Hardware & Technical Computer Build to run Elite Dangerous

chrisb46

C
Thanks all - updated the drivers and got a noticeable bump to 30-40FPS in low intensity combat zones on LOW presets at 1366x768. Will try a slightly lower res and MED presets as suggested.

Wish it had been clearer that the integrated graphics in an i5-4300U can give a perfectly acceptable experience, was convinced I was going to need a whole new machine. But then again it is a beta - hopefully between myself and Asp others with modern i5s will not be put off.

And thanks again with your patience with dumb questions :)
 

Lestat

Banned
Lestat
chrisb46 said:
Thing is, I can't justify £600 for essentially one game especially when it is playable, if not spectacular, on my laptop (nearly new i7 latitude with integrated graphics).
Click to expand...
Well what kills your laptop is the graphics card. Because it shares it Computer ram with the GPU. Also DDR is slower then GDDR

I can potentially justify £300 but am I asking the impossible i.e. I'm not going to get a significantly better experience without spending nearer £600?

FWIW really appreciate the fact that I'm not being made to feel like an idiot for asking what I'm sure are dumb questions to those who know modem PCs.
Click to expand...
Best idea is look at the AMD computers. The cpu and such are cheaper. If you can get integrated GPU as a temp use. With 1 or 2 PCI E slots. So later when you have funds you can upgrade to Dedicated graphics card.
 

Zireael

Z
My graphics card is Radeon HD6630 and my proc is a dual core Intel i7 3.2 Ghz. I imagine Elite: Dangerous won't run on it ever, but I'd like to know how short of the minimum my graphics card is. Help?
 

Aleksej

Aleksej
Zireael said:
My graphics card is Radeon HD6630 and my proc is a dual core Intel i7 3.2 Ghz. I imagine Elite: Dangerous won't run on it ever, but I'd like to know how short of the minimum my graphics card is. Help?
Click to expand...

My guess is that you have a laptop? I would say that HD6630 theoretical performance is about 3-4 times lower than the minimal requirements.
 

Tony H.

Tony H.
Just ordered this configuration.

Corsair CX750 PSU
Intel 4790K 4.00Ghz
Corsair H100i
Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600Mhz
Asus ROG Maximus VII Ranger
Nvidia GeFOrce GTX780 3GB
Samsung 250GB 840 Evo SSD
 

Aleksej

Aleksej
Tony H. said:
Just ordered this configuration.

Corsair CX750 PSU
Intel 4790K 4.00Ghz
Corsair H100i
Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600Mhz
Asus ROG Maximus VII Ranger
Nvidia GeFOrce GTX780 3GB
Samsung 250GB 840 Evo SSD
Click to expand...

As you have ordered high-end parts you won't have any problems.
 

simpilotblues

simpilotblues
Aleksej said:
Your GPU does not satisfy the minimal requirements by miles. It is about two times slower than minimal requirements.
Click to expand...

Hello again,

I already suspected my GPU wouldn't do the job so, having read your reply, I began searching for a decent upgrade. Found a new GTX 660 2Gb for € 160, went insane and ordered it. Today I got the standard beta and tested it with my 9600GT 1 Gb and was very happy to find it runs E : D better than I expected: 10-15 fps @ 1600x900 inside the first mission's asteroid field and 20+ fps in open combat on subsequent missions.
Can I assume my system will run E : D at a better resolution with very decent frame rates with the GTX 660?
I sincerely hope so... see you at the nearest space dock.
 

Aleksej

Aleksej
simpilotblues said:
Hello again,

I already suspected my GPU wouldn't do the job so, having read your reply, I began searching for a decent upgrade. Found a new GTX 660 2Gb for € 160, went insane and ordered it. Today I got the standard beta and tested it with my 9600GT 1 Gb and was very happy to find it runs E : D better than I expected: 10-15 fps @ 1600x900 inside the first mission's asteroid field and 20+ fps in open combat on subsequent missions.
Can I assume my system will run E : D at a better resolution with very decent frame rates with the GTX 660?
I sincerely hope so... see you at the nearest space dock.
Click to expand...

Remember that this performance was achieved in SP, however the performance in MP is worse than in SP. And the main problem that you would have with 9600GT would be at the stations were usually the largest drop in fps occurs.

Definitely you should be able to play at a larger resolution and better graphic settings with GTX660!
 

Cyborg3000

C
Cyborg3000 said:
...

In the meantime, my trusty old dual core from 2007 has to do the job:

AMD 64 x2 6000+ (3.1 Ghz)
4GB DDR2 Ram- 800Mhz
POV Nvidia 250 GTS 1GB DDR3

And I was surprised how well it handles the client.
I did have to turn off occlusion effects and shadow quality to low - those two measures made the beta playable in any kind of way. I did not notice much of a difference between 1680 and 1440 resolution.
I currently get between around 25 fps in stations and about 50 outside,in asteroid fields about 20. Other than that I have the eventual 1 second hiccup when approaching a planet with rings in SC (RAM to slow??).

All in all I am very happy to be able to play ELITE after waiting for so long and I can confirm that a good dual core will do the job if you are willing to sacrifice on effects.

I will be replacing the 250GTS with an AMD Radeon 6870 on monday or tuesday, and will post any improvement in performance.

...
Click to expand...

So, I have done the upgrade and my PSU is still alive :p

I re-checked performance in station and in factions.
This time, in 1680*1050p with all settings on max and FXAA, only bloom off.
In factions, I started off with just under 20 fps, with ever so slight increases with each ship that went pop, and stabilizing around 35 when only one side was left.

With the same settings around stations :

On approach, from 3 km until 500m I get about 20-25 fps, depending on the amount of ships around.
just when passing the docking port there is a little stutter (1/5 of a second?) as the interior model loads, and i get a stable 25 fps flying inside of station. and when docked (on surface) just short of 30.

I also tried the fed distress signal , there were some 3 or 4 commanders around, and the framerates were around 30 in the middle of the mess, and well above when a bit further away.

Also, the stuttering when approaching ring planets has reduced dramatically, it is still present, but more in the 200 ms range instead of a full second hiccup.

Conclusion:
CPU is having trouble keeping up with the physics of too many objects.

My Mobo/CPU and RAM are next to be replaced , depends a bit what i find on the cheapbay over the next month or 2, would prefer to keep it in the 150-200 Euro range for the 3 items.
Any recommendation maybe?
 

NeilF

NeilF
Cyborg3000 said:
So, I have done the upgrade and my PSU is still alive :p
I re-checked performance in station and in factions.
This time, in 1680*1050p with all settings on max and FXAA, only bloom off.
In factions, I started off with just under 20 fps, with ever so slight increases with each ship that went pop, and stabilizing around 35 when only one side was left.

With the same settings around stations :

On approach, from 3 km until 500m I get about 20-25 fps, depending on the amount of ships around.
just when passing the docking port there is a little stutter (1/5 of a second?) as the interior model loads, and i get a stable 25 fps flying inside of station. and when docked (on surface) just short of 30.

I also tried the fed distress signal , there were some 3 or 4 commanders around, and the framerates were around 30 in the middle of the mess, and well above when a bit further away.

Also, the stuttering when approaching ring planets has reduced dramatically, it is still present, but more in the 200 ms range instead of a full second hiccup.

Conclusion:
CPU is having trouble keeping up with the physics of too many objects.

My Mobo/CPU and RAM are next to be replaced , depends a bit what i find on the cheapbay over the next month or 2, would prefer to keep it in the 150-200 Euro range for the 3 items.
Any recommendation maybe?
Click to expand...

Slightly confused there? So what's a good comparison out of interest between the performance from moving from your Nvidia 250 GTS to the 6870?

You mention getting between 25-50fps in and around stations before, but now only gettting 20-25 inside and out?
 

Cyborg3000

C
NeilF said:
Slightly confused there? So what's a good comparison out of interest between the performance from moving from your Nvidia 250 GTS to the 6870?

You mention getting between 25-50fps in and around stations before, but now only gettting 20-25 inside and out?
Click to expand...

I know it is not a perfectly scientific test nor was it supposed to be. I should have been more precise on the notes with the old videocard.

To clarify:
the 50 fps on the 250 gts were achieved flying around the station, not sure how far and I did not note any details about how many ships or cans were floating around..

Also, do consider that I was using a lower resolution (1440), all settings on low, only textures on medium, no fxaa/ambient occulsion...

Currently I have all settings maxed out on 1680x1050, except bloom (do not like that effect).

I think that the EUR 50 for the newer videocard was a good investment, for a pc that is 7 years old.

Regarding the quad core requirement, I am pretty sure that nothing will prevent you to run the client on a single core atom processor if you insist ;)
My dualcore was one step below the black edition in it's day. It will run the game, I can even play it without too many drawbacks, but i will certainly replace it as soon as circumstances allow.
 

NeilF

NeilF
Cyborg3000 said:
I know it is not a perfectly scientific test nor was it supposed to be. I should have been more precise on the notes with the old videocard.

To clarify:
the 50 fps on the 250 gts were achieved flying around the station, not sure how far and I did not note any details about how many ships or cans were floating around..

Also, do consider that I was using a lower resolution (1440), all settings on low, only textures on medium, no fxaa/ambient occulsion...

Currently I have all settings maxed out on 1680x1050, except bloom (do not like that effect).

I think that the EUR 50 for the newer videocard was a good investment, for a pc that is 7 years old.

Regarding the quad core requirement, I am pretty sure that nothing will prevent you to run the client on a single core atom processor if you insist ;)
My dualcore was one step below the black edition in it's day. It will run the game, I can even play it without too many drawbacks, but i will certainly replace it as soon as circumstances allow.
Click to expand...

Regarding everything set to max. I found moving down the shadows down a notch gave a surprisingly big increase. eg: around 25% when I was playing.
 

Cyborg3000

C
NeilF said:
Regarding everything set to max. I found moving down the shadows down a notch gave a surprisingly big increase. eg: around 25% when I was playing.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, that usually makes a world of difference, also in other games. With all the exitement of the new HW I just got carried away and set everything to max :eek:
 

Si Waters

S
Pleased to report that the combat alpha 1.00 (including Factions) is running perfectly at 1080p on my Q6600 6gb dr2 @800mhz from 2008. Its 2.4ghz overclocked to 2.9

I just put a new GTX760 OC gigabyte edition in it.

Looking forward to standard beta next week for more testing.
 

NeilF

NeilF
Si Waters said:
Pleased to report that the combat alpha 1.00 (including Factions) is running perfectly at 1080p on my Q6600 6gb dr2 @800mhz from 2008. Its 2.4ghz overclocked to 2.9

I just put a new GTX760 OC gigabyte edition in it.

Looking forward to standard beta next week for more testing.
Click to expand...

Hey! We have pretty similar specs! (See my sig)

I assume if you start "Factions" and just sit there and watch, you get about 30fps? - http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=25416
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom