The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
It barely even works for FPS. It takes like 90% of the skill out of the shooting, the only thing that matters is a better gun. Even that "non-MMO" Density has a heavy reliance on gear. Yes I manually typed Density instead of Destiny. If that game wasn't designed to be a horrible MMO, then its name isn't Destiny.
I was actually thinking of PlanetSide 2 as Destiny is a pseudo-MMO FPS. And its skill ceiling is very high when not suffering from technical issues (which is almost never).
Well, I suppose, but Planetside 2 has no quests or such things (at least not that I ever saw). It's more like a really really big FPS like what was that PS3 game? MAG?
It has a half-baked Missions System but--like 90% of the metagame--it is still WIP/unfinished. Anyway, I don't really know too much at this point as I quit the game a while ago, although I still follow updates. At this point, it's looking doubtful that PlanetSide 2 will ever live up to its promise and potential. We cynical PlanetSide players like to joke that the game's been in beta/early access for 2 years and counting, but it's pretty much true. The majority of planned features have not been implemented yet, either stuck in development hell or quietly fallen off the roadmap/cancelled. And the game still has technical issues out the wazoo for so many players. Besides the graphics, it's a shell of the game that was PlanetSide 1. Now that was a true MMOFPS.
Sounds like it's another BF4. As much better as BF4 is right now, every time they fix something, they break something totally unrelated. Dead serious: somehow, SOMEHOW, adjusting the reticle jumping and recoil patterns etc and removing the players' body flinch being crazy every time you hit the head (causing headshots to be extremely hard to go for, without giving the opposing player the same viewkick) to be more in line with what they originally wanted caused characters to not be able to walk up the top of stairs (needing a jump), or walk over a large number of small things on the floor (such as being unable to run onto a pavement from the road, needing to jump... please note you CANNOT SHOOT WHILE JUMPING and when landing if you are ADS, your gun will be pointing to the left or high in the air and slanted; making it hard to see anyone or shoot anyone for a second or two after landing) and the test range can't have the targets shot down anymore. Shoot them with 200 bullets out of a LMG, shoot them with 15 RPGs, shoot them with a tank, crash a chopper into them... they don't fall. Makes test range kind of pointless for infantry aiming against-targets testing.
I stand by my statement back in 2013. That game (and probably Planetside 2 as well) is so broken that the only way to fix it is to re-code the entire game from scratch, making sure each error is caught, handled, fixed and performing optimally.
No it's not like BF4. PlanetSide has its fair share of software bugs and a poor engine driving it that pales in comparison to Frostbite (or anything modern, really), but those are minor quibbles compared to its major glaring flaw, which is its fundamentally broken (or incomplete, depending on how you look at it) metagame. BF4's problems are technical in nature. PlanetSide's problems run much deeper and are in the realm of design. However, this has been masked by the technical issues on the surface that have always plagued it.
I suppose. But even Frostbite 3 needs a LOT of work. A lot of fundamentals of the engine are really broken. Frostbite 2 didn't have those problems, and the FB3 problems stretch into many games that use it. Such as the NFS games and Dragon Age where you have to force the timeflow to increase if you wish to run cutscenes. Do you know how much I HATE 30fps cutscenes that must render? You should too; your SLI will microstutter it and make it very very annoying. It's one thing if it's a FMV, but if it's rendered in-engine it's just a pain.
Anyway, I was talking about how the game keeps being broken every time they try to fix or add something. I believe its fundamentals are too broken for ease of updates.
Again, you're talking about technical issues, not design ones. PlanetSide 2 has had it worse than BF4 in terms of technical issues, and for far longer as well. Its DX9 relic of an engine simply doesn't belong in the same breath as Frostbite, CryEngine, or Unreal. But those technical issues, as bad as they've always been, are not the ones truly hurting the game. I suggest you read the edit to my previous post.
Yeah. There's little to be done when an engine itself is broken. It's why I hold no hope for DayZ ever being a properly working game. But people seem to enjoy it with all the random bugs and issues (including myself) so I guess that's a testament to how good it is in theory. The only real question now is how badly is H1Z1 going to be broken XD
For the last time, the biggest problem with PlanetSide 2 is not its engine, it's the game design! Crappy engine, software bugs, poor performance...these are all technical issues, not design ones. I'm not sure where I haven't been clear in my last few posts LOL.
You said it had a poor engine driving it many times, and constantly complain about it being a DX9 mess XD. I'm saying I am wondering how the engine will fare in H1Z1.
Yeah Forgelight Engine sucks and I complain about it a lot, but it's not PlanetSide 2's main problem. Its game design is. You have to realize that PlanetSide 1 came out over 11 years ago. It had even worse technical issues because network and server infrastructure, game engines, PC hardware, etc. were all far less advanced back then. But as an MMOFPS, it was far more advanced than PlanetSide 2 currently is and probably ever will be.
A good analogy I can think of is Deus Ex vs. Deus Ex: Invisible War. Sure, the graphics in Invisible War are vastly superior to Deus Ex, which was outdated in the visuals department from the moment it came out. But Invisible War's oversimplified design is the reason it's usually considered the second worst Deus Ex title after the abominable iPad game, The Fall. Or how about CoD, or BF 3 & 4 vs. BF 2 & 2142, or Skyrim vs. Morrowind, or Crysis 2 & 3 vs. Crysis & Crysis Warhead, or every other game series that has been dumbed down. The seminal Medal of Honor series (remember Allied Assault?) became so bad that they killed it.
Production values--shinier graphics and more realistic audio--and technical or artistic merits (if you equate better graphics with better art) have improved and followed the natural evolution (how can they not?), but game design has not only not kept up, but gone backwards.
really? 40fps is not smooth cos i can see it start to lag and stutter. 50-60fps is ok but the game janks around a lot within 50-60fps that it's really annoying. at least with FC3 i could get it easily.
You're starting to p*** me off Ubisoft! there's times where the game would just randomly drop to 30fps for no reason.
In one instance i was in (one of Amita's missions) a mission to capture a processing plant operated by Noore and on my exit it was all fine and dandy at 50-60fps then, as soon as i walk through a door - BAM! drops to 30fps - then it was like that for a minute or so and then as soon as i walk through another door - BAM! the fps goes back to 60fps....this isn't the first time this has happened.
When you do the first Shangri-la mission - when you dive it's 60fps, but when i am swimming to the surface through the tunnel of circling fish it's 30fps. Though as soon as I get out of the water it's back to 60fps....What gives?!
FWIW when I'm not getting dropped connections with The Crew, it's actually a pretty addicting game. The MMO aspect can be largely ignored, as other players for the most part just do their own thing like me. Thankfully griefing doesn't work in this game due to the instant <del>teleport</del> transport system, although I did have one guy tail my BMW Z4 with his Dodge Ram SRT-10 for a good 10 minutes :laugh:
1) stuttering...
2) unstable fps
3) the open reveal is pre-rendered and not rendered in-game and i thought my PC was doing a damn good rendering job!
4) when i am heading to a mission the game annoys me with the "oh, defend an outpost" mission...you've asked the player who has started a mission to divert their attention to something that doesn't have any consequence cos if you don't defend an outpost - nothing happens to them - there's no consequence.
5) animals attack for no reason....i think it's just the game's way of being ING ANNOYING! one time i was trying to snipe some dudes and for no reason a yak rams me....? I didn't even instigate them to being with.
Now that I have reached the northern part of the map. It seems rendering the snow proves too much for my OCed 680M with all on ultra. It simply downclocks to 2D rendering the game unplayable. I have to now run at only very high to stop the throttling....sucks.
I agree about the aggressive animals. Ridiculous that a rhino can run as fast (or faster) as a car!
The 780M is about 10-15% behind the 660 Ti, which in turn is 10-15% behind the 670 at 1080p, so I disagree that a 680M is anywhere near a stock 670. Check the gaming benchmarks on Notebookcheck and you'll see the 680M is on the same level as a 750 Ti, give or take 5-10% depending on the game.
Yeah a stock 780M is pretty weak all things considered (771MHz version, NOT the modded vBIOS version). Modded vBIOS version is closer to a 760, but with less memory bandwidth. gh0sts' 780M though is clocked to a 680, so it should perform like a reference 680.
a (stock) 780M is equivalent to a stock Radeon HD 7970 (with 1% difference) and a stock GTX 760 (with a 4% difference) that means with my clocks i have effectively have something that is slightly higher than a GTX 760 in the context of the 3DMark 11 scores.
so theoretically i am about less than 19% behind a GTX 680 though effectively i am running between a GTX 760 with a minor OC (though i think it might get lost in the power difference) and a GTX 660Ti.
At 1006/1150 it is pretty close. Stock 680M runs at an anemic 720mhz. I am running a good 300 mhz above that. Both 680M and 780M when OC to where they should be perform ALOT better.
NBC's scores are very outdated because in reality, 7970 is neck-and-neck with 680 or slightly faster depending on the game. You have to realize that 7970 came out before everything else and got a 20-30% boost in its first year alone due to improved drivers, most famously the Catalyst 12.11 Never Settle driver. NBC's numbers for the 7970 were probably obtained using release drivers and were never updated, that's why they're so low.
well my 780M's overclocked score is between 8300 and 8400 (the scores seem to vary on every attempt for some reason). so in terms of 3DMark 11 scores....
1st - 660Ti (Stock) at 8415
2nd - 780M (OC'd) at 8337 or 8370
3rd - 760 (Stock) at 7962
so i don't reach a stock 660Ti though i do beat a stock 760 by considerably margin.
From personal experience, ESPECIALLY with SLI on, my 780M almost never ran at 823MHz. I averaged around 760-780. It's possible your machine stuck to 823 constantly though. I did not find that the clocks my 780Ms ran at were particularly bad, but I got insane artifacting and graphical glitches when playing once my screen was set to 120Hz and SLI was turned on, which the modded vBIOS fixed. Of course that keeps the clocks at 850/5000 constant, which is in essence a 70-90MHz OC. And considering the healthy boost I get going from 850/5000 to 950/6000 (it runs at 940 actually I discovered) which is about a 90MHz boost... it's a solid power increase.
If that is stock 3Dmark 11, the 660Ti can get a boost from being on Windows 7. You need to find Windows 8.1 3D Mark 11 660Ti scores. It's part of the reason Mr. Fox hates Win 8.1 as he's an overclocker/bencher. Also, if you try with Optimus disabled (I believe you can do this with the AW17) you should get back some performance too; Optimus I believe is somewhere around a 5% performance hit? Something like that.
Also, I want to point out that synthetic benches like 3DMark don't tell the full story. In terms of raw power, the 660Ti beats the 760. But its memory bandwidth is bad, and only 1.5GB of the 2GB gets the full 144GB/s bandwidth (the rest only gets 48GB/s) and it has fewer ROPs than the 760 does, so in some instances the 760 will beat it due to the core being fairly close.
Wow those old Phenom II's are horrible LOL. And that one is overclocked to the gills, too (they hit the wall at around 4 GHz). Sad to think that current AMD FX chips have even worse IPC than the Phenom II.
Yeah that wimpy AMD CPU is definitely dragging down the overall score. Why do you think the P score is almost 2000 points lower than the graphics score.
Check the edit on my post and yeah the Phenom II X4s are... I don't even know. I know that the Phenom II x6 CPUs are comparable to 1st-gen extreme i7s (like the i7-950 I had) but the X4s are... basically missing 1/3 of that, XD.
A better way to check would likely be the direct graphics scores? Also, check the edit of my post.
In heavily multi-threaded workloads, yeah. But in terms of gaming, Phenom II were comparable to Core 2.
Also, the i7-950 wasn't an Extreme Edition. The Extreme Edition chips on LGA 1366/X58 where 965X/975X (Nehalem quad-core) and 980X/990X (Westmere hexa-core).
looks like AMD CPUs incur an average of a 500 point drop in 3dmark11 compared to intel.
EDIT: most of the scores i am seeing are firestrike scores so i think i'll do a firestrike test, get a score and compare to 760 and 660ti scores and see where i fit closest to.
No, those were essentially "1st gen extreme", like how the i7-3840 is considered "Sandy Bridge Extreme" even though it's quadcore and not even unlocked (at least my friend can't do a thing with it in XTU etc). At least, that's how I wished to bring the point across. Unless 920-960 were considered "consumer" like the i7-860 etc and only 965, 975, 980 and 990 were actually the "extreme" edition?
Here's mine. I copied your 1006/6000 clocks for my 780M and forced it to one GPU (don't mind that the test says I used two, I did not; SLI was just turned on on the machine) and my CPU's stock at 3.5GHz.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-4800MQ,MYTHLOGIC P370SM3 See if your scores match mine. (ironically, about to go do a SLI run at the same clocks. Brb, inb4 GPU crash)
That's not how Extreme Edition is defined. Extreme Edition are Intel's halo chips that have an 'X' and/or 'Extreme Edition' in their names and have always been sold for $1000 with features such as highest clock speed, unlocked multiplier, most cores and cache, etc.
3840QM is not an Extreme Edition; 3920XM, 3940XM, and 4960X are. Likewise, on Haswell-E, 5960X is the Extreme Edition; 5820K and 5930K are not.
Also, 3840QM is Ivy Bridge, not Sandy Bridge. Unless you're referring to the i7-3820, which is a Sandy Bridge-E chip. The 'E' in Sandy Bridge-E, Ivy Bridge-E, and Haswell-E stands for 'Enthusiast', not 'Extreme.' The only Sandy Bridge-E Extreme Edition chips are 3960X and 3970X.
Core is the consumer line; non-consumer is Xeon for workstations/servers/ES. Additionally, for the Core line, there is the mainstream platform on a small socket (LGA 1156/1155/1150 and its corresponding chipsets)--which fits up to i7 quad-core--and the enthusiast platform on a big socket (LGA 1366/2011/2011-v3 and its corresponding chipsets)--which fits up to i7 6/8 cores. Intel's non-consumer platform shares the same chipsets and sockets as the enthusiast consumer platform.
Oh. Yeah I meant to write 3820. And I didn't know it was "enthusiast". Well, learned something new today. Then I was referring to the mainstream versus enthusiast. Ah well.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
