpark
Jun 19, 2012, 08:00 AM
Oh, and one more thing. I don't know about you, but it takes the game launcher about 2 minutes to display the pre-game menu, and when I click to start the game it takes about 30 seconds for gameguard to display itself. And *then* it takes another ~30 seconds before the game actually starts.

Oh, and the pre-open beta patch took me 21 hours to download.

Something's not healthy in the ether here.

Edit: Which host did you choose when you made the test? They give wildly varying results on my end.

sugarFO
Jun 19, 2012, 08:01 AM
The benchmark didn't give me any results after character creation!!!

MasterSpark
Jun 19, 2012, 08:03 AM
The benchmark didn't give me any results after character creation!!!

Are you sure that you actually ran the test? If you don't start it manually, it will just show you the video without doing any benchmarking. To start it, choose the top option in the menu where the character creator is the second option.

MrTurkleton
Jun 19, 2012, 09:15 AM
At max settings and just having the benchmark run in the background i got 11700. If i let it go at lowest settings i actually hit the 99999 limit.

MasterSpark
Jun 19, 2012, 03:13 PM
I think it's safe to say that my suspicions were correct. My brother's network connection to Japan is terrible. At my own place, the launcher blazes through all the processes to start the game. I'll confirm it on Thursday by bringing my gaming PC back home for a quick trial.

Oh well, I'll be able to live with the long download times as long as I know that it'll get better when I'm back home. :)

JRDeBo
Jun 19, 2012, 03:15 PM
A touch over 2000 on lowest, which is just barely passing :)

bonethrack
Jun 19, 2012, 03:26 PM
about 700 on 2nd lowest setting before i overclocked my gpu after it went up to 3700 on medium settings

FerrPSO
Jun 22, 2012, 03:53 PM
Well, I just made the change froom a 720p monitor to a 1080p.

The results droppen from 7k to 4k. It was weird how changing the shaders didnt make any effect

I was a little underwhelmed (the message said I may have to lower the settings) so I OCed a little my GTX460 till I reach 5000.

In-game I still have 60 fps everywhere, except in the lobby when theres lots of people, where my PC stutters a little.

Jaspaller
Jun 22, 2012, 07:14 PM
[spoiler-box]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/Jaspaller/PSO/pso20120604_144601_000.jpg[/spoiler-box]

Ohay, my PC better than yours? More than ready for PSO2. Default settings gave me a score of 51997. The settings from the benchmark above were at 1600x900 (Monitor can't go higher unfortunately) at Preset 5 (max?).

Specs:
Processor: Intel I7 3770K @ 3.5 GHz Ivy Bridge
Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme6
RAM: 16 GB Kingston HyperX Dual Channel memory (2x4) x2. DDR3 1600 Frequency
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 680 2GB GDDR5

Nothing's been overclocked so I have no idea how high I could get my score if I really wanted to.

IzzyData
Jul 8, 2012, 11:07 PM
*highfive*

[spoiler-box]
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/58437091/pso20120708_230642_000.jpg
[/spoiler-box]

Hobbez
Jul 9, 2012, 05:24 AM
Just wanted to pass on my experience with that benchmark program. We have 2 desktops and a laptop here in our house and that program was way, WAY off on all 3 of them. Both mine and my wife's desktops recieved extremely low scores from the benchmark. 2100 for mine and under 2k for hers. However, we both play the game at maxed settings including detailed chars set at 100 on screen with absolutly no framerate lag, hitching, or pc related performance problems. Her laptop however, scored almost 20k on the benchmark, but has to be on rock bottom setting to play smoothly and still has a bit of FPS lag if it gets busy.

Robert_Garcia
Jul 28, 2012, 04:44 PM
00175

:sadface:

Mystil
Jul 28, 2012, 04:52 PM
My Ol'Phenom still trying to contend with the big boys XD.

[spoiler-box]http://zassyen.net/images/pso_benchmark.jpg[/spoiler-box]

Mkilbride
Aug 10, 2012, 05:13 AM
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5250/pso20120810060542000.jpg @ 2560 x 1440

Eh, ran the benchmark. Must say, I'm not to impressed by it. Maxed it out, 150+ FPS at all times, 200FPS in alot of areas.

Looks 2005-2006 ish, not terrible, very acceptable due to the MMO nature.

Just..eh. I don't know, not much of a Benchmark really! Now FFXIV, that's a benchmark!

Phantasma
Aug 10, 2012, 08:56 AM
Eh, ran the benchmark. Must say, I'm not to impressed by it. Maxed it out, 150+ FPS at all times, 200FPS in alot of areas.

Looks 2005-2006 ish, not terrible, very acceptable due to the MMO nature.

Just..eh. I don't know, not much of a Benchmark really! Now FFXIV, that's a benchmark!
Yes, you don't know.

Eh, you have a 670 and a 2500K. If you were getting under 100fps your post would be a completely different story (PSO2 UNOPTIMIZED FOR MY CARD EVEN THOUGH THE NVIDIA LOGO IS IN THE STARTUP SCREENS QQQQ). Am I lying? FFXIV's benchmark isn't any better as it gave high scores (even higher to AMD cards as 5850s were beating 480s) yet ran like crap when playtime game i.e. 40% of my 4.2Ghz i7 920 used and ~75% of both of my 470s used but still ~25fps on max settings in game. Same story even when running one card. PSO2 never had this issue. Come back when your E-peen loses its erection. Until then, enjoy your 670 to the fullest ^^

Can't wait for FFXIV 2.0 :3

Mkilbride
Aug 10, 2012, 09:39 AM
E peen?

Oh no no, I'm just saying.

And yes, FFXIV is horribly optimized, 2.0 promises to be different with a completely overhauled Engine...we will see, hopefully a new benchmark will come out then.

FFXIV runs better with 1 GPU than 2. My second 670 actually -lowered-! my score...though the BEnchmark is over 2 years old.

Still, I don't know what I was hoping for here, I saw the videos, but I was hoping to see something really push my cards. The Benchmark was really short.

And didn't really do a variety of things, most Benchmarks test all the situations you'll get to in-game, I didn't see much of anything in this one.

and I read scores are bullocks anyways, a friend scored 900 and runs maxed out @ 70+ FPS.

Kinda OT, but what's a good server to just mess around on? I heard in passing Ship 2 is a good place to be for English speakers.

Phantasma
Aug 10, 2012, 10:01 AM
Oh ok, I read too much into that last post then. My bad.

I'm sure ship 2 would be the best choice for fellow English speakers, but I chose ship 4 as servers were instantly filling up day 1 lol

Dang! Two 670s! Which ones did you get? I've been a big EVGA and MSI fan but their offerings don't look up to par this gen so I'm getting the gigabyte windforce in two weeks as I need my quiet and coolness. Gonna have to get the second one before I move to Japan this December as they are >$500 in the land of the rising sun >_< /OT

DC_PLAYER
Aug 10, 2012, 10:02 AM
Benchmark is not reliable, i got good FPS and some nice graphics yet a low score, far lower then any of these +2000
In other words, whithout pushing things to far (no i don't mean the graphic options in the launcher, that's newbie tweaks) i have a pretty decent game and it looks quite nice considering what PSO2 is, let's be honest, PSO2 isn't exactly running the unreal engine.

So the score doesn't mean anything really, i can pretty much bet that my game runs as smooth as the 10k score ones.

Mkilbride
Aug 10, 2012, 10:18 AM
Oh ok, I read too much into that last post then. My bad.

I'm sure ship 2 would be the best choice for fellow English speakers, but I chose ship 4 as servers were instantly filling up day 1 lol

Dang! Two 670s! Which ones did you get? I've been a big EVGA and MSI fan but their offerings don't look up to par this gen so I'm getting the gigabyte windforce in two weeks as I need my quiet and coolness. Gonna have to get the second one before I move to Japan this December as they are >$500 in the land of the rising sun >_< /OT

EVGA GTX670 FTW Edition.

A few reasons;

FTW Editions use 680 PCB's, which mean higher OC's, better temp regulation, more coolers and waterblocks fit them.

FTW Editions are "binned" higher. My GTX670 FTW's hit around 1300MHZ each with a slight OC, which is pretty damn nice. However, I installed two custom air coolers, they are tight up against each other now and the first card is 5c or so hotter than the other, and due to SLi, you gain a 10c increase in emps for a few reasons;

1. 2 cards = more heat, simple.

2. The first card draws extra wattage over the SLI bridge, hence it has to cool more...and since it's air flow isn't so great(The second GTX670's PCB is almost firmly against it's twin fans)

Still.

With 1 card, I hit 55-c max in games, 99% usage.

With 2, I hit around 60-65c, rarely 70c in a few very intense games, and at 70c, Kepler starts to throttle.

As for the Windforce, I personally wouldn't recommend it, being Gigabyte, and the overall reviews put it's performance around the FTW edition, and barely runs cooler, despite using a custom cooling design. I recommend Artic Cooling pro Twin Turbo for the 670's, excellente, drops temps in half in most cases and completely silent.


The big reason I went EVGA though;

My GTX280, died, after 2 years of ownership. It had a 3 year Warranty. I sent it back to EVGA for about 7$ shipping.

They sent me back, a GTX470. Which I used for a little over a year. It was a 50% upgrade in performance.

EVGA's RMA service is top notch; they cover if you OC the card, modify the card, they will replace it, even if you over-volt and kill your card, the only reasons they won't replace it is if you physically damaged it, obviously.

But EVGA is awesome, and no longer do you have to register for the Warranty...all cards Warranty's are serial based.

And yes, I notice it's not running the Unreal Engine, it's graphics are much better.

Unless you mean the Unreal Engine 3.0, then again, art style comes into play.

As for .ini tweaks to improve graphics, care to tell me them? I mean with 200+FPS, might as well push the best visual quality out.

Phantasma
Aug 10, 2012, 10:38 AM
Yea, I read about the FTW's having the 680 PCBs which is great...but they still have only one fan that will have to work harder when temps go up. lol
Neweggers definitely prefer it over the gigabyte version though...I'm assuming it's because of the binning XD
I went EVGA for my 8800gts and 9800gtx...then I decided to build a new comp in Japan where EVGA is not sold so I went MSI `-`


Trust me, you don't know heat till you've had two 470s in SLI :3 Add overvolting+OC aaaaaand *nuclear explosion*
Had to get the twin frozr ii for one and put an arctic cooling accelero xtreme plus (yes, tri-slot) on the second.

YIKES! Kepler throttles at 70C?!?! That's really low compared to everything post 7000 series XD

I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens post 660ti launch :D

Mkilbride
Aug 10, 2012, 10:48 AM
Haha.

Yes, Kepler starts to downclock @ 70c, you can't really change this, sadly, just the way the new "Boost" feature works.

Yes, that one fan, but a custom cooler under-neath, which if you look at reviews actually goes toe to toe with Gigabytes version with two fans.

That's just sad.

EVGA FTW's are 410$ on Amazon.

+46$ cooler

So 456$ and my 670 is as fast as a 680 OC'ed by 10%.

And yes, I had a single GTX470, Overvolted and OC'ed and it could reach 90, despite having a AC on in a very small room, side fans, top fans, all that...Fermi man!

My 670's are 100% binned, no voltage leaking, which makes for great air cooled cards, but voltage leaking is good for water cooling, if you go that route.

Phantasma
Aug 10, 2012, 10:58 AM
Well if that's the case, FTW is the only route to take!
I was actually going to try out a custom water cooled build when I get settled overseas. How does the voltage leaking work out with that?

Mkilbride
Aug 10, 2012, 11:04 AM
Well, with water cooling, you don't have to worry about temps...so voltage leaking just means you can OC higher. As the voltage can be tweaked higher.

Phantasma
Aug 10, 2012, 11:10 AM
Ah, true true.
I heard having cpus and each gpu on their own water loop improves cooling due to not being cooled by fluid that hasn't been through the radiator yet so I'm gonna give that a shot.

Asuna
Aug 10, 2012, 11:54 AM
Hello guys, I had tried the benchmark on my notebook but I have some doubts about it.

My score is 1423 with minimal textures and no shades. I've tried with standard textures and no shades and the score is 1306. With shades the benchmark and the character creator crashes.

My notebook is a DELL INSPIRON 1545 with Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 @ 2.20 GHz, RAM 4 Gb, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4300 - 512 mb.
I see the minimal requirements for the game and I think my pc is ok but for the benchmark it's not so.

I think the problem is the graphic card. Any suggestions? Do I need a more powerfull pc to play this game?

Thanks so much for all the replies.

Link1275
Aug 10, 2012, 11:57 AM
Hello guys, I had tried the benchmark on my notebook but I have some doubts about it.

My score is 1423 with minimal textures and no shades. I've tried with standard textures and no shades and the score is 1306. With shades the benchmark and the character creator crashes.

My notebook is a DELL INSPIRON 1545 with Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 @ 2.20 GHz, RAM 4 Gb, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4300 - 512 mb.
I see the minimal requirements for the game and I think my pc is ok but for the benchmark it's not so.

I think the problem is the graphic card. Any suggestions? Do I need a more powerfull pc to play this game?

Thanks so much for all the replies.

That's your problem right there. It's not designed for gaming, it's designed for office and school. However if you really must use Dell, use an alienware or upgrade that one you have in every aspect(especially the ati and intel core duo).

Asuna
Aug 10, 2012, 12:22 PM
That's your problem right there. It's not designed for gaming, it's designed for office and school. However if you really must use Dell, use an alienware or upgrade that one you have in every aspect(especially the ati and intel core duo).

Alienware is really cool but too much expensive for me ^^;

I was thinking about this one:
DELL INSPIRON 15R Special Edition with Intel Core i5-3210M / 3M Cache, up to 3.10 GHz (or with Intel Core i7), RAM 8 mb, AMD Radeon HD 7730M 2GB.

I think that's not bad, what do you think?

Phantasma
Aug 10, 2012, 12:47 PM
Alienware is really cool but too much expensive for me ^^;

I was thinking about this one:
DELL INSPIRON 15R Special Edition with Intel Core i5-3210M / 3M Cache, up to 3.10 GHz (or with Intel Core i7), RAM 8 mb, AMD Radeon HD 7730M 2GB.

I think that's not bad, what do you think?

7730M will do fine.

Zekester
Aug 10, 2012, 02:07 PM
The funny thing is I scored like 1000 if not less and I run my settings on 4 and it plays fantastically

Vanelle
Jul 9, 2015, 09:01 PM
ran the benchmark outta curiosity. over 76,000 xD <3 consistent 450+FPS

Dephinix
Jul 9, 2015, 09:39 PM
Such necro, no specs, amaze!