Well my computer is way worse 64bit Windows 10, AMD A8-5500 quad 3.2GHz, 16GB Ram, Radeon 7870 2GB video card.
It's like a give/ take thing, up some settings while lower other stuff for balance. I used this guide which kinda explains what impacts what:
But this is the best i could pull off for quality and keep performance going pretty smooth at the same time
Yeah but it still cannot handle the game. My pc is from 2012. I Always used nVidia and i regret switching to Radeon. š¤
Even so, when i started playing Andromeda, i was like "OOPS" my computer cannot handle this game. 15-20 fps is never a good sign LOL
Was pretty bad and got worse every time i turned or looked around, game would freeze or drop to 2-5 fps. Unplayable.
I ended up tweaking settings like crazy and was able to get to 30-40 fps. But even now, game still staggers, its not smooth, fps still drops to 10-15 specially inside Tempest.
And i also like some better image quality, which i Can't get... or i won't be able to play it.
Oh I hear you on that. I was able to upgrade my pc this year so I've got an i7 7700K 4.3Ghz CPU, GTX1070 GPU and 16GB RAM and I use SSD hard drives.
It's certainly not a super machine but it's pretty good and I run the game at 1440p at the moment. I actually tweaked the graphics settings a bit and the game really looks good I have to say. Still, with upgrades also including a new motherboard it set me back over 1000 bucks total.
When I see that they are going to run 4k graphics on the new Xbox for 499 bucks, I have to admit I feel taken the * out of a bit as a PC gamer. I really would like one of these Xbox One X machines that I can play my PC games on with mouse and keyboard....hell, for 499 it's a steal really for 4k graphics. I still have to upgrade to a better graphics card to run 4k graphics on my PC and that graphics card alone costs more than the new Xbox.
Still, I'm sure PC's will still be able to get the edge on it but man, for 499 bucks it's an amazing deal. I just never did like those controllers much.
It's rough time though I think for PC gamers. The hardware is not cheap at the moment and the transition to 4k is especially expensive. I'm lucky where I can afford a bit more perhaps but I know most people aren't that lucky. I suppose that's why I was a little surprised at BioWare's focus on higher resolutions in this game. ME:A with some graphics power (and after some patches) really does look the part. I was playing it earlier as I said and the game does deliver on the graphics for me now.
They just need to give me mission tracking for multiple quests and really the big thing that ME:A still needs is a variety of audio fixes but the game really is shaping up. It does seem though that you need to run at least 1920x1080p with high settings to really start seeing the beauty of the game, at least that's my experience now.
WOW that's fabulous! I badly need a new one too. I can't play smoothly at all on most of recent games. I'm still shopping around and deciding lol
I kind of liked this Ready Gaming Desktop PC with Intel i7-7700 3.6GHz CPU, 8GB DDR4, NVIDIA GTX 1060 3GB, 64-Bit at $1.100.
But your processor is waaaay better. Not familiar with GTX though.
I'm not familiar with the Xbox One X u mention. I never used Xbox, only PC. I'll have to google that, because it sounds worthy just by the way u describe it. That's a good info u posted there. Thanks for that !
And yes these graphic transitions become a bump, i'm running ME:A at 1920x1080 ... but.... lol .... barely. All i could do for smooth play is trade between graphic settings. :eahigh_file:
Guys, believe me, even the latest and greatest hardware cannot cope with last year's games.
IMHO there's something misunderstood or misinterpreted in contemporary graphics engines, I mean from developer point of view.
Most games that come out get their first performance optimization tweaks 6 to 9 months after release.
During that time we are all sitting on time bombs. Some games even push hardware to such limits that they break it.
The fault in that great GPU I used to have, mentioned in an earlier post, is exactly one such case.
I installed a System Shock 2 demo that was available briefly some time in late 2016. It took it 20 min of gameplay to fry the graphics chip.
That particular card had such a good cooling solution that I never heard any throttling before it was too late.
By the time fan noise became audible the poor thing had been boiling for too long.
Two things to take away from that experience:
1) Always monitor system hardware statistics when running a new piece of software for the first time (heck, for the second and third time too, as well as after patches)!
2) Radeon HD 7XXX series graphics cards are one of the best GPUs made in the last two decades. And this comes from a person who has worked as a PC assembler for quite some time.
There are two circulating theories about this - either members of the dev community need more time to fully grasp the potential and intricacies of contemporary technologies to be able to tweak their games to perfection OR software is given to the public in a raw state on purpose so that hardware can be stressed in such a way that eventually forced replacements occur.
I don't want to think too much about any of those possibilities. Just keeping my lessons learned in mind and thinking thrice before making decisions.
All that said, your GPU is great, man. Regardless of the hardware I have, I always play with shadows, terrain and vegetation quality set to Low; film grain, bloom and motion blur disabled.
I have never noticed an unbearable drop in visual appeal with those settings in place. Yet again I've played games so old that your eyes would bleed if you looked at them now.
So probably I am not too choosy in that respect. Anyway, don't give up on your Radeon yet. You might want to think about a CPU replacement though.
As I said in another thread, AMD's first wave of APUs showed poor performance and quick deterioration in practice despite what was written on paper and said in interviews at the time.
Also, the old APUs don't work well with discrete GPUs on the same mobo. I can only imagine the ordeals you've gone through to actually be able to play games.
Still, I am looking forward to the new APUs. Hopefully AMD will nail it this time. This is a great technology and it deserves to succeed and thrive.
@draqonin wrote:WOW that's fabulous! I badly need a new one too. I can't play smoothly at all on most of recent games. I'm still shopping around and deciding lol
I kind of liked this Ready Gaming Desktop PC with Intel i7-7700 3.6GHz CPU, 8GB DDR4, NVIDIA GTX 1060 3GB, 64-Bit at $1.100.
But your processor is waaaay better. Not familiar with GTX though.
I'm not familiar with the Xbox One X u mention. I never used Xbox, only PC. I'll have to google that, because it sounds worthy just by the way u describe it. That's a good info u posted there. Thanks for that !
And yes these graphic transitions become a bump, i'm running ME:A at 1920x1080 ... but.... lol .... barely. All i could do for smooth play is trade between graphic settings. :eahigh_file:
The GTX1060 is not a bad card and will run your games in 1920x1080 quite smoothly, but if possible I'd upgrade that 8GB to 16GB RAM. Currently your PC will take up 3GB of your RAM without running a game. ME:A will take 4-5GB RAM easily and that means you already get into trouble with 8GB RAM. These numbers are based on my own PC and just checking the task manager but at this moment I just have the internet open and Origin in the background and the RAM usage is over 4.6GB. Admittedly Edge takes about a GB easy by itself but without internet being open it's already 3GB that my system uses baseline.
Also BioWare games are kinda known for taking up RAM especially because they have a history of sloppy coding causing memory leaks which can eat up your RAM as you play over longer periods of time. I haven't specifically tested it on ME:A but bottom line is that I prefer to have a bit more RAM. I might even go 32GB myself but 16GB seems to do the trick just fine.
I think that 1920x1080 at ultra settings is really the base settings for ME:A for having a good graphics experience. This may be a personal standard, but for me running it on 2556x1440 already made a big improvement that I quite enjoy at the moment but for that resolution the GTX1070 is a better card.
And of course for 4k a better card is needed still like the GTX1080Ti. The reason I haven't gone to full 4k gaming yet is that it is a pricey card but also because I'm not convinced yet that current games will all run smoothly in 4k graphics yet at high settings. Another thing to consider is your power bill and the power supply. The GTX1060 requires 120W, the GTX1070 150W and the GTX1080Ti requires 250W. That's a lot of power and your power supply might not be able to handle that.
Anyways, this is just some advice from a dabbler. I'm no expert but I can look up specs and check numbers š
These are quite useful insights, Thanks a Lot! I'll have to keep those in mind. :eahigh_file:
@Fred_vdp wrote:@draqonin AMD GPUs are quite slow at rendering the tessellation in this game and there's no quality setting for that in the game's options, so be sure to tweak that in your Radeon settings. I override with 4 samples. This doubled my framerate.
Thanks so much for the heads up! I will have to look into that some more since i don't see Tesselation in the Radeon settings. All i could find is some info on the web that says :
> Tesselation is active only if your VGA can handle this technology, if it can set it to āAMD Optimizedā.< :eahigh_file:
Da.mn Thats so unfortunate to have the chip fried out š¤
The one thing i'm missing is the 3D view which is not available in the radeon i have. I used to play the first ME with 3D glasses on which was Soo cool. Can't do it for too long though, because of constant movement within the game-play.
And yes, you're correct. Some games have issues regarding gameplay. One of them was Crysis 1 LOOOL ... isn't that weird. At the last boss game was staggering and dropping down to 2-5fps. Had to play on low settings to finish game š
