Guild Wars 2

So it is a known fact that AMD proccys + GW2 WvW = powerpoint presentation. However considering how awesome the game is I gave it some time.It sucks that over a month after the release nothing has changed.

Here is my config :

AMD 1090t @ 4Ghz
Asus DCU2 7850 Oced to 1.1Ghz
8 GB corsair Domainator
Antec TPN 650W
Win 7 catalyst 12.8 with latest CAP

I get 60 fps easy in PvE at best settings. However WvW with over 10 ppl on the screen and the FPS dips to <15.

I would like to mention that I have no trouble whatsoever with any other games(MMOs included).

It is obvious that the AMDs suck compared to SB or IB. But it shouldnt suck so much. The game has clearly been optimized only for intel platforms. I’ve tried contacting support but they have stop accepting tickets for perf issues. I had assumed that this was because they were working on a solution. Yet we havent heard of anything.

Im not saying a magical solution should come out within a day. All im asking for is for AN to acknowledge they are aware of an AMD CPU issue in WvW and make it clear when we can expect a patch.

I’d like to add that the performance stays same irrespective of the video settings. Lowest quality at the 800X600 resolution ALSO runs at < 15 fps.

I got a phenom 2 940 BE 3ghz with a 7870 oc’ed

In PVE its playable between 20 to 45fps at high setting but in WvWvW i dip to 12 fps in really heavy fight.

I hope Anet do something about that because my system exceed game requirement by a lot and turning down resolution or graphic setting do nothing the numbers are the same. Only thing that help fps in pve is turning down shadows and reflection everything else change nothing in the performance.

I honestly think there is no fix thats going to help which is why they are being silent.

I definitely know this client is a poorly programmed alpha code mess:
Two Weeks of This and Getting Worse!

AMD has been getting a hard beating my intell for years on end now, if you like gaming dont buy AMD systems.

The last processor i used from AMD was the AMD 64bit x2 3000.
The processor after that was my Intell I7 extreme 920.

AMD has lost 2 years of battles, while not lost the war yet, they need to step up and produce better gaming procs before they are wiped out by Intell.

It’s not up to Anet to fix AMD’s processors, sorry.

If you’re playing on an X4 or X6 and getting sub 25FPS, that’s an issue with your system rather than the game because there are plenty of people playing with those that have decent FPS.

If you’ve got an FX chip.. It’s not going to be a stable performance because the CPUs are garbage.

Cant you people use the search function since there are enough topic already about this ? FYI,these benches are done horribly,look at the resolution used,only fx 8000 is mentioned,wheres 8120 – 8150 ? and done on NO OC running at 3.0ghz…riiight.And its also well known AMD’s need to be oc’d,espec the bull – pile driver series.Im having better fps then then the top i7 on that list.

The resolution is low so that the graphics card is in no way caping the top FPS, that specific benchmark was testing cpu performance.

you really need to understand things befor posting >.<

As for AMD, well to be honest the difference between AMD and Intel is so vast atm that even if you have a mid range AMD OC’d to 4gz, a Mid range Intel Non OC wil lout perform it, and a low end intel OC woudl laos out perform it ..specialy in GW2.

i dont beleve there will be a fix, atleats not one that will give a huge fps boost. The AMD chips obviosly are not capable of processing the data, that GW2 uses, efficently.

@Zaxan my AMD FX 8120 3.1GHZ can max the FPS on 98% of the games I own. The only games that it cant max is the poorly written ones. I can peg BF3 @60+FPS running 1920×1080 on the highest setting. That game is 5 times more resource intense then this game.

Which proves this games code was very poorly written. Even people with I5 & I7 processors are singing the blues. About the only type of processor that has no complaints of low FPS are the I7 Extreme people and I would sure hope if your running a $1k processor that you wouldn’t have any complaints in any game!

@Soulwatcher, please don’t post your own misguided ideas as facts. None of what you said can be remotely backed up by any sort of actual data.

I also have 2 machines in this house, neither of which use a “1k processor” and neither of which have any FPS issues.

Its not all of AMD’s cpus, its particularly the FX series.

This is a new GW2 CPU benchmark: http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/MMO/Guild%20Wars%202/gw%202%20proz%202.png

And as you can see, the fps numbers are fine for the phenom series. Not the FX series, the 8150 fx is around 30% (?) behind the Phenom 1100t. When in other CPU limited games they are about neck to neck.

This points to some sort of issue with the FX series cpus and GW2. I’ve actually taken the time to personally write AMD about the problem and believe it or not they responded back to me. Their last email was quite nice, here is what they had to say:

“Thank you for your enthusiasm regarding our products.
We’re sorry about the low benchmark scores you’re reporting for the game Guild Wars 2 and our processors.

We reported this to the developing team, and they will see if something can be done between both company to improve the use of our CPUs features in the future through updates.

We invite you to verify with NCsoft also regarding those benchmark results."

“We just wanted to inform you that the developers (Anet) of the game and AMD are working together to try to offer updates that will give better performances.

In order to update this service request, please respond, leaving the service request reference intact.

Best regards,

Michael

AMD Global Customer Care"

Hopefully something will be done, especially for FX series owners. There will be users here that will condemn the FX series for being a poor performer. This has some truth to it, in respect that the FX series is not a worthy upgrade over the Phenom series. However, its not 30% slower or more than the Phenom. It can be faster by a margin or slower by a margin in single threaded programs, but not by 30%+.

AMD FX 8150 vs AMD 1100t:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=203

Ignore the synthetic benchmarks and just pay attention to WoW. WoW is cpu dependent and the two CPUs are neck to neck. GW2 numbers should look similar, however at this time they are not.

@Soulwatcher.2604
you cant compare a MMORPG to a MOFPS.

Battlefield 3 may be a brute when it comes to graphics but in terms of cpu. Its nothing compared to proper mmo’s. For one thing the maps are notibly smaller in BF3, the number of possible textures for each player is also smaller compared to the custom armor combinations and number of them for GW2 and other mmo’s. Not to the mention the shear number of people in mmo’s.

Seriosly ..when comparing ..keep to the same genre. MMO to MMO. MoFPS to MoFPS, RTS to RTS, Racing to Racing .e.tc etc.

AMD’s 8core BD: $180
Intel’s 2500k: $200
Classic case of “you get what you pay for” followed by over-ambitious assumptions of what your hardware is capable of.

1 look at AMD’s architecture diagram says everything. Notice that each 2core “module” shares the same instruction decoder, L2 cache, and floating point unit. This makes an 8core BD much closer to a 4core CPU. It’s literally reinventing the Pentium 4 with hyperthreading.

Worth a read if you’re interested why Sandy is much better.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5057/the-bulldozer-aftermath-delving-even-deeper

The performance per dollar ratio of what you’re getting, looking at those two processors in the post above is heavily in favour of Intel.

Once you know the benchmarks and technical details yea. But the thought of saving $20 here ($40 MSRP), another $40-50 on the mobo, and seeing 4 vs 8 cores is too good to pass up for some people.

It’s not the perfect comparison, but it’s sorta like buying a car without testdriving it.

It’s like buying an American car Over a German or Japanese car; They are cheaper , they can look awsome ..be super fast in straight lines …but my god can the interiors be kitten and the handling laughable :P and they depreciate faster than you can blink. :P

maybe a bit generalized but meh lol

To all the people who are trying to convert this into an Intel vs AMD flamewar :

We do not expect ANet to fix AMDs CPUS. We do not expect performance at par with SB/IB proccesors. We know that AMD processors suck and that was a bad buy. The I am trying to make is that it shouldnt suck SO MUCH. I mean < 15 fps ? This is 15 fps on systems which are probably highest end systems minus the processor.

Also remember that while AMD’s suck compared to Intel by a mile, they are still a modern processor. DO not underestimate the power of a modern proccy atleast as far as games are concerned.

Like I said. I am not expecting performance even close to Intel processors. I just want something playable and better than the disgrace that is 15 fps!

deltaconnected.4058:

AMD’s 8core BD: $180
Intel’s 2500k: $200
Classic case of “you get what you pay for” followed by over-ambitious assumptions of what your hardware is capable of.

1 look at AMD’s architecture diagram says everything. Notice that each 2core “module” shares the same instruction decoder, L2 cache, and floating point unit. This makes an 8core BD much closer to a 4core CPU. It’s literally reinventing the Pentium 4 with hyperthreading.

Worth a read if you’re interested why Sandy is much better.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5057/the-bulldozer-aftermath-delving-even-deeper

You’re really just stating the obvious and letting the point go over your head. All this information was described in the post above you. Now quit riding Intel…

well I just bought an AMD FX-4100 Zambizie (yes i know that is spelled wrong) rated at 3.6 GHz will most like not have too much issues with 16 GB ram and SSD though we will see

I would return it. The clock speed means nothing on the FX. Even at 4.4Ghz OC, it is a small gain. 16GB ram will do nothing for gaming. SSD will help with loading and maintaining fps.
If your video card is not up there, you wont see the performance.

Moz.8264:

You’re really just stating the obvious and letting the point go over your head. All this information was described in the post above you. Now quit riding Intel…

“start /AFFINITY 55 /B /WAIT c:\path\to\gw2.exe”

Your 8core BD should now run about the same as a similar clocked 4core Phenom II. Change 55 to 2A for the FX6000 and 05 for the FX4000, but GW2 has enough threading to need a quad and not a tri or dual-core CPU so those two will most likely run worse with this.

My second pc with AMD Phenom II B60 X4 (560 With 2 unlocked cores) 4GB DDR3 1600
does 45-55 fps on 1024×1280 (890GX Asus Board) (Max Settings)
(the GPU is irrelevant in this resolution but ill state its a HD4870)
comparing this to the Benchmark on Tom’s i have to say this is surprisingly good result for such a cheap CPU (two years ago it cost me 85$)
i wouldnt say they are so bad, but core per module performance of the Bulldozer Cpu’s wasnt much of progress to the Phenom II generation.
so 8 cores are actually behaving like medium priced 4 HT intel sb/ib.
though i would still say that a medium price Mobo/Cpu with Equal Benchmarks, AMD option would still be much cheaper, mostly because of the Chipset prices, and the possibility to get 4 PCI-EX 2.0 lanes 2×16 1×8 1×4 for less than half the price of equivalent intel chipset. so for someone who planning 2-3 GPU builds AMD is still the cheaper option. fate or arenanet wanted that this game will be more CPU than GPU bound. so this is ironicaly hurting to most of Uber GPU owners.
lets hope Piledriver will show some decent improvement.

edit: this cpu is delivering more or less the same fps as I5 HT dual core (the Phenoms doesnt have HT) and the BDs are basicaly 4 modules that behave like 4 dual cores.
so clock per clock, you do get what you pay for. (with the possibility that in some serious multi threaded processes the AMD will beat the equal Intels. but not in gaming).

Kalec.6589:

I would return it. The clock speed means nothing on the FX. Even at 4.4Ghz OC, it is a small gain. 16GB ram will do nothing for gaming. SSD will help with loading and maintaining fps.
If your video card is not up there, you wont see the performance.

Its a radeon HD6850 at 1GB from saphirre

Kalec.6589:

I would return it. The clock speed means nothing on the FX. Even at 4.4Ghz OC, it is a small gain. 16GB ram will do nothing for gaming. SSD will help with loading and maintaining fps.
If your video card is not up there, you wont see the performance.

3ghz to 4ghz, 23 to 41 minimum fps. “it is a small gain” lol. Also the FX-4000s are known for clocking up to 4.7-5ghz on air. Now look at the 2500k, “it is a small gain”

i dont know about the 4100 but the HD6850 is a decent card, you can overclock it and get it equal to 6870.
as for the attached benchmarks here i can say that they do seem right when i compare it to my AMD.
though it seems that an Unlocked Phenom II 560 x4 (becomes B60 x4 in Cpu-z) is at stock is stronger than a native 955 x4. so i dont really undestand which cpu the 4100 fx replaces if its more or less (looks as less) of Phenom II x2 550 (x2 not x4).

if you can return the 4100 and get a 81xx. just for doing that. the extra cost is worth the upgrade. as for now with the 4100 you are going to get a Phenom II moderate dual core peformance. for a medium priced system you will get reasonable performance. you dont need a premium cost I7 system with more than a 6850 to enjoy this game. lot of the bias is mostly because the guys with the premium systems are not getting what they’re expecting from what they paid.

and the more i look into this i am only getting convinced that the modules perform in similar way to HT. and the ZB Quad = Intel dual core + HT, the ZB Six core = 3 cores with HT. and the Octa Core = I7 Quad Cores with HT.
bottom line. Clock per Clock, Core per Core. it seems Intel are a full generation ahead of AMD. that is why AMD is uncapable to release anything to compete with the 2011 platform. (maybe a 12 core Piledriver to compete with the Intel Six core)

Moz.8264:

Kalec.6589:

I would return it. The clock speed means nothing on the FX. Even at 4.4Ghz OC, it is a small gain. 16GB ram will do nothing for gaming. SSD will help with loading and maintaining fps.
If your video card is not up there, you wont see the performance.

3ghz to 4ghz, 23 to 41 minimum fps. “it is a small gain” lol. Also the FX-4000s are known for clocking up to 4.7-5ghz on air. Now look at the 2500k, “it is a small gain”

the Benchmark just proves what i wrote.
the 4100 stock is half the power of a the 2500k stock.
it does perform better overclocked than an Oc’d 2500 but thats the nature of current Intels. to overclock it to 4.7-5ghz he will need a cooler that will cost him more or the same as upgrading the 4100 to 8100 (or a 6100). (so far that overclock ability is the only advantage the FX have over the Phenom II’s) but on the other hand. i dont expect every AMD customer practicing high end overclocking.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268.html

(Update: Because we tested the game’s beta client in order to get this story ready in time for launch, the Guild Wars 2 lead engine programmer, Chad Taylor, dropped us a line to let us know that the game was updated with performance optimizations in the final build. One key change was putting the renderer in its own thread so that blocking driver calls wouldn’t create stoppages in the main game loop. He mentioned that this change should make a notable difference on machines with four or more CPU execution cores, and that a few of the graphics preset options were also tweaked.

As a result of these changes, we’d like to revisit Guild Wars 2 in the near future to re-benchmark CPU performance and update the driver settings images with examples from the full release. Stay tuned for the update, due in mid-September.)

(Update Sept 27: We’ve re-tested the game with the release client and we’re not seeing a notable performance difference. The Core i5 gained a few FPS (as did the AMD FX-4100 to a lesser extent), but all of the other results remain similar to our published numbers. NCSoft let us know that they’re working with AMD to improve FX-series CPU performance, and if this happens in the near future we may revisit Guild Wars 2 with new benchmarks.).

Simon De Borovsk.7460:

Moz.8264:

Kalec.6589:

I would return it. The clock speed means nothing on the FX. Even at 4.4Ghz OC, it is a small gain. 16GB ram will do nothing for gaming. SSD will help with loading and maintaining fps.
If your video card is not up there, you wont see the performance.

3ghz to 4ghz, 23 to 41 minimum fps. “it is a small gain” lol. Also the FX-4000s are known for clocking up to 4.7-5ghz on air. Now look at the 2500k, “it is a small gain”

the Benchmark just proves what i wrote.
the 4100 stock is half the power of a the 2500k stock.
it does perform better overclocked than an Oc’d 2500 but thats the nature of current Intels. to overclock it to 4.7-5ghz he will need a cooler that will cost him more or the same as upgrading the 4100 to 8100 (or a 6100). (so far that overclock ability is the only advantage the FX have over the Phenom II’s) but on the other hand. i dont expect every AMD customer practicing high end overclocking.

Oh really? I clocked my FX-4170 at 4.8 with AMD’s auto clock tool; with the stock cooler. With the older FX-4100 you’re probably going to need an aftermarket cooler if you want to reach 5ghz, but I don’t think that’s a problem since a lot of people already reuse their aftermarket cooler…

The 32nm and 22nm Intels are obviously ahead, but the FX series is basically a flop so if you haven’t upgraded your Phonem II X4 or X6, wait until the Piledriver comes out and see how that turns out before deciding to go Intel. The FX 8150 barely surpasses the X6 1100T in most benchmark categories, it’s pretty sad. I built an FX 8120 with a Geforce 680 for a coworker’s son, not a bad system but I didn’t do very much with it.

The FX 4170’s clock capacity is mind boggling, it would be fun to have a 4.7GHz system, but GHz isn’t everything in performance, the architecture has a lot to do with it as well hence why the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge chips blow by even at 3.3GHz.

I have been considering an i5 but haven’t had the cash to upgrade yet but I’m happy with how the game runs on my Phenom II X6 1090T, I don’t encounter the problems lots of posters in this forum section has then again I build my own PCs so I know the system from the inside out.

What i think is blocking AMD from advancing is the AM socket concept. if you calculate the amount of connectors and the performance edge of the equivalent intels you may find that if more information could pass through more connectors per second, they could process as much as the intels. just see how the Opteron’s dont suffer from this problem. it supports what we see there mainly because they have a modern socket.

my M4A89GTD AM3 board can run the AM3+ ZB. but i am not tempted to even bother on the FX 8150. (idk if Piledriver will be supported) but the gain from the P II 560 x4 (2 unlocked) i have on it right now, is not worth the money.

btw my main is still running with a Q6600 2.4@3.4 (DDR2 system) and i can say the Phenom II 4 cores at stock of 3.3Ghz are delivering exactly the same as the Q6600 at 3.4. (Core 2 technology is now 6 years old and on a limited socket) it took AMD 2-3 years to close that gap.

The big problem with the FX series is really the architecture used, deltaconnected.4058 explained that correctly.

Thankfully, Steamroller will have dedicated op decoders for each core, among other improvements:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-gen-steamroller-architecture

However… by 2013 we’ll also have Haswell which’ll be a PITA for AMD to beat:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6263/intel-haswell-architecture-disclosure-live-blog

seems like I will have to post my specs. Before this topic completely derails however a caveat. Parts are already ordered. As far as OC goes, I might bump my proc to 4GHz but no higher.

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Proc: AMD FX-4100 Zambezi @3.6 GHz AM3+
Graphics: Sapphire Radeon HD6850
Memory: 16GB (4 × 4GB) Corsair Vengence
HD: Corsair Force Series 120 GB SSD with 2 TB spare drive
PS: Cooler Master Silent Pro M700’

As far as cooling
2x 200mm fans
1x 120mm fan
Case is Cooler Master Storm Enforcer SGC-1000-KWN1
Thoughts?

Thoughts ?

“shoulda gone to …intel” :P

But seriosly. Step away from AMD. intel is by far the better choice when it comes to price/performance ratio’s.

DeadPhone.3084:

seems like I will have to post my specs. Before this topic completely derails however a caveat. Parts are already ordered. As far as OC goes, I might bump my proc to 4GHz but no higher.

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Proc: AMD FX-4100 Zambezi @3.6 GHz AM3+
Graphics: Sapphire Radeon HD6850
Memory: 16GB (4 × 4GB) Corsair Vengence
HD: Corsair Force Series 120 GB SSD with 2 TB spare drive
PS: Cooler Master Silent Pro M700’

As far as cooling
2x 200mm fans
1x 120mm fan
Case is Cooler Master Storm Enforcer SGC-1000-KWN1
Thoughts?

Why stop at 4ghz?

SolarNova.1052:

Thoughts ?

“shoulda gone to …intel” :P

But seriosly. Step away from AMD. intel is by far the better choice when it comes to price/performance ratio’s.

AMD holds the price/performance ratio. Quit spreading misinformation

Moz.8264:

SolarNova.1052:

Thoughts ?

“shoulda gone to …intel” :P

But seriosly. Step away from AMD. intel is by far the better choice when it comes to price/performance ratio’s.

AMD holds the price/performance ratio. Quit spreading misinformation

Not on GW2.

VirtualBS.3165:

Moz.8264:

SolarNova.1052:

Thoughts ?

“shoulda gone to …intel” :P

But seriosly. Step away from AMD. intel is by far the better choice when it comes to price/performance ratio’s.

AMD holds the price/performance ratio. Quit spreading misinformation

Not on GW2.

Indeed, not on GW2.

DeadPhone.3084:

seems like I will have to post my specs. Before this topic completely derails however a caveat. Parts are already ordered. As far as OC goes, I might bump my proc to 4GHz but no higher.

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Proc: AMD FX-4100 Zambezi @3.6 GHz AM3+
Graphics: Sapphire Radeon HD6850
Memory: 16GB (4 × 4GB) Corsair Vengence
HD: Corsair Force Series 120 GB SSD with 2 TB spare drive
PS: Cooler Master Silent Pro M700’

As far as cooling
2x 200mm fans
1x 120mm fan
Case is Cooler Master Storm Enforcer SGC-1000-KWN1
Thoughts?

If you plan to play GW2 a lot, there is currently no advantage in going AMD.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html
A core i3@3GHz (heck, even a Pentium G860@3GHz that costs $90) will give you the same performance as an FX-4000@4GHz.

AMD FX-4100 Vs. Intel Core i3-2100: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html

Want a $500 PC for GW2? Get this instead:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-pc-overclocking-pc-building,3273.html
As you can see in the GW2 benchmark, both the Pentium G860 and the GTX 560 fare pretty well for their price points.

Like i said in my caveat. Parts are already ordered. Though with the overclocking and the fans i have, would 4.5 GHz be doable with the stock cooler? I do plan to upgrade to bulldozer when I get a chance.

DeadPhone.3084:

Like i said in my caveat. Parts are already ordered. Though with the overclocking and the fans i have, would 4.5 GHz be doable with the stock cooler? I do plan to upgrade to bulldozer when I get a chance.

Stock coolers generally suck at overclocking, I won’t really expect you get more than 4.0GHz, and even that may be a stretch. Really, if you still have the chance to change your order, do so.

Your CPU is already bulldozer, piledriver is coming now and steamroller next year.

cant change it. It was a combo kit and its going out today.

Please do tell us how your system performs in GW2 after you get it.

DeadPhone.3084:

cant change it. It was a combo kit and its going out today.

4100 is getting 41 min. fps @ 4ghz It’s really not that bad when you OC. I wouldn’t worry about it

why change your computer just for one game? I mean really those specs should run every other game out there fairly well and you have a am3+ motherboard so you have room to upgrade the chip later.

Im not sure what people are arguing about but this game doesn’t run well on AMD systems and its clearly obvious its not because the AMD cpus lack processing power as the lowest end intel chips with 2 core beat out the highest end AMD chips with 6 cores (Im not even going to count bulldozer). The game is made to utilize more than 2 cores but AMD performance is abysmal compared to intel.

The game ran like crap in the beta on all machines, magically about BWE3, all the intel machines got massive jumps in performance and the AMD machines got a relatively tiny one. Its clearly an optimizing issue with the game and the developers are keeping quiet about it. I feel like the developers are just being lazy because they already have your money and AMD only accounts to 20% of the PC market.

This is a rather large problem because a large number of players already own AMD computers and are not going to spend at least $300 upgrading just to play this game better when their hardware should be sufficient. I’d love to have this problem be addressed since the game should run much better than it does for people and its quite bad that software is left so unrefined for a large portion of its users.

Moz & Simon De Borovsk you didnt prove nothing. He’s not running a 7950, nor at 1280×1024. So 41fps he wont see. You have stock cooling at 4.8Ghz, I really doubt your temps are even low or even truthful.

But clock speeds are not always good. The architecture of the cpu is more important. You dont need an expensive cooler either. CM 212 $30 will handle i5 2500k easily.

Too bad you can change your system, would be a smart way to go.

Moz.8264:

4100 is getting 41 min. fps @ 4ghz It’s really not that bad when you OC. I wouldn’t worry about it

Kalec.6589 is correct, those CPU benchmarks show a best in case scenario, meaning its only going downhill from there.

CPU benchmarks using game engines are made so as to answer the question “If you had a GPU with infinite performance, how far would your CPU be able to push the game?”. That’s why a 7970@1280x1024 is used, so that the GPU is not the bottleneck, the CPU is.

ZaxanRazor.6235:

@Soulwatcher, please don’t post your own misguided ideas as facts. None of what you said can be remotely backed up by any sort of actual data.

I also have 2 machines in this house, neither of which use a “1k processor” and neither of which have any FPS issues.

Well Soulwatcher has a point, my machine is strong enough and still at heavy RVR will drop bellow 20, somewhere from 15-20 actually. I didnt expect much because in MMORPGs this crap happens always (while on other type of games for example BF3 never happened and will never happen), but still he is NOT talking garbage. My i5 is much better than his AMD but still my fps is not “comfortable”.

Kalec.6589:

Moz & Simon De Borovsk you didnt prove nothing. He’s not running a 7950, nor at 1280×1024. So 41fps he wont see. You have stock cooling at 4.8Ghz, I really doubt your temps are even low or even truthful.

But clock speeds are not always good. The architecture of the cpu is more important. You dont need an expensive cooler either. CM 212 $30 will handle i5 2500k easily.

Too bad you can change your system, would be a smart way to go.

Mr. Kalec, what was i trying to prove according to you? i wrote that my AMD Phenom II Dual Core 560 with two cores unlocked (B60 after the unlock) on stock 3.3 Ghz with a HD4870 card runs this game on highest settings with Shaders turned on Ultra. at 1280×1040. (HD4870=5770=6770 and is bit faster than 7770) can and will let GW2 run at 35-55 fps.
and yes i am using 212 CM cooler. and it doesnt matter as this chip Unlocked cant run faster than 3.9Ghz without shutting one core. so basicaly what i have is an AMD QC that can run Stable up to 3.8 on Air with the 212.
is it playable? it is.
will it be playbale at 1920×1080 i will tell you when i swap it with my intel machine.
honestly i dont know about the 41xx, i am not going to buy one to test it. but what i understood is that they will deliver more or less the same.

as for the guy who bought it. 6850 is not going to block him. and he can oc the GPU to get 6870 performance. if his system can run the game up to 25 fps during the fps drops, he wont notice the drops. (what the eye sees as fps drop lag is under 24fps and not 30 fps as stated everywhere. just go to the cinema and tell me you see fps drops there).

that AMD i have was a 80-90$ Cpu. The mobo 100$ more. 4 GB of DDR3 Ram. and the Card there is 4 years old. my point is that it is playable on high settings. in that configuration.

FX41xx with 6850 should be a better combo than the one i have. so yes he should be able to play it.

as for you:
i am sorry your 2500-3000$ machine isnt delivering X10 times the fps a 250-300$ combo delivers while its still playable. (as long as his minimun fps will stay above 24-30) and he will be able to swap and upgrade his cpu.