Wow's "Recommended" Button for Graphics.

[Crazykeven]

Hey there fellow wow peeps, It's not much of an issue however it is bugging me a bit.

I am fairly sure, prior to patch 6.0.2 I could run the game on Ultra after pressing 'recommended'. But now when I press recommended it shifts everything to 'Good' and I am a little confused and a little disconcerted.

The game still runs around 30 fps on Ultra in Org etc, but it's just this 'recommended' thing that's bugging me:

Here's my specs:

AMD Fx 8150 Eight-Core Processor: 3.6 GHz

RAM 16G

Windows 8.1: 64 bit.

AMD 2G Radeon HD 7850

Perhaps my game always has been recommended for 'good'? Does anyone have any opinion on this?

If you need any other info let me know.

Thanks.

[Deleted]

Well gpu requirements went up so that has an impact on older cards.

[Deleted]

AMD
/Thread

User was infracted.

[BicycleMafioso]

Reduce shadows a bit and continue running on ultra. I don't usually pay much heed to games' recommended settings - neither through spec sheets or in-game buttons.

[moremana]

AMD
/Thread

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.

[Muadiib]

I have an 8core FX 8350 4ghz, 8 gigs of ram, a GTX 670 2gb and it recommends I play on low settings, so yeah I'd ignore it if I were you, seems broken.

[Tehterokkar]

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.

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.

[Bigvizz]

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.

Sigh.....More Amd vs intel nonsense, either will play wow just fine it doesn't matter if you can't get above 60 fps you won't know the difference.

To OP: Don't trust the recommended settings, play around with the settings see what works for you.

[Tehterokkar]

Sigh.....More Amd vs intel nonsense, either will play wow just fine it doesn't matter if you can't get above 60 fps you won't know the difference.

To OP: Don't trust the recommended settings, play around with the settings see what works for you.

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

[Soisoisoi]

it doesn't matter if you can't get above 60 fps you won't know the difference.

I'm not getting into the AMD/NVIDIA/Intel war but I really hope you're not saying that people can't see over 60 FPS? For your sake I hope I'm just misunderstanding your comment.

[Eduro]

It's doesn't seem to work properly, when I hit the button it sets everything to "High" and I'm fairly sure my R9 290x and I7 4770k@4,3ghz should be able to handle ultra just fine (which it is). But yeah, pretty weird they put the recommendations so high.

[moremana]

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

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.

[BicycleMafioso]

I'm not getting into the AMD/NVIDIA/Intel war but I really hope you're not saying that people can't see over 60 FPS? For your sake I hope I'm just misunderstanding your comment.

Most people cannot. This is due to them having 60 Hz monitors and/or running at 60 Hz.

[apepi]

I wonder what blizzard's minimum and recommend specs will give you in fps.

[Seefer]

I'm not getting into the AMD/NVIDIA/Intel war but I really hope you're not saying that people can't see over 60 FPS? For your sake I hope I'm just misunderstanding your comment.

The human eye can only see 60 FPS.

[apepi]

The human eye can only see 60 FPS.

The human eye does not see in fps.

[Artorius]

The human eye can only see 60 FPS.

Your eye isn't exactly a camera...

[Gwiez]

The human eye does not see in fps.

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.

[Soisoisoi]

Most people cannot. This is due to them having 60 Hz monitors and/or running at 60 Hz.

Yeah I meant in terms of actually viewing it, hoping he wasn't as misinformed as this fellow:

The human eye can only see 60 FPS.

(either that or successful troll, I'd rather it be the latter tbh!)

...But whilst we're on the topic of FPS, I think we should all drop down to the amazing cinematic feel of 24FPS... Don't you guys agree?!

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Yeah I meant in terms of actually viewing it, hoping he wasn't as misinformed as this fellow:

(either that or successful troll, I'd rather it be the latter tbh!)

...But whilst we're on the topic of FPS, I think we should all drop down to the amazing cinematic feel of 24FPS... Don't you guys agree?!

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