People good with PCs
#1
Ok let's say I play ac at the worst graphic settings, how much fps would I get if
-22 inch 1920*1080 moniter
-amd 6-core processor 3.5ghz
-8 gb ram
- Gtx 760 2gb graphics card (only 1)
I think that's enough info ask if u need more
Thanks given by:
#2
1000fps, stable on the majority of maps. You should expect drops on werk, douze and power near the middle areas of the map, but you should get 800+ on all of the aforementioned maps.

I know this because I also have a 22" 1920x1080 monitor, my GPU is comparable to yours (only major difference apart from the brand names are higher VRAM on mine and higher clock speeds on yours), and this the kind of framerate I get (but I'm playing on high, I noticed no difference in framerate when playing on lowest + high settings, just when I switched to ultra).

Just make sure your PSU is 650w or higher and not a cheap one, then you should be okay. Also in an ideal world you would swap the AMD for an Intel but for AC it's not gonna make a difference since it only uses one core (correct me if i'm wrong) anyway.
Thanks given by:
#3
Y shud I switch the amd for the intel?
Thanks given by:
#4
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/computi...est-936589

basically, intel's has been the industry leader for a long time due to lack of competition. AMD has a lower price tag and if you play games that use multiple cores and you overclock your cpu you can get close to intel with an amd. Personally, I prefer to drop a little extra dough to know what i'm getting is good and solid.

To give you some idea I use an i3-3750k with a mid/low graphics card and get about 500 fps in ac (i top it out there, i can hit 800 at times). Vanquish is right (and i asked him a lot of questions when i was building my rig), spend some money on power supply, and just have a processor that can handle your graphics card and you'll be fine.
Thanks given by:
#5
AMD's have worse individual core processing power, and to my knowledge, no game will use more than 3 cores anyway so having six is useless (AC for example only uses one). Basically, intel's have stronger single-threaded performance and in my experience they also cool better.
No matter how good your graphics card is, your CPU can still be a bottleneck to performance, but it depends what you're looking for. I built my PC because I wanted to run skyrim on ultra settings when it came out, and thus I selected an i5 3570k over an AMD FX6300 since there was a 10-fps drop (ish) when using the AMD CPU rather than the Intel.

And finally, Haswell CPU's have the best architecture/design for games performance on the market atm, but even the old Sandy/Ivy bridge models are nice. I would always recommend an Intel over an AMD processor (even for people who don't game), but if it will put a massive dent in your budget then don't bother. If you're just looking to play AC with high FPS your whole system is overkill, not just the CPU.


EDIT: missed everything Waffles said, he's 100% right.
Thanks given by:
#6
If I'm only using it to play games, I should get a 4 core 3.8 over a 6 core 3.5 cuz the games only use 3 cores max?

Same price btw
Thanks given by:
#7
8 years old video, but it's still my feeling about the difference between Intel and AMD...

Thanks given by:
#8
(10 Feb 14, 11:00PM)K-Dot Wrote: If I'm only using it to play games, I should get a 4 core 3.8 over a 6 core 3.5 cuz the games only use 3 cores max?

Same price btw

Well actually since posting this I found out Crysis 3 can use more than three cores, but it doesn't "need" to use them, it just gives some extra performance. As a rule of thumb, I would pick Intel > AMD rather than high clock speed > low clock speed, if you buy any intel processor that has "K" at the end of the name, that indicates that it's unlocked and you can OC it yourself - most i5's can manage 4.5 ghz with (very good) air cooling, up to 5 with liquid cooling. But 3.5 ghz (stock clock) will be fine for almost every game.
Thanks given by:
#9
I get 300-500FPS on an Intel Core i3-3225 CPU and a Radeon HD 6570 GPU, 8GB Ram
Thanks given by:
#10
Had a GTX 670. 1000 fps except as Vanq mentioned above. Unlike waffles I capped mine at 250.
Thanks given by:
#11
(11 Feb 14, 12:50AM)Jg99 Wrote: I get 300-500FPS on an Intel Core i3-3225 CPU and a Radeon HD 6570 GPU, 8GB Ram
It's amazing how at least 95% of your posts are facts about yourself.
Thanks given by:
#12
(11 Feb 14, 03:26AM)#M|A#Wolf Wrote:
(11 Feb 14, 12:50AM)Jg99 Wrote: I get 300-500FPS on an Intel Core i3-3225 CPU and a Radeon HD 6570 GPU, 8GB Ram
It's amazing how at least 95% of your posts are facts about yourself.

and at least 70% are about SilverCloud LTD PTD © ® inc.
Thanks given by:
#13
(10 Feb 14, 10:36PM)Waffles Wrote: an i3-3750k

Best CPU lol
But I get it, you meant to say the i5 3570K, right?

And this article may be of use to you. Especially when you're wondering about the differences between memory bandwidth, PCI-E 2.0 vs 3.0, and etc. They also compare more or less equivalent (similarly) priced Intel and AMD CPUs (and of course Intel wrecks).
Thanks given by:
#14
"... how much fps would I get if..."
Thanks given by:
#15
yes fate, unlike most nerds i dont have a mind for numbers. i could've looked it up but screw that
Thanks given by:
#16
My friend told me awhile ago that fps doesn't really matter when u get to 60 cuz the average moniter can only show up to 60 fps, so is there really a diff between 60 and 1000?
Thanks given by:
#17
Trust me, you'll notice the difference. You'll notice how much smoother it is.
Thanks given by:
#18
(15 Feb 14, 02:36PM)Orynge Wrote: Trust me, you'll notice the difference. You'll notice how much smoother it is.
Affirmative.

We can interpret it by a comparaison between 2 frames per second and 10 frames per second:

Movements 1 (2 images per second);
[Image: 7397052fps.png]

Movements 2 (10 images per second);
[Image: 29269810fps.png]
Thanks given by:
#19
Also not sure what the issue is but 60 FPS in AC is never smooth :/
Thanks given by:
#20
(15 Feb 14, 03:47PM)PhaNtom Wrote: Also not sure what the issue is but 60 FPS in AC is never smooth :/

If you turn on the vsync, well it will be smooth, but if your computer settings has the triple-buffering activated, you will have a delay between your actions (keyboard etc...) and the screen.
Thanks given by:
#21
(15 Feb 14, 04:22PM)ExodusS Wrote: If you turn on the vsync, well it will be smooth, but if your computer settings has the triple-buffering activated, you will have a delay between your actions (keyboard etc...) and the screen.
I agree about this comparaison!
In fact, it's between the number of image given by the game and the number of image that your monitor can display.
We can see an example of what can happens if the numbers to display is too high:
[Image: tearing.jpg]

The delay between your actions (keyboard...) and the screens, it's determined by "ms" millesecond (you can watch it on your monitor data sheet) and that's between output and input devices;
Anyway, I understood on what you meant...
Thanks given by:
#22
I could be wrong, but I believe that there's a single engine refresh per frame drawn. So the higher your FPS count is, the less mouse input lag you get (for high FPS players: try capping your FPS at 100 and then 1000 and you'll notice the difference).
However, when your FPS is uncapped, you get screen tearing, and this is probably what your friend is referring to with the "smoothness". With /vsync 1, your display will update at a steady pace (usually 60hz), and with /vsync 0 you don't synchronize with the pace your monitor is trying to force.

However, what you can actually do (which I recommend and have done for ages) is to cap your framerate at a multiple of your monitor's refresh rate, so you get the same amount of visual change with each refresh cycle and there are no "half-frames" being drawn. For anyone saying they or others "hit better" with high FPS, they are wrong. The only difference is simply that your mouse is (much) more responsive with 200fps or more than if you were stuck at 60 fps.

If you're talking about games like Skyrim, Dirt 3 or EuroTruck Simulator (beast game), your friend is right - the smoother the better. But not for FPS games, imo.


EDIT: Also screen tearing is never as bad as Krayce's picture suggests.
Thanks given by:
#23
EuroTruck Simulator? Seriously? Lol
Thanks given by:
#24
(15 Feb 14, 06:52PM)Marti Wrote: EuroTruck Simulator? Seriously? Lol

Thanks given by:
#25
Dude, Euro Truck Simulator 2 is the best game ever. It's incredibly relaxing and is a great way to listen to music/albums and waste the day away.

Some of my pointers:
  • Valiant trucks are the best.
  • Get rid of the speed limit. Delivering a trailer at 130km/h makes the game considerably more enjoyable than trying to keep your truck within the lane at 90km/h. If you're new, it's common to not always be perfectly in lane. This gets far easier as you get more experience.
  • It's a good idea to set your mouse to do the steering. This way you can have far greater control over the steering wheel inputs. A movement of about 5-10cm with your mouse to do a full lock is good. If the steering sensitivity is too low, then you won't be able to apply opposite lock fast enough to save your truck from tipping should the situation arise.
  • When transmission is set to manual, 5th gear is generally your lowest gear. A general rule of thumb is to shift up twice when RPM hits ~1500RPM. (Or whenever you're no longer in the green band)
    • 0km/h - 20km/h = 5th gear (can start at 3rd gear from rest and then shift to 5th at 10km/h if your truck sucks, i.e. not a Valiant, therefore has inferior torque)
    • 20km/h = 7th gear
    • 30km/h = 8th gear
    • 40km/h = 9th gear
    • 50km/h = 10th gear
    • 60km/h = 11th gear
    • 75km/h = 12th gear
  • Avoid doing jobs in the UK since there are over 9000 speed cameras.
  • Avoid France because of their love for over 9000 toll roads..
  • If you manage to enter a toll road without paying (can do this by closely following another vehicle -- this sounds deceivingly simple), you get fined for a "Red light offence".
    And if you exit a toll road without paying, you get a notification where you're charged €0,00.
  • When driving in the rain, drive at about 10km/h less than usual when tackling a corner. Reduce speed further if you have a trailer.
  • When cornering at somewhat high speeds (depends on the severity of the bend), keep an eye out for your trailer. It can tip without your main cab tipping, and if it tips far enough it will take damage.
  • If you're in a hurry, drive in the opposite side of the road to bypass a red light. Don't stay too long in the wrong side to avoid paying a fine.
  • If you overtake someone and immediately regret your decision since you're now heading into a collision, press F1 and close the game by ending its process via the task manager thus preventing it from automatically saving. And then reload the game to resume parked at that same point.
    You can also do this "trick" whenever you're about to crash. Although if your truck tips beyond a certain point, you will resume the game with your truck on its side.
  • If you're entitled to a loan from the bank, use it. You're more likely to quit the game before you manage to pay back that €400k loan. Especially as at that point you'll only be making some €10k per job.
  • When you get to a point where you're making at least €40+ per km, you've pretty much finished the game.
  • I've run out of ideas now. :(
Thanks given by:
#26
(10 Feb 14, 09:53PM)K-Dot Wrote: Ok let's say I play ac at the worst graphic settings, how much fps would I get if
-22 inch 1920*1080 moniter
-amd 6-core processor 3.5ghz
-8 gb ram
- Gtx 760 2gb graphics card (only 1)
I think that's enough info ask if u need more

More than you need.
Thanks given by:
#27
Can you play AC on a RasPi?
Thanks given by:
#28
(15 Feb 14, 05:13PM)Vanquish Wrote: I could be wrong, but I believe that there's a single engine refresh per frame drawn. So the higher your FPS count is, the less mouse input lag you get (for high FPS players: try capping your FPS at 100 and then 1000 and you'll notice the difference).

Unfortunately, this is true.

(15 Feb 14, 05:13PM)Vanquish Wrote: However, what you can actually do (which I recommend and have done for ages) is to cap your framerate at a multiple of your monitor's refresh rate, so you get the same amount of visual change with each refresh cycle and there are no "half-frames" being drawn. For anyone saying they or others "hit better" with high FPS, they are wrong. The only difference is simply that your mouse is (much) more responsive with 200fps or more than if you were stuck at 60 fps.

This is a good idea. If you will actually detect a change is another matter completely.

(15 Feb 14, 05:13PM)Vanquish Wrote: EDIT: Also screen tearing is never as bad as Krayce's picture suggests.

Never as bad in one frame, but if you have it happening every other frame, it gets quite annoying.
Thanks given by: