Game performance is ABYSMAL.

Game performance is perfect for me on all maxed settings running an i5 2500k... literally zero issues outside of the known sync problems from time to time. Obviously the OPs claim of abysmal game performance is not universal, nor is it well founded. In fact, from my perspective it could not be more incorrect.

"

logokas wrote:

*Removed wall of whine*

If my APU can run it flawlessly, there are no performance issues.

Even my old computer run the game with full graphics with it's six year old 4890 card.

I mean, it's a six year old computer. If you are having FPS issues it's client side. Drivers maybe?

"

logokas wrote:

"

DarkGreen wrote:

One of the definitions found on the interweb for "ABYSMAL" is "extremely or hopelessly bad or severe". Well, that's your opinion.

25 FPS out of a possible 120. I would say that the word i used is very accurate.

25fps is "extremely or hopelessly bad" ?!?

I'm from Romania and played in a party with somebody from Iran/Iraq. I died at least 3-4 times because of severe frame drops in the cave East of town, killing fodder monsters in Dark Forest, battling some medium tier boss, and another time in the second Act. Sometimes I simply found myself incapable of doing ANYTHING for almost a minute and in less then a 0.5seconds I was dead.

Compared to my experience with the MP I think I have the right to dismiss your choice of words. Or I'm just a old fucktard who played Baldur's Gate 1 last year and enjoyed it more than Mass Effect 1...

"

thepmrc wrote:

Game performance is perfect for me on all maxed settings running an i5 2500k... literally zero issues outside of the known sync problems from time to time. Obviously the OPs claim of abysmal game performance is not universal, nor is it well founded. In fact, from my perspective it could not be more incorrect.

"I have a powerful high end processor and have no issues whatsoever! This must mean the problem doesn't exist!"

Please do not reply to this thread again. Thank you.

"

jawsofhana wrote:

If my APU can run it flawlessly, there are no performance issues.

Even my old computer run the game with full graphics with it's six year old 4890 card.

I mean, it's a six year old computer. If you are having FPS issues it's client side. Drivers maybe?

Drivers? We are talking about a CPU issue here. This has nothing to do with the GPU, in fact the GPU is underutilized because the game is bottlenecked by CPU performance.

What processor is in that old computer?

"

DarkGreen wrote:

25fps is "extremely or hopelessly bad" ?!?

I'm from Romania and played in a party with somebody from Iran/Iraq. I died at least 3-4 times because of severe frame drops in the cave East of town, killing fodder monsters in Dark Forest, battling some medium tier boss, and another time in the second Act. Sometimes I simply found myself incapable of doing ANYTHING for almost a minute and in less then a 0.5seconds I was dead.

Compared to my experience with the MP I think I have the right to dismiss your choice of words. Or I'm just a old fucktard who played Baldur's Gate 1 last year and enjoyed it more than Mass Effect 1...

When i see that a game cannot run properly on a computer that's less than a year old, while costing me several paychecks in full, i see that as a severe issue.

I am going to say this again. Path of Exile runs worse on mid range CPUs than Battlefield 3, a game that is several orders of magnitude more intense with its' visuals. When maxed, BF3 maintains a framerate above 60 at all times. Meanwhile, Path of Exile struggles to stay above 30 more often than not, while not looking even remotely as impressive. That, to me, is abysmal. WHERE is all this CPU power going to? I'm not seeing any revolutionary graphics or complex AI or mind blowing particle effects. In fact, aside from couple shader effects, Torchlight looks better overall, and runs absolutely perfectly.

Bah, I hate to reply to such an obvious troll, but here are my computer specs:

CPU is a Core2 Duo P9500
GFX is radeon 4850 w/ 512mb RAM running at 1920x1200 on a 17" screen
It has 4GB RAM
Windows 7 64 bit Ultimate
It is over 3 years old

all graphics option turned on, except for:

no antialiasing (hardly necessary at the above-mentioned resolution)
2x Filtering (again, more is unnecessary and a waste of time)

It gets 50-60 FPS. It is a laptop computer.

I put it to you sir, that you are either full of shit or there is something horribly wrong with your computer. Furthermore, why do you need more than 120 FPS? Sure, it would be lovely to have that in a first-person shooter or something, but it's really not necessary in a game like PoE.

Now please - and I quote - "Please do not reply to this thread again. Thank you."

2 year old PC here with an average quality video card, and ~35 FPS with the default settings. Turned off post processing and shadows and now I have ~55 fps
Internet is 10mb, and I live in Brazil, 180 ping, which is barely noticeable

"

Miszou wrote:

Bah, I hate to reply to such an obvious troll, but here are my computer specs:

CPU is a Core2 Duo P9500
GFX is radeon 4850 w/ 512mb RAM running at 1920x1200 on a 17" screen
It has 4GB RAM
Windows 7 64 bit Ultimate
It is over 3 years old

all graphics option turned on, except for:

no antialiasing (hardly necessary at the above-mentioned resolution)
2x Filtering (again, more is unnecessary and a waste of time)

It gets 50-60 FPS. It is a laptop computer.

I put it to you sir, that you are either full of shit or there is something horribly wrong with your computer. Furthermore, why do you need more than 120 FPS? Sure, it would be lovely to have that in a first-person shooter or something, but it's really not necessary in a game like PoE.

Now please - and I quote - "Please do not reply to this thread again. Thank you."

I wasn't even talking to you because of your troll post on page one?

And i don't want more than 120, i want EXACTLY 120. I own a 3D screen with a 120Hz refresh rate. I'd like to see all of them.

I'm also surprised to see such good performance from your machine. I play maxed, without AA, and at 1600x900 windowed while i was observing the performance issues.

It gives way to the possibility that the game is not working properly on AMD processors. Perhaps there is hope, yet.

I've got a terrible video card and a good processor, and it works fine on my desktop.

"

logokas wrote:

Dear Grinding Gear devs.

Why is your game still single threaded?

I did not read whole thread but fast answer to your question is:

Making a multi threaded program is much, much more complicated than single threaded.

Why didn't you shell out the ext couple hundred for an Intel CPU instead of the AMD since Intel is the better chip right now, until AMD sues for the ability to use Intel's bridging technology probably towards the end of this year.

Almost anyone in tech knows AMD and Intel have been playing this game for at least 15 years. And since sandy-bridge was released AMD has been behind and will be until probably this year when they will sue to use the bridging technology and produce them cheaper and better, til Intel innovates again AMD will be the chip to buy.

I mean you spent 3 grand so I assume you did you're homework on every piece you wanted in your PC. But then you come on a board and complain about your terrible single core performance when it is a known problem with the current AMD series. But, I'm sure you already knew all that. This reminds me of all the people complaining about BF3 when it came out. You cannot expect a game company (or any company) to specifically cater to you, or your particular brand of (zany) configuration. So, you have to tweak your system to have it run properly.


If you are confused about anything I have said then I think I have proven my point.


$3000 is a bit much for what you have in there so I am hoping part of that went into a really sweet ass monitor or a super hot chick who lives under your desk. Anything less you got ripped off.