Guild Wars 2

Hi,

Can anyone tell me the cards I would need to achieve 60 fps miniumum on Full out Zergs in WvW on Full highest Settings (Maxed)

Currently I get drops down to 25/30 fps with the followings specs
Note: I am running on 1 display for this. Would like to get 60 fps on 3 displays essentially with max settings during full zergs in wvw

Specs:
2x Nvidia 680’s SLI mode
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
Intel Core i7-2600k Cpu
16 GB (4×4GB) DDR3 Ram Patriot
H100 Corsair cooling system
CoolerMaster Silent Pro 1200 W power supply

Hard Drives:
SSD 120 GB SATA3 Chronos: MKNSSDCR120GB Mushkin
2TB SATA ST2000DM001 :Seagate

Sound Card:
Asus Xonar DX

Case:
HAF 932 Cooler Master

Router:
Asus RT-N66U

Monitor Setup:
3x XL 2420T 3D BenQ Monitors (120 Hz Monitors, can do 60hz as well)
1x Asus VS247 Monitor (Additional Support Display)

Aaah … you can’t. They haven’t created a CPU fast enough yet (WvW zergs are CPU bound).

Right on what Behellagh said. It’s currently impossible. How you can get better rate on the other hand is buying a CPU with better single core performance, those would be 3570K, 3770K, 4670K and 4770K perhaps some i7-E processors too. That’d require a new motherboard too tho and those typically wont bring even 30 fps in the biggest zerg clash. As for running 3 monitors your performance shouldn’t decrease since that’s dependent on GPU power. Someone recently said 680 SLI is surely adequate for 1200p tri-monitor.

locx.6412:

Right on what Behellagh said. It’s currently impossible. How you can get better rate on the other hand is buying a CPU with better single core performance, those would be 3570K, 3770K, 4670K and 4770K perhaps some i7-E processors too. That’d require a new motherboard too tho and those typically wont bring even 30 fps in the biggest zerg clash. As for running 3 monitors your performance shouldn’t decrease since that’s dependent on GPU power. Someone recently said 680 SLI is surely adequate for 1200p tri-monitor.

I am assuming this applies for Lions Arch as well when you are on the bridge running towards the entrance of the Portals as well? Like running towards the area with the target practise and portals ( from the bridge ((lags up)) )
I get fps drops down to about 45 for a few seconds here, (its fine once i pass the bridge entrance thou —-- still runs down to 55 fps until i reach the target practise area

Yeah, pretty much everywhere were the game lags, especially with your gfx cards, the reason is your CPU. Near Mystic Forge as well where people gather, dragon world events and other huge bosses too, even the entrance in CoF drops me down to ~25 fps when looking straight forward, when I look back or at my feet it goes back up to ~100.

Just OC the crap out of your CPU and it’ll end up ~as good as it will get.

Fermi.2409:

Just OC the crap out of your CPU and it’ll end up ~as good as it will get.

Yeah, typically Sandy Bridge CPUs overclock better (even more so since he has a H100) than the newer ones so the final difference would only be a few fps depending on the silicon lottery.

locx.6412:

Right on what Behellagh said. It’s currently impossible. How you can get better rate on the other hand is buying a CPU with better single core performance, those would be 3570K, 3770K, 4670K and 4770K perhaps some i7-E processors too. That’d require a new motherboard too tho and those typically wont bring even 30 fps in the biggest zerg clash. As for running 3 monitors your performance shouldn’t decrease since that’s dependent on GPU power. Someone recently said 680 SLI is surely adequate for 1200p tri-monitor.

dual and triple monitor setups eat up your video ram. If you want to run multiple monitor make sure whatever cards you go with have 2GB each on sli . There also seems to be a trend in other games these days to use more video ram lately so more video ram is good future proofing.
If GW2 is the only game you play it probably doesn’t matter as much.

Personally, I have to believe 2 decent cards on sli both running x16 pcie-3.0 has to increase fps, but I also feel like the gain would be so small it wouldn’t be worth the cost of an extra card.

NeedCoffee.1402:

locx.6412:

Right on what Behellagh said. It’s currently impossible. How you can get better rate on the other hand is buying a CPU with better single core performance, those would be 3570K, 3770K, 4670K and 4770K perhaps some i7-E processors too. That’d require a new motherboard too tho and those typically wont bring even 30 fps in the biggest zerg clash. As for running 3 monitors your performance shouldn’t decrease since that’s dependent on GPU power. Someone recently said 680 SLI is surely adequate for 1200p tri-monitor.

dual and triple monitor setups eat up your video ram. If you want to run multiple monitor make sure whatever cards you go with have 2GB each on sli . There also seems to be a trend in other games these days to use more video ram lately so more video ram is good future proofing.
If GW2 is the only game you play it probably doesn’t matter as much.

Personally, I have to believe 2 decent cards on sli both running x16 pcie-3.0 has to increase fps, but I also feel like the gain would be so small it wouldn’t be worth the cost of an extra card.

Based on quick googling I had hard time finding any results with 680 1 GB lol, I think he’s good to go.
Sure it increases at some points. My 660 gets capped at 120-150 fps in the open world at 99% usage. If we’re talking about fps in LA for example I’d put my money on that the increase is < 1 fps with 2 cards over 1, especially on this current 1 monitor build.

locx.6412:

NeedCoffee.1402:

locx.6412:

Right on what Behellagh said. It’s currently impossible. How you can get better rate on the other hand is buying a CPU with better single core performance, those would be 3570K, 3770K, 4670K and 4770K perhaps some i7-E processors too. That’d require a new motherboard too tho and those typically wont bring even 30 fps in the biggest zerg clash. As for running 3 monitors your performance shouldn’t decrease since that’s dependent on GPU power. Someone recently said 680 SLI is surely adequate for 1200p tri-monitor.

dual and triple monitor setups eat up your video ram. If you want to run multiple monitor make sure whatever cards you go with have 2GB each on sli . There also seems to be a trend in other games these days to use more video ram lately so more video ram is good future proofing.
If GW2 is the only game you play it probably doesn’t matter as much.

Personally, I have to believe 2 decent cards on sli both running x16 pcie-3.0 has to increase fps, but I also feel like the gain would be so small it wouldn’t be worth the cost of an extra card.

Based on quick googling I had hard time finding any results with 680 1 GB lol, I think he’s good to go.
Sure it increases at some points. My 660 gets capped at 120-150 fps in the open world at 99% usage. If we’re talking about fps in LA for example I’d put my money on that the increase is < 1 fps with 2 cards over 1, especially on this current 1 monitor build.

Yes well i have had this build for roughly 2 years now, ever since the game came out. Was unfortunate to see this new top of the line computer not able to handle certain aspects/areas of this game. But this would be to the games fault and not the specs of my computer. Anyways, thanks all for the input.

Im guessing that theirs no point to upgrade my computer to get the min 60 fps in wvw zergs at highest settings at this time since nothing can acheive that.

Based on quick googling I had hard time finding any results with 680 1 GB lol, I think he’s good to go.
Sure it increases at some points. My 660 gets capped at 120-150 fps in the open world at 99% usage. If we’re talking about fps in LA for example I’d put my money on that the increase is 1 fps with 2 cards over 1, especially on this current 1 monitor build.

I worded it that way in case he didn’t want /couldn’t afford a 680.

yeah, thats about what i was thinking, maybe +3-5 fps if both slots are x16. Not worth $300 plus, but i may try it at some point out of boredom. Right now the upgrade i want is the G-sync module for my monitor.

“How to achieve 60 fps min In WvW Zergs”

Answer:
Intel i7 4960X @ 7 Ghz.
Single Graphics card unit with high enough clock rate to keep the FPS at that number with all of the particle effects going on. Say, GTX 670 at least.

Avelos.6798:

“How to achieve 60 fps min In WvW Zergs”

Answer:
Intel i7 4960X @ 7 Ghz.
Single Graphics card unit with high enough clock rate to keep the FPS at that number with all of the particle effects going on. Say, GTX 670 at least.

this one is better
“How to achieve 60 fps min In WvW Zergs”
With MAntle

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Avelos.6798:

“How to achieve 60 fps min In WvW Zergs”

Answer:
Intel i7 4960X @ 7 Ghz.
Single Graphics card unit with high enough clock rate to keep the FPS at that number with all of the particle effects going on. Say, GTX 670 at least.

this one is better
“How to achieve 60 fps min In WvW Zergs”
With MAntle

Lol whats Mantle?

And would that processor really achieve the proper fps I need? Heard their was nothing on the market to get the fps going.

i did benchmark with
Starswarm – where is a lot of CPU bottleneck
I7 4770K and GTX 780Ti (38Fps) – (CPU bottleneck)
vs
FX 4300 1.8Ghz with R9 270X (41Fps) – bottleneck GPU
….

KlaviersPsilocybinVein.4821:

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Avelos.6798:

“How to achieve 60 fps min In WvW Zergs”

Answer:
Intel i7 4960X @ 7 Ghz.
Single Graphics card unit with high enough clock rate to keep the FPS at that number with all of the particle effects going on. Say, GTX 670 at least.

this one is better
“How to achieve 60 fps min In WvW Zergs”
With MAntle

Lol whats Mantle?

And would that processor really achieve the proper fps I need? Heard their was nothing on the market to get the fps going.

mantle is a new AMD/Raidon only ver. of direct x…..kinda……

it has tons of promise but software developers will never support it.

Maybe in the future (about 0.0001%)
Physx + Mantle (AMD or NVIDIA) – THE BEST for costumers

NeedCoffee.1402:

Based on quick googling I had hard time finding any results with 680 1 GB lol, I think he’s good to go.
Sure it increases at some points. My 660 gets capped at 120-150 fps in the open world at 99% usage. If we’re talking about fps in LA for example I’d put my money on that the increase is 1 fps with 2 cards over 1, especially on this current 1 monitor build.

I worded it that way in case he didn’t want /couldn’t afford a 680.

yeah, thats about what i was thinking, maybe +3-5 fps if both slots are x16. Not worth $300 plus, but i may try it at some point out of boredom. Right now the upgrade i want is the G-sync module for my monitor.

Well the thing is that I have 2x Gtx 680 so they cant both use 16x slots, They automatically lower to 8x when you hook up in sli.

Is this causing fps issues? Shouldnt it still technically increase fps? I know it increases fps on 3d Mark 11 substantially

Hey look. Another topic Turning into a Mantle discussion. Why not everyone just go make a thread titled “MANTLE”

Seriously. Mantle is not going to happen anytime soon for Guild Wars 2, if at all. Even if it did, it’ll probably be ‘optimized’ by then to run 30 fps everywhere on even Toaster specs. WVW might even have 60 FPS on a high clocked intel i3 by then.

Avelos.6798:

Hey look. Another topic Turning into a Mantle discussion. Why not everyone just go make a thread titled “MANTLE”

Seriously. Mantle is not going to happen anytime soon for Guild Wars 2, if at all. Even if it did, it’ll probably be ‘optimized’ by then to run 30 fps everywhere on even Toaster specs. WVW might even have 60 FPS on a high clocked intel i3 by then.

Mantle wont happen at all, just look at CUDA. It came out 7 years ago and we have yet to see a game engine programed entirely in CUDA.

Well the thing is that I have 2x Gtx 680 so they cant both use 16x slots, They automatically lower to 8x when you hook up in sli.

Is this causing fps issues? Shouldnt it still technically increase fps? I know it increases fps on 3d Mark 11 substantially

opps i didn’t realize you already had x2 680’s. you should be fine for video ram.
To answer your question yes, and no. Yes you should see a slight increase in fps. but It wont be much over 1%. x2 cards in sli out renders our CPU and creates a bottle neck.
we would need cpu’s clocked to something insane like 8ghz to keep up with the crazy GPU possibilities of today.

Intel is pushing Singlethread, AMD is pushing multithread (servers).
DirectX is great on XboX One while it sucks on PC.

With Mantle every CPU will get ST boost! it is easier to optimize….. okay enough about MANTLE. I hope that developers will support it!

Problem is that games are limited by software! We are in 2014 – 10 years – (WoW 2004) and what did developer for greater experiences??? (i am talking about MMOs)

What about CPUs?
AMD/intel best CPu in 2004 against best desktop (gaming) CPU in 2014 ? 6/12 threads – we dont need that if developers wont support more cores!

Nvidia physx would be great to support all GPUS – INTEL/AMD.
APU would be great!

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Intel is pushing Singlethread, AMD is pushing multithread (servers).

And what’s wrong designing a CPU to be as fast as possible? Intel’s has so much excess capability they offer to execute a 2nd code thread (HyperThreading/HT) just to keep the CPU’s internal utilization up. For AMD to compete with 2 threads they chose, likely because Intel has patents to prevent something similar to HT, to have two slower cores per “module” to do a similar amount of work. Great for big web/java servers, not so great for the desktop. And really not great if you are only running one thread per Intel core/AMD module in which case Intel wins big time.

DirectX is great on XboX One while it sucks on PC.

Because they are using a variant of Dx11 which is designed around multicore/thread safe execution. GW2 on the other hand is using the single thread designed Dx9. Also since the GPU is known, there is less need to have abstraction layers in the API because the functionality of the GPU is a known quantity which speeds up performance as well.

Steamroller is strong here
20% faster (clock per clock) than piledriver and use less power
i didnt do comparison but math tells us that Steamroller 2.9Ghz = FX 4300 3.5Ghz

Only Steamroller based cores I know of are on the Kaveri APU and it lacks L3 cache making a comparison to the FX Piledrivers a bit one sided on certain benchmarks. Plus they haven’t gotten the clock speeds up to that of the Piledriver based APUs so even if IPC (instructions per cycle) are up actual performance can be somewhat less.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-7850k-a8-7600-kaveri,3725.html
http://www.pcgamer.com/review/amd-a10-7850k-kaveri-processor-review/http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/65561-amd-a10-7850k-28nm-kaveri/

Two two module/quad core Kaveri does a fair job against a Haswell i3 HT duel core in CPU tests. And any test that uses the IGP AMD wins hands down.

But the desktop space isn’t getting an Steamroller based FX in 2014.

Behellagh.1468:

Only Steamroller based cores I know of are on the Kaveri APU and it lacks L3 cache making a comparison to the FX Piledrivers a bit one sided on certain benchmarks. Plus they haven’t gotten the clock speeds up to that of the Piledriver based APUs so even if IPC (instructions per cycle) are up actual performance can be somewhat less.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-7850k-a8-7600-kaveri,3725.html
http://www.pcgamer.com/review/amd-a10-7850k-kaveri-processor-review/http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/65561-amd-a10-7850k-28nm-kaveri/

Two two module/quad core Kaveri does a fair job against a Haswell i3 HT duel core in CPU tests. And any test that uses the IGP AMD wins hands down.

But the desktop space isn’t getting an Steamroller based FX in 2014.

From I heard there won’t even be a Steamroller for AM3+ sockets. Its just a rumor though.

NeedCoffee.1402:

Avelos.6798:

Hey look. Another topic Turning into a Mantle discussion. Why not everyone just go make a thread titled “MANTLE”

Seriously. Mantle is not going to happen anytime soon for Guild Wars 2, if at all. Even if it did, it’ll probably be ‘optimized’ by then to run 30 fps everywhere on even Toaster specs. WVW might even have 60 FPS on a high clocked intel i3 by then.

Mantle wont happen at all, just look at CUDA. It came out 7 years ago and we have yet to see a game engine programed entirely in CUDA.

Well the thing is that I have 2x Gtx 680 so they cant both use 16x slots, They automatically lower to 8x when you hook up in sli.

Is this causing fps issues? Shouldnt it still technically increase fps? I know it increases fps on 3d Mark 11 substantially

opps i didn’t realize you already had x2 680’s. you should be fine for video ram.
To answer your question yes, and no. Yes you should see a slight increase in fps. but It wont be much over 1%. x2 cards in sli out renders our CPU and creates a bottle neck.
we would need cpu’s clocked to something insane like 8ghz to keep up with the crazy GPU possibilities of today.

While I appreciate the comment, and im sure your correct with this applying to Guild wars 2, I get a 6000 rating boost on 3D Mark 11 with 2x Sli 680s enabled.

Not sure if Gw2 applies to this comparison however,

Any one know?

No more CPU for AM3+ is what they should do. AM3+ is too old and needs to be retired. USB 3.0, SATA 6GB/s and all that other good stuff that comes natively supported by Intel now is made to be half supported on AM3+ by software bridging and changes it into some Frankenstein platform.

NeedCoffee.1402:

Mantle wont happen at all, just look at CUDA. It came out 7 years ago and we have yet to see a game engine programed entirely in CUDA.

CUDA only applies to NVIDIA GPUs, with no chance of it being used on Intel or AMD GPUs. Mantle on the other hand is said to be an API that can be modified for other vendors to use (NVIDIA could essentially make their own bare-metal API that has compatibility with Mantle).

Mantle also already has some pretty strong backers starting out. Generally speaking, if the engine supports Mantle, end-developers don’t really have to do too much to take advantage of it. Not sure how likely it is it’ll happen, but if Source Engine, Unreal Engine, and/or CryEngine gained Mantle compatibility, that’ll lead to a large number of future games with Mantle.

Plus, I’m pretty sure Mantle and computational languages (CUDA, OpenCL, DirectCompute) function far differently (or at the very least, there are scenarios where one or the other would be far easier and sane to implement; ex: you probably wouldn’t throw audio processing on OpenCL).

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Maybe in the future (about 0.0001%)
Physx + Mantle (AMD or NVIDIA) – THE BEST for costumers

PhysX is nothing more than some blob jello liquid physics, and some cloth simulation (which Havok does just as well if not better, without the hardware bias). Plus with it being restricted and (likely intentionally) having terrible performance on CPU acceleration (imagine GW2’s level of optimization at its worst, then make it even worse)… it is nowhere near “the best” for customers.

Havok would be a better choice for cloth simulation. But in any case, I doubt anything would change that drastically engine-wise.

Avelos.6798:

No more CPU for AM3+ is what they should do. AM3+ is too old and needs to be retired. USB 3.0, SATA 6GB/s and all that other good stuff that comes natively supported by Intel now is made to be half supported on AM3+ by software bridging and changes it into some Frankenstein platform.

Is there a source on that?

Soo back at OP: If you read carefully what Avelos wrote, it’s 4960X @ 7 GHz. That would be 3 GHz overclock and requires liquid nitrogen cooling. Basically even your CPU could do it but there’s just no way to go that high with stability. 4960X is an LGA 2011 socket CPU and those motherboards do support x16 for 2 cards in SLI. Like said, the performance increase in GW2 would be nonexistent but surely it would boost your 3DMark score.

And please, please, please let’s stop with this Mantle thing. There’s nothing we can do about it and there are no guarantees it will come in the next few years, if even ever. It’s nice to speculate but let’s stop hijacking threads for it. Someone could start a dedicated thread for it

Avelos.6798:

No more CPU for AM3+ is what they should do. AM3+ is too old and needs to be retired. USB 3.0, SATA 6GB/s and all that other good stuff that comes natively supported by Intel now is made to be half supported on AM3+ by software bridging and changes it into some Frankenstein platform.

USB 3.0, SATA 6Gb/s is motherboard chipset, not CPU.

AMD 8xx and 9xx chipsets (socket AM3/3+) support SATA 6Gb/s already (depends on the Southbridge chip used). Some of the A7x and A8x chipsets (socket FM1/2) also support USB 3.0 as well as SATA 6GB. However it’s true that their performance is slightly less that Intel’s.

You are thinking back to the AMD 7xx chipset (socket AM2/AM2+/AM3) that only supported SATA 3.0Gb/s, again based in the Southbridge chip, so motherboard manufacturers used standalone SATA 6.0Gb/s on some models.

So blame the motherboard chipset for not keeping up with the standards, not the CPUs.

Edit: The Kaveri APUs due support PCIe V3.0 if the motherboard can.

Espionage.3685:

Avelos.6798:

No more CPU for AM3+ is what they should do. AM3+ is too old and needs to be retired. USB 3.0, SATA 6GB/s and all that other good stuff that comes natively supported by Intel now is made to be half supported on AM3+ by software bridging and changes it into some Frankenstein platform.

Is there a source on that?

Yes.
990FX/SB950 chipsets.
It doesn’t support SATA 6GB/s. Well, actually I think it does so you got me there.
It doesn’t support PCI Express 3.0 so any AM3+ board that has it is a waste of money.
It doesn’t support USB 3.0. (It’s using third party software)
It doesn’t support any RAM speed higher than DDR3 1866. Some boards go as high as 2133(?) last I checked which was a while ago.
You already know how old AM3+ is.

Any AM3+ board might have all this, but it’s not going to take advantage of them.

Heck, 990FX is a rebrand of 890FX and SB950 is a rebrand of SB850. (Granted they still can hold their own well enough so it saves money)

But still, AM3+ needs to be retired so a refresh can be made with supporting current features. Unless AMD is planning just to move everything to FM2+ which I don’t really have a problem with at all.

Behellagh.1468:

You are thinking back to the AMD 7xx chipset (socket AM2/AM2+/AM3) that only supported SATA 3.0Gb/s, again based in the Southbridge chip, so motherboard manufacturers used standalone SATA 6.0Gb/s on some models.

Yes I just looked up an article about it.

Ram speed is defined by the memory controller and that’s not located in the CPU on both Intel and AMD. There is “official” maximum speed and “unofficial”, what you can set it to in the bios.

The “official” max RAM speed on the FX series is DDR3-1866.
The “official” max RAM speed on the Ax-5xxx series is DDR3-1866.
The “official” max RAM speed on the Ax-6xxx and Ax-7xxx series is DDR3-2133.

The “official” max RAM speed on the iX-2xxx is DDR3-1333.
The “official” max RAM speed on the iX-3xxx and -4xxx is DDR3-1600.

As for PCIe V3.0 support on socket AM3/AM3+, that again is a function of the motherboard chipset, in this case the Northbridge. And because they rebranded the 8xx as 9xx, the base silicon is from 2010, before the PCIe V3.0. For Intel the PCIe graphics controller been moved into the CPU for 4 generations now with PCIe V3.0 supported only on the iX-3xxx/4xxx series of CPU.

The A88X found on FM2+ motherboards supports SATA 6.0Gb/s, USB 3.0 and Kaveri CPUs for FM2+ support PCIe V3.0 and DDR3-2133 officially.

So AMD either needs to add the PCEe V3.0 controller for graphics onto a Steamroller quad module with L3 cache and that will need a new socket. Maybe they can it be compatible to the A88x, unifying the “Fusion Control Hub” for any desktop socket.

Or they could be waiting for DDR4.

Oh well I guess I didn’t know that lmao. I only ever looked up information about my own board and FX-8350 as well as reviews regarding some FM2 stuff.
My own AMD board only went to DDR3 1866 and didn’t really support SATA 6GB/s, It said it had it but it operated half the speed as it does on my intel stuff now.

Behellagh.1468:

Or they could be waiting for DDR4.

Heh, thats great question!
DDR4? Excavator in 2015? ….

I hope that they will stay with big (performance) core

DDR4? Maybe that will actually mean a performance increase in RAM instead of just adding dual channel, quad channel, triple channel, etc. Aside from that I don’t know if there’s any valid difference between DDR2 and DDR3. DDR3 800 CL6 keeps up fairly well with DDR3 3000 CL12 when it comes to games. And don’t forget, DDR2 800 is high end memory back in the day. (DDR2 actually went up to as high as DDR2 1066 but that was likely to be really expensive.)

Lower voltage, starts at 2133 MT/s.