Jump to content

Computer Upgrade... LE Fail?


tjheldna
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just did an upgrade of my desktop as it's been about 4 years now and the hardware was getting dated and wanted to play the new SW Battlefront with no issues. So I decided to do an upgrade Here is what I got...

 

OS = Windows 10

RAM = Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR4 2400 RAM

HDD - Samsung Sata SSD 500 GB

Video - Asus STRIX GTX950 2GB

Processor - Intel Core i5-6600 3.3GHz 6MB

MB -Gigabyte H170-HD3

 

Now this computer is flying with all my 3D, 2D programs and games. I am very happy with it, however It has practically made very little difference with the performance in LE. I'm talking an increase in the range of 10 fps across all my projects big and small. When running in debug mode its still so choppy it's hardly use able so there is zero improvement there. The jump in specs compared to my last build are miles apart, I'm very disappointed with this result.

trindieprod.png?dl=0spacer.png?dl=0steam-icon.png?dl=0twitter-icon.png?dl=0spacer.png?dl=0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, your CPU only went from 3.1 to 3.3 ghz, so I wouldn't expect a huge jump on anything CPU-related. The Visual Studio debugger will always slow down the program substantially when enabled.

My job is to make tools you love, with the features you want, and performance you can't live without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of stream processors is almost 2x.

 

True but it has only 75% the number of stream processors compared to my 3 year old GTX590. I have always used the rule of thumb that anything greater than or equal to 6 for the second number is meant for gaming. And going by this article, a GTX950 would be the bottom end of the 900 series gaming cards.

Win7 64bit / Intel i7-2600 CPU @ 3.9 GHz / 16 GB DDR3 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590

LE / 3DWS / BMX / Hexagon

macklebee's channel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback all. I wasn't expecting the ground to move with this build. It came down to a few things, I was getting constant shut downs when playing games and could only play (for example) Fall Of Cybertron for about 20min bang overheat. I had to get the max gear I could from a budget defined by my upper household management so there is nothing mind blowing here. During the life cycle of my gear I'll probably end up replacing the video card anyway so I'm not too worried about that just now. I think the biggest thing that's made the difference is the SSD I cant believe how quick things load now.

 

I've done a bit of testing and here is what I've come up with. Every project I have ever started has used large terrain and that has been the biggest fps hog from what I can work out.

 

Here are some tests I did:

 

for a 256x256 =160 fps

 

for a 512x512=110 fps

 

for a 1024x1024 =100 fps

 

for a 2048x2048 = 94 fps

 

for a 4096x4096 = 50fps

 

so there is a range of approx 110 fps between the sizes and adding things like vegetation and paint layers have little to no impact. If I didn't use terrain I would be very happy with the fps. The amount of fps the terrain eats seems a lot but is it reasonable? I don't know?

  • Upvote 1
trindieprod.png?dl=0spacer.png?dl=0steam-icon.png?dl=0twitter-icon.png?dl=0spacer.png?dl=0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...