Wow's "Recommended" Button for Graphics.

[lloose]

Wrong, synthetic benchmarks are bs.

My son has a 8320 on a Asus M5A97 MB OC to 4.5 GHz with 8 GB memory and a GTX 760 with a 250 EVO SSD (basically the same machine as mine except AMD), he gets the same playable frame rates I do as a matter of fact, he gets better in 25 mans.

BTW mine is the rig in my sig.

OT, yea ignore recommended settings.

You're one of the lucky ones I guess. A lot of people complain about poor performance compared to intel cpus. It's hard to judge sometimes unless you have 2 computer side by side. I built a tower for my brother in law with a 8320 and it runs games just fine. Even LFR was comparable to an intel 2700k I was running at the time.

The human eye can only see 60 FPS.

I typed this faster than 60fps, he'll never see this post buahahaha..

[TaintedOne]

Blizzard is just being conservative with the new char models is my guess.

I've never really bothered with the recommended settings. I hit the ultra preset and tweak it from there to where I want to be fps wise.

[apepi]

It's called persistence of vision, and is directly related to the flicker fusion rate of parts of the retina. For rods, it's about 15 Hz, for cones, it peaks around about 60 Hz. It's why bright flashing lights can cause discomfort (or even seizures) if the flickering is under 60 Hz. With LCD (compared to CRT) that particular danger decreases, but it doesn't effect the rate at which the retina can detect light. I think it is effected by how bright and different the light is, but you get diminishing returns above 60 Hz. The biology of the visual cycle is not instantaneous or supernatural.

You don't realize I was joking being sarcastic because the other person was right?

[Packing an i5]

I don't like using the recommended button I have an AMD FX 4100 cpu and a radeon 6870 HD as my card I run the game fine as long as I turn down the shadows to good and disable the new lighting features. I built it coming up on 4 years ago admittedly it ran wow better before Mists came out. I still meet the recommended requirements for Warlords of draeneor and all I play is Wow and occasionally Kotor an old favorite of mine and counter strike.

[Deleted]

Just an FYI to those running anything sub HD 6950 in terms of performance. When running Ultra in WoW (or close to ultra) on a card with similar performance, watch your GPU usage in something like Afterburner. At times where I had 30-40 FPS with the new patch, I would see 100% usage non stop.

I upgraded to a GTX 970. WoW still "recommends" Good settings, but the 970 runs any zone flawlessly at 60 FPS capped.
I still get dips to 40 fps in shrine and stormwind, but that's to be expected.

[Deleted]

I can not afford AMD (because high power bill negate low cpu cost). So i can't say how new AMD cpus will run wow, but i can tell you when i upgraded from AMD to i7 i had really noticeable framerate increase and lower power bill. When it comes to details, back in the older engine, it ran faster only in raids, low populated areas were fine before so i didn't notice change there. But i guess you can go to some low activity area and try to set graphics there. If it's unplayable or you get noticable lag that you don't like it will only get worse from there.

[Warrax]

I had that AMD FX 8150 before I upgrade to Intel i5 2500k, difference was night and days.

[May90]

"Recommended" buttons have always been awkward in games. They are deduced based on some kinds of surveys, but the way it is done is clearly flawed. For example, "recommended" button in Starcraft 2 set the game on my previous laptop so that I got an average of 10 FPS or so. But "recommended" button in Heroes of the Storm on that very laptop, having exactly the same engine as Starcraft 2 and same set of settings, set it so it looked very poor and I never went below 60 FPS.

My tip is: ignore "recommended" settings and set whatever you want.

[rinleezwins]

I believe the environment in Draenor will be more gpu-intensive as the official minimal/recommended specs have gone up.

[ComputerNerd]

Nothing wrong with AMD.

OT, like Tetris says, turn down shadows to good and FXAA on low, CMAA and FXAA may be too high for your 7850. You can also lower ground clutter and liquid detail to smooth out performance.

True, nothing wrong with AMD.
Just that AMD have a focus which unfortunately is not well supported in gaming, proper utilisation of multiple cores.
Wow barely utilises 2 cores, doing most of its work on one.
Therefore higher single-core performance rules, and so intel rules the roost.

OP has AMD CPU which is far worse than pretty much any Intel CPU you can get for WoW.

I got a GTX 580 and game recommends High pretty much across the board, yet I can easily max out the game +80 FPS outdoors. Cities(namely Shrine) always give me 30-40 FPS.

Out in the world the game may be more GPU constrained due to less spells flying around.
The reason why raid performance drops significantly is the game hitting the CPU a lot more in that content, and is where you will see the difference.

[Charge me Doctor]

It's not nonsense... Intel has been known to be up-to 30-35% faster in single-thread performance for years now.

I never get this one. I remember comparing AMD(radeon) cards and processors to Intel(nvidia) ones and for some really weird reason Intel and Nvidia was always ahead while having less appealing characteristics (less cores, less processors, less speed and carrying capacity) but for unknown reason they are better on benchmarks. There is numerous amount of people who say that AMD stuff is cheaper and often better than Intel (in middle range) with on exception, Intel being cooler (in sense of temperature). For high-end PCs the picture favors Intel iirc, but i don't care about it because i won't be able to spend that much on a PC.

OT, get your ultra settings and drops shadow quality or render distance a bit, works for me

[DarkArchon]

Let your GPU control panel optimize the setting for you...Not sure if it's just a Nvidia thing or not.

[May90]

Let your GPU control panel optimize the setting for you...Not sure if it's just a Nvidia thing or not.

Nooooooo, don't do that! Those drivers are really terrible at "optimizing" settings. Better spend a few hours to understand all the options in control panel, how they work, what the performance impact is, what the potential problems are and such - and then optimize the game for yourself, based on what is important for you in picture.

[Xarkan]

I never get this one. I remember comparing AMD(radeon) cards and processors to Intel(nvidia) ones and for some really weird reason Intel and Nvidia was always ahead while having less appealing characteristics (less cores, less processors, less speed and carrying capacity) but for unknown reason they are better on benchmarks. There is numerous amount of people who say that AMD stuff is cheaper and often better than Intel (in middle range) with on exception, Intel being cooler (in sense of temperature). For high-end PCs the picture favors Intel iirc, but i don't care about it because i won't be able to spend that much on a PC.

OT, get your ultra settings and drops shadow quality or render distance a bit, works for me

Being cooler is actually pretty cool. Since heat relates to watt relates to power bill quite a bit.

[Deleted]

True, nothing wrong with AMD.
Just that AMD have a focus which unfortunately is not well supported in gaming, proper utilisation of multiple cores.
Wow barely utilises 2 cores, doing most of its work on one.
Therefore higher single-core performance rules, and so intel rules the roost.

WRONG! Even intel does this better than AMD. Intel have better multicore processing than AMD. So if games used multiple cores in games, intel would be even better.

[Replica]

AMD
/Thread

User was infracted.

he was just trying, to speak.. the truth!

*grasps for air with hands, dies from suffocation*

- - - Updated - - -

I had that AMD FX 8150 before I upgrade to Intel i5 2500k, difference was night and days.

my 2500k is a dream - i pushed it to 5.4ghz but it was a bit ridiculous lol
Back to 4.4 for the little guy

[Wries]

Wrong, synthetic benchmarks are bs.

My son has a 8320 on a Asus M5A97 MB OC to 4.5 GHz with 8 GB memory and a GTX 760 with a 250 EVO SSD (basically the same machine as mine except AMD), he gets the same playable frame rates I do as a matter of fact, he gets better in 25 mans.

BTW mine is the rig in my sig.

OT, yea ignore recommended settings.

I'd take your anecdotal evidence if it was a general outcry of more people who bought the AMD FX-series. I'm glad it works for your son but the processors have been benchmarked and tested and they all show the same trend.

We should also all swap to a 21:9 aspect ratio, for that (faked) real movie feeling.

Sarcasm or not, I support this suggestion!