I would like to know, what is your performance in those Epic BGs like Ashran, but others as well. I mean mainly those big 40 mans.
In addition i would like to know what CPU and GPU you are using.
I ran a Ashran and upon entering it i looked at 30fps, then in the center where that clash happened it went down to 20fps. Even when turning around it stayed at 20fps.
That was not like that back in WoD, when you turned around so the action is behind you, the fps gone up again.
I got a AMD FX 8370 in here, with a Nvidia 2070.
What i not get is how can Final Fantasy 14 have a lower min requirement when the World and Character Models look so much more detailed?
I read on reddit that WoW doesn’t use Multicore CPUs as efficient.
My problem is i got a AMD FX 8370 in here, which is stated on the Recommended Hardware section for WoW as Recommended CPU.
I am playing with the thought to upgrade the CPU as its already stone age(a 2014 CPU), but i still wonder … in WoD i could play Ashran fine with 40fps in the zerg no problem … and now i plummet to 20fps as soon as i enter there, with every setting to lowest.
The engine is significantly newer than the WoW engine. The WoW engine has been upgraded numerous times throughout the years but it still isn’t capable of handling multi-core processing as efficiently as it should. It’s basically just an engine limitation that Blizzard has been working to rectify but it’s very difficult to do without breaking everything horribly.
You’ve got to remember, when WoW was first released single core cpus were still the norm.
As for the rest? 300+ in the old world, 120+ in most of the new content, 100+ in raids, 80+ in battlegrounds.
I’m pretty sure your CPU is the cause of your issues. The 2070 is more than adequate for current-gen games. While a new cpu, motherboard and ram that wouldn’t bottleneck your GPU would cost a pretty penny, it would be worth it for the long term.
But, with my 2700X and RTX 2080 I get around 60-80 fps at 4k using the Nvidia optimized settings in new world content. Old world is anywhere around 150-200fps. In 40 man bg’s I’ve never gone below 30 fps.
Yes i know that. I read somewhere it is a upgraded WC3 engine … which is kinda scary if you think about it, and yet they keep overload it with Azerite Traits that proc and produce an additional effect which puts even more strain on it.
Yea, i kinda want to get Cyberpunk 2077 and for that i would probably have to up the ante anyway. The GPU might not be top of the line, but should be in the upper range(Zotac Geforce RTX 2070, was like 700).
Yeah, the 2070 is absolutely fine and shouldn’t even be considered a possible problem. WoW can’t even come close to maxing out a 2070 and 2077 should run perfectly fine on it at relatively high settings should the CPU be able to support it.
If you could upgrade to a new intel or amd chip either one (like you were talking about doing) you’d see a huuuuuge improvement in performance. Those old FX chips are, quite frankly, not worth a dang.
Blizz has said in other threads that they are aware of the lag and were going to fix it stating that it was caster lag etc. but as yet have not done so. This lag appears in Ashran mainly and in Isle of Conquest mostly at the hanger battles.
Its just horrible and unplayable. I do hope they will be able to fix it soon as I enjoy playing both battle grounds.
Yeah i thought i go Intel this time. The GPU can be easily upgraded later down the road, so i thought about to overkill WoW and get a i9 9900 … if i still have trouble i can start yapping at Blizzard.
The worst thing about this is, you can’t exclude those fights. So what am i supposed to do? Leave the BG once Ashran or Isle of Conquest pops?
That said, i never really liked those big zergbang BGs where you have 40 players run into 40 players … the Classes with the most fun are Range Classes, which is a shame really.
If you are going intel and only intend on gaming get a 9700k. It benches exactly the same or 1-2fps higher than the 9900k in the majority of games I’ve seen benchmarks for.
The 9900k isn’t really meant for gaming and as such you’d be needlessly spending more money for identical or slightly worse fps than a 9700k.
Ugh, Intel confuses me. Comparing a Core i9 9900k with a Core i7 9700k … apparently the number after the “i” doesn’t mean a i9 is newer then a i7 …
I do not plan to do allot of video editing … i might start to do some YouTube videos … but not in the sense of allot (like 2-5 videos a day a lot).
Also … i would be curious, as to what exactly is the difference of my 8core, 4.0 GHz AMD FX 8370 … that Core i7 9700 which has 8 cores @3.6GHz
The 9700k and the 9900k are from the same generation.
I3, i5, i7 and i9 are all steps up from one another within the same generation. There are further steps above that but it mostly falls outside of the consumer market.
So basically, an i7 9700k is newer and better than an i7 8700k, or an i7 6700k, et. cetera.
From what you’re saying I would again recommend the 9700k. It will be more than good enough for occasional video-editting and stuff and is basically the best at gaming atm.
That being said, I have built systems with intel and ryzen both and you really can’t go wrong with either. Pick up a 9700k or a 3700x either one and you’ll be happy.
Without getting too deep into it, clock speed and core count aren’t very representative of the speed of one processor relative to another. There are a lot of other contributing factors. Most of the speed increases you see in the modern cpus are due to architectural improvements and the integration of newer technologies.
