How well does Guild wars 2 run with 4 cores?

[Chickat]

I have a super cheap laptop with 4 cores, but the cores only run at 1.5ghz no turbo boost. This isn't the exact laptop, but its close. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834101326. Most games ive tried run worse than my 1.9ghz dual core i had before this. It was an a4 from a few years ago.

The dual core ran it on low at about 15-25fps depending on where i was. Sometimes it would shoot to 30, other times well below 15 if lots of people were around.

If i can get similar fps, then ill play it.

[Fencers]

About the same as it does on dual core, honestly. At least in my non scientific experience between 3 PCs; my own, my laptop and my husband's hotrod PC.

[Chickat]

So, a 4 core at 1.5ghz would probably run it worse than a dual core at 1.9ghz?

[Fencers]

No, I said it was about the same in my experience. Yours may be different but it doesn't seem to impact performance all that much having a few cores to throw at the game.

[Lazuli]

GW2 has horrible optimization.

The problem though is you're on a laptop.. dish out 500 bucks and make a PC, should run fine.

AMD graphics and intel processor imo, and on topic this game doesn't utilize 4 cores, at least I haven't noticed any difference.

[Chickat]

GW2 has horrible optimization.

The problem though is you're on a laptop.. dish out 500 bucks and make a PC, should run fine.

AMD graphics and intel processor imo, and on topic this game doesn't utilize 4 cores, at least I haven't noticed any difference.

I will be building a 500 dollar build at some point when i get the money. Thinking amd 6300, and a 7790. Those are bang for buck choices, and i have a feeling amd will start performing better as more games start using more cores because of the consoles.

[Fencers]

I can never make up my mind if GW2 is well optimized or not. Feels like GW2 can run on anything but does so wildly and unpredictably.

For example, GW2 runs well enough on a laptop that is more than a few years old. Has integrated gfx and just the minimum of ram needed. Yet I can get 30fps on low settings consistently. Well enough to move around, dodge attacks and solo event hop. It's not even burdensome to do so.

Another laptop here runs GW2 at medium settings with only a little better of a dedicated gfx card and some more memory than the above laptop. Like 30 fps usually, 50ish FPS if I am somewhere quiet or a small town.

On my main desktop GW2 runs at high settings, just under 60 or so fps. For whatever reason it seems to fluctuate between 45-52ish a lot in the field. My husband's PC runs GW2 very smoothly. Yet GW2 doesn't look all that much better than on my older PC. The kicker being that if I turn the gfx settings down on either of our desktops- there is like no difference in FPS gain/loss unless there are smoke effects. Smoke effects seem to tank FPS on higher settings.

Splashing into water also causes framerate issues.

GW2 is weird.

[Deleted]

I`ve noticed the same about using max settings & low & still getting just the same fps.
To me, I`m not sure if that means it is optimised because it can do the same fps at both ends of gfx quality, or baldy coded because surely at lower settings my fps should sky rocket compared to max settings.
It is an odd one, but all the cronies have said similarly.

anet did say they had AMD in to help them optimise it pre release, but tbh I noticed no change between then & earlier during beta play times.

/shrug

P.S. One thing, the game barely touches gfx cards & that`s a huge shame, as that is the point of our pricey little toys, gw2 tends to rely only on processors, yet barely seems to take much power at times.

Odd ducks are odd ducks I guess

[Xuvial]

P.S. One thing, the game barely touches gfx cards & that`s a huge shame, as that is the point of our pricey little toys, gw2 tends to rely only on processors, yet barely seems to take much power at times.

Supersampling. Pushes my 780 to 99.9% usage, very high temepratures and even turned out to be unstable at a certain overclock.

Unfortunately the visual benefit of Supersampling appears to be jack-all, most of the game's stuff still uses the CPU to render

[Hockeyhacker]

I have a super cheap laptop with 4 cores, but the cores only run at 1.5ghz no turbo boost. This isn't the exact laptop, but its close. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834101326. Most games ive tried run worse than my 1.9ghz dual core i had before this. It was an a4 from a few years ago.

The dual core ran it on low at about 15-25fps depending on where i was. Sometimes it would shoot to 30, other times well below 15 if lots of people were around.

If i can get similar fps, then ill play it.

Could also just be your graphics card, graphics cards make a huge difference in game performance (my friend had a 9800 Nvid card and was getting only 3-5 FPS in The Witcher 2, I gave him my old Nvid 250's and he got a solid 40-45 FPS with no other hardware change... and the 250 series is still really old cards.

Even if the game doesn't optimise the GPUs a carppy laptop video card will cause the same type of issues, my FPS in GW2 went from 40-50FPS to 70-90FPS when I upgrad4ed from my 2 550tis to my 2 660s (Nvidia). And again that was the only hardware change.

[Deleted]

Supersampling. Pushes my 780 to 99.9% usage, very high temepratures and even turned out to be unstable at a certain overclock.

Unfortunately the visual benefit of Supersampling appears to be jack-all, most of the game's stuff still uses the CPU to render

Just a question, but what is really the difference between supersample and native? I see absolutely no difference at all.
I do see a difference on the computer of my boyfriend, but can this be because his screen is smaller or something? And what would be better?

[Fencers]

Most MMOs push and tax the CPU more heavily than the graphics card. So it is not too surprising that could be the case for GW2- though I haven't done any formal investigation of my own. Because the game runs fine for me most of the time, et cetera.

Just a question, but what is really the difference between supersample and native? I see absolutely no difference at all.

If you are already using AA or FXAA, it's usually pointless or unnoticeable to have SS on. Aside from the performance hit, natch.

SSAA is like another version of regular AA, but SSAA attempts to [super not technical description coming] render the game's frames at a higher resolution and downscale it to your monitor resolution. Native would be just the default reso the developers set for the frame to render.

AA/FXAA are kinda more efficient than SS/SSAA. But if you have the power to throw at supersampling and still play the game well, the thinking is "why not?"

I feel SS is a waste of time usually. Personal opinion, natch.

[Jtbrig7390]

I can never make up my mind if GW2 is well optimized or not. Feels like GW2 can run on anything but does so wildly and unpredictably.

At release it wasn't but personally I say it is well optimized now.

It runs at 20-30fps most of the time anywhere I go on my current computer. But in world boss fights like The Shatterer or Teq it dose tank to like 5fps.

My current computer is in my sig but ill post the spec here as well.

My Computer Spec Is|Motherboard: Foxconn A74GA|Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit|Processor: AMD Athlon(TM) II X2 B22 Processor 2.80ghz|RAM: 6GB DDR3 PC3-10600|Video Card: XFX 7750 Core Edition 1GB DDR5|Resolution: 1280 x 720.

- - - Updated - - -

If i can get similar fps, then ill play it.

You should get similar fps on the laptop depending the res you run it at.

[Deleted]

Most MMOs push and tax the CPU more heavily than the graphics card. So it is not too surprising that could be the case for GW2- though I haven't done any formal investigation of my own. Because the game runs fine for me most of the time, et cetera.

If you are already using AA or FXAA, it's usually pointless or unnoticeable to have SS on. Aside from the performance hit, natch.

SSAA is like another version of regular AA, but SSAA attempts to [super not technical description coming] render the game's frames at a higher resolution and downscale it to your monitor resolution. Native would be just the default reso the developers set for the frame to render.

AA/FXAA are kinda more efficient than SS/SSAA. But if you have the power to throw at supersampling and still play the game well, the thinking is "why not?"

I feel SS is a waste of time usually. Personal opinion, natch.

I see. That might explain why I see no difference. I'll stick with native (and FXAA) then, since I see no use in SSAA since it doesn't do anything for me visually. So there's no use in asking more power from my computer, for basically no reason.

[Deleted]

I had to buy a new PC for wvw, old one was quad core 3.0ghz amd, and performance was awful, you mainly need fast cores, now im using 8 core amd overclocked to 5.3ghz. gw2 only uses 4, and the results are wierd. on full gfx i get about 20-60 fps in wvw (big battles 100+ players) and anywhere between 40 and 180 in pve areas. from what i can see cpu speed is very important for the game, but not sure of difference between dual and quad cores, or amd / intel hyperthreaded ones. But performance seems to vary wildly throughout different parts of the game.