560ti with i5-2500k and 8gb - smooth as butter - you guys complaining need to upgrade

[fawker]

I know you may want to complain that you can't run this game. But, it may just be time to upgrade that tired system you are trying to run this game on.

All the fannboys are going to rush to defend this game. That with all the extra trimmings, it needs sli and high end hardware to run properly, and that it shouldn't be expected to run smoothly on older hardware, even though the xbox itself is 5-6 years old.

[Freyar]

... there are plenty of other things that can easily interfere, you know.

[Deathsyt]

Have you actually checked the specs of those complaining about bad performance? Most of them have far better PC's than you have. Personally, it runs perfectly for me, but just because it works properly for us, does not mean that this is the case for everyone.

[mrpeters]

Minimum:

OS: Windows XP SP2
Processor: Dual Core 2GHz Intel or 2.8GHz AMD
Memory: 2 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 10 compatible with 512MB RAM
DirectX®: 9.0c
Hard Drive: 8 GB HD space
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible
Recommended:

OS: Windows 7
Processor: Quad Core 2.66GHz Intel or 3.2GHz AMD
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 10 compatible or later with 1GB RAM
DirectX®: 10
Hard Drive: 8 GB HD space
Sound: DirectX 9.0c compatible

This game does not require any high end computer so any problem with the game that meets recommended specifications is due to poor optimization.

[fawker]

Have you actually checked the specs of those complaining about bad performance? Most of them have far better PC's than you have. Personally, it runs perfectly for me, but just because it works properly for us, does not mean that this is the case for everyone.

Wouldn't be the first time Radeon cards ran horribly on a new release until they got around to updating the drivers. I jumped ship on ATI long ago.

[Deathsyt]

Wouldn't be the first time Radeon cards ran horribly on a new release until they got around to updating the drivers. I jumped ship on ATI long ago.

Actually, ATI currently has less problems than nvidia with Alan Wake. I am talking 570s and 580s when I mention the better PC's, not ATI cards.

[fawker]

Actually, ATI currently has less problems than nvidia with Alan Wake. I am talking 570s and 580s when I mention the better PC's, not ATI cards.

Ah yes, older hardware. Good hardware, but outside the limelight in terms of rapid support of new releases.

[FstyMcBeefpunch]

updating my catalyst application profiles gave me about a 30-40 fps boost all maxed, never drops below 70fps now.

i7-930 @ 3.4GHz
12GB DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz
2x Sapphire 6970s in xfire

[HJP]

I'm tired of both the people who say PC gamers "need" a high end rig with multiple GPUs and people like you who deride those people. If you have the money, then it's your money to spend on whatever you see fit. It's not my, or your, place to judge.

[hildegain]

On my 560ti I noticed something fun. The FPS is all nice and butter smooth in most areas until a few spots where it inexplicably drops down to 22 or so, dropping shadows down to low and leaving everything else maxed automatically fixes it and I'm then at 60fps constantly.

No fps difference between shadows on medium nor high and my fps doesn't drop with any other setting, nor on any other resolution. It's not big deal though, the game still looks good.

[cyborg34573]

Man , sick of topics like these. Your definition of "smooth as butter" might be differently from mine, smooth as butter for me is 60+ Fps 100% of the time and im not getting that with this game at all, infact at max settings i average Fps in the 40's which is kinda laggy imo, and im running a system with 3x GTX580's, your telling me its time for me to upgrgrade? come on.

Idk if the game is just extremely demanding or not optimized that well cause atm there is no SLI support so im forced to run it with a single 580 and man the framerate drops most of the time to 40 and its annothing as hell, ruins the mood. I dont think i can play this game till they come out with proper drivers for it and good SLI support. Not willing to drop a single setting in the options, i did not pay good money for my system just to be running lower settings.

But yeah quit telling people they need to upgrade their pc's.

[jordNZ]

Ah yes, older hardware. Good hardware, but outside the limelight in terms of rapid support of new releases.

How are 570s and 580s 'old' hardware? They're the same generation as you 560...


Man , sick of topics like these. Your definition of "smooth as butter" might be differently from mine, smooth as butter for me is 60+ Fps 100% of the time and im not getting that with this game at all, infact at max settings i average Fps in the 40's which is kinda laggy imo, and im running a system with 3x GTX580's, your telling me its time for me to upgrgrade? come on.

This man is correct.

[robs03gts]

Actually, ATI currently has less problems than nvidia with Alan Wake. I am talking 570s and 580s when I mention the better PC's, not ATI cards.

Yeah, GTX 580 here and everything maxed completely out at 1080p gives me a silky smooth 60fps. Of course my GTX 580 is clocked to 930mhz core and my 2500k is at 4.6ghz and I have 8gbs of ram too. :)

[robs03gts]

im forced to run it with a single 580 and man the framerate drops most of the time to 40 and its annothing as hell, ruins the mood.

Resolution? CPU and clock speed? system ram? Windows version? Im asking because something doesnt sound right with your rig.

[spyrochaete]

Many people with similar or superior specs to mine are reporting much worse performance than I get. The problem doesn't seem to be raw horsepower, but it's hard to say whether it's a driver issue or memory resident programs or operating system or what brand of mouse they use or what colour t-shirt they're wearing.

But yeah, I7 930, Geforce 470, 6GB of RAM, runs like a dream for me.

[legend80]

I run at 1920x1080 with EVERY gfx option maxed (or with 3D on @ 720p), and I can run at full speed.

Win 7 x64, Nvidia 460gt, Intel i5 2500k@4.3ghz.

[robs03gts]

I run at 1920x1080 with EVERY gfx option maxed (or with 3D on @ 720p), and I can run at full speed.

Win 7 x64, Nvidia 460gt, Intel i5 2500k@4.3ghz.

You can run at full speed? oh thats nice. :rolleyes:

[cyborg34573]

Resolution? CPU and clock speed? system ram? Windows version? Im asking because something doesnt sound right with your rig.

I can assure you nothing is wrong with the rig, im playing much more demanding games like Witcher 2 (without ubersamp)/ BF3/ etc on their absolute max settings just fine with steady 60Fps (capped).

Intel i72600k @ 4.5Ghz
8GB G.Skill Ripjaws x Series 2133Mhz
3x SLI GTX580 (2x EVGA GTX580 SC / 1x Asus GTX580 DCUII)
Drivers: 295.51
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
All temps are perfectly fine and monitored via OSD.

What drivers are you using?, cause i seriously am not getting 60Fps smooth with this game. My ingame settings are all maxed including AA and my resolution is at 1920x1080.

Would like to know what magic you got going to get 60Fps stable.

[trek554]

I run at 1920x1080 with EVERY gfx option maxed (or with 3D on @ 720p), and I can run at full speed.

Win 7 x64, Nvidia 460gt, Intel i5 2500k@4.3ghz.1280x720? :rolleyes:

[mister_moges]

upgrading isn't the only way to play this game on an older system. there's this thing called "graphics settings", and even with everything on low the game still looks better than it's xbox counterpart, and runs fine on my system with a radeon hd4600, amd core2 duo 2.8 ghz, and 3 gigs of ram.

normally i really hate playing with everything turned down, but this game, to me at least, still looks great so i'm fine with it.

also i'm playing at 720p and on my large tv from 10 feet away, it looks just fine.

[robs03gts]

What drivers are you using?, cause i seriously am not getting 60Fps smooth with this game. My ingame settings are all maxed including AA and my resolution is at 1920x1080.

Would like to know what magic you got going to get 60Fps stable.

No magic, im using the very latest BETA'S and as I mentioned before my card is overclocked to 930mhz core which is a nice bump from the stock speed of 772mhz.

BTW FXAA is off and 8XMSAA is on. I dont use FXAA because its a post processing effect which blurs the image in order to mask the jaggies. Personally I cant stand the slight blure that it produces, especially in games like BF3 and Skyrim.

[cyborg34573]

No magic, im using the very latest BETA'S and as I mentioned before my card is overclocked to 930mhz core which is a nice bump from the stock speed of 772mhz.

BTW FXAA is off and 8XMSAA is on. I dont use FXAA because its a post processing effect which blurs the image in order to mask the jaggies. Personally I cant stand the slight blure that it produces, especially in games like BF3 and Skyrim.

Well your lucky i guess. I dont wanna overclock one of my cards at all, im sure one of em can reach the same oc you got there but my temps are very fragile so bumping up voltage for an oc isn't really an option. I guess ill just wait for proper SLI support, then i can play it.

[laffles]

Fawker, I have a much better system than you and am experiencing low fps

[robs03gts]

Well your lucky i guess. I dont wanna overclock one of my cards at all, im sure one of em can reach the same oc you got there but my temps are very fragile so bumping up voltage for an oc isn't really an option. I guess ill just wait for proper SLI support, then i can play it.

Im not lucky but the overclock does make a huge difference. Fermi cards scale greatly with an overclock so pretty much any overclock even if its a small one will benefit you.

I understand about the temps, im using an artic accelero plus cooler on mine to keep the temps in check and it does a great job. With my card overclocked and overvolted the highest temp I have ever seen it reach was 62c and that was after playing BF3 for many hours. :)

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa160/SLINROB/010.jpg

[RevD_CobblePot]

awwww, so cute.

Did Gaylord Fawker just got promoted in his 'playable club' over at the canyourunit forums, and is now boasting random gibberish on the net cause he thinks he's superior to the rest because his mid end pc can max a recent title on his crappy 800x600 resolution?

Your definition of Smooth As Butter is my vision of hell. I suggest you visit urban dictionary, immediately.

[cyborg34573]

Im not lucky but the overclock does make a huge difference. Fermi cards scale greatly with an overclock so pretty much any overclock even if its a small one will benefit you.

I understand about the temps, im using an artic accelero plus cooler on mine to keep the temps in check and it does a great job. With my card overclocked and overvolted the highest temp I have ever seen it reach was 62c and that was after playing BF3 for many hours. :)

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa160/SLINROB/010.jpg

Oh i love those video card coolers, they beastly man, i must say im jelly, stock coolers suck =.= lol.

[RevD_CobblePot]

Yeah, GTX 580 here and everything maxed completely out at 1080p gives me a silky smooth 60fps. Of course my GTX 580 is clocked to 930mhz core and my 2500k is at 4.6ghz and I have 8gbs of ram too. :)


See, with this, i can agree with that you're getting 60 fps constant. A 930 clocked in 580 will rip through any demanding game on 1080p.

Op is just talking nonsense, let's say i give him the benefit of the doubt and he does have a 1080p screen, most he's going to get outdoors at night(with highest setting) is fps around the low 40's mark. Calling that smooth as butter just proves how incompetent you are in the hardware scene.

[FriedGerry]

Running 20 and below core i3 Intel HD Graphics
all low
/procomputer

[robs03gts]

Oh i love those video card coolers, they beastly man, i must say im jelly, stock coolers suck =.= lol.

Thanks it is very nice, the best part about it besides the temps is how silent these things are even at 100 percent fan speed.

[Nettacki]

Op is just talking nonsense, let's say i give him the benefit of the doubt and he does have a 1080p screen, most he's going to get outdoors at night(with highest setting) is fps around the low 40's mark. Calling that smooth as butter just proves how incompetent you are in the hardware scene.

Maybe low 40's isn't smooth as butter, but it's still very playable, especially if it doesn't stutter a lot.

[robs03gts]

Maybe low 40's isn't smooth as butter, but it's still very playable, especially if it doesn't stutter a lot.

To me its the fluctuations in the frame rate that cause a game to become unsmooth. Many are not aware of this but MSI Afterburner has a utility that will allow you to cap your framerates in ANY game. If you are experiencing an inconsistent framerate then this feature can really help smooth things out.

If your experiencing frame rates in the low 40's often then try using the utility in MSI afterburner and cap the framerate to 40fps, you might be suprised at how smooth the game is now.

[robs03gts]

MSI On-Screen Display server has been upgraded to version 4.3.0. New version gives you the following improvements:
Added new profile settings allowing to limit the framerate independently during gaming and during videocapture. Limiting the framerate during gaming can help to reduce the power consumption as well as it can improve gaming experience due to removing unwanted microstutteing effect caused by framerate fluctuations.

Added AMD Tahiti graphics processors family support
Added core voltage control for reference design AMD RADEON 7970 graphics cards with CHL8228 voltage regulators
Limiting the framerate during videocapture can improve resulting video smoothness
Added Vector 3D On-Screen Display rendering mode support for OpenGL applications
Added Raster 3D On-Screen Display rendering mode support for multithreaded OpenGL applications (e.g. ID Software's Rage)
Added workaround for AMD Direct3D driver issues causing OSD to be invisible in Direct3D8 and Direct3D9 applications.
Now unofficial overclocking can be enabled without typing in the EULA into the configuration file.
Added power user oriented command line switches allowing to extend Overdrive clock limits on AMD graphics cards attached to Windows desktop

[Deathsyt]

See, with this, i can agree with that you're getting 60 fps constant. A 930 clocked in 580 will rip through any demanding game on 1080p.

Op is just talking nonsense, let's say i give him the benefit of the doubt and he does have a 1080p screen, most he's going to get outdoors at night(with highest setting) is fps around the low 40's mark. Calling that smooth as butter just proves how incompetent you are in the hardware scene.

I have an identical PC to the OP, only I only have 4GB of RAM. I can confirm that the game does run well maxed out. 60FPS in dark areas. But when there are any large light sources, such as the street lamps that you use to heal, it drops to around 36FPS.

But with AA turned down to x2, FXAA turned off, and SSAO turned to low, I am getting a constant 60FPS, and the game hardly looks any different with these settings. But if he is honestly trying to say that he is getting a constant 60FPS with everythinged maxed, even around large light sources, then he is indeed, delusional.

[a4especibot]

Ive got a Q9650, 6GB DDR2 RAM, 2xHD6850 Crossfire, Soundblaster X-fi Xtremegamer and this game runs gorgeously @ 1680x1050 with max ingame settings.

Great game with immersive atmosphere.

-A4

[RevD_CobblePot]

But with AA turned down to x2, FXAA turned off, and SSAO turned to low, I am getting a constant 60FPS, and the game hardly looks any different with these settings. .


yeah, but that's not the point.

the point is that with a 560ti and 2500k, you're not even suppose to turn anything on low or off, that's considered childs play and you're a wuss for doing so.

Keep everything high and just a notch down on the anti-aliasing is what we are discussing here. My old athlon 64x2 and 8800 gt can pull consistent numbers out of its rear end, but that's not the direct point of this thread. Op was just boasting about his specs without any info on his resolution, nor any actual numbers to second-handily verify his claim.

[Pith Helmet]

EDIT: Nevermind, wrong thread in the wrong tab. XD

[sketchMode]

I have to agree that "smooth as butter" is a very arbitrary term to use. What you consider acceptable may not be so for another. If my games are not MAXED running a constant 60+ FPS I consider them unplayable. Call me an elitist if you will, but this is just what my eyes have become accustomed to. I spend a lot of money and time overclocking my rigs in order to achieve this type of gaming experience. IMHO a game running "smooth as butter" is running MAXED at a constant 100 FPS on an old CRT. I just picked up Alan Wake CE and I have to say that I have not seen one problem yet... running with all settings MAXED with the most recent Catalyst preview driver and the most recent Crossfire application profiles, have not seen any dips below 70 fps using FRAPS.

My rig:

Lian Li Armorsuit PC-P50R AMD Ed.
AMD Phenom II 1090T Black Ed. OC'd 4.2GHz
ASUS ROG Crosshair IV Formula
(2) XFX 6950s 1536 Unlocked Shaders, CrossfireX
16GB G. Skill DDR3 1600 CL 7-7-7-21
1020W Enermax Revolution 85+ PSU
(2) WD Caviar Black 640GB HDD 64MB cache (RAID 0)
Zalman CNPS 9900MAX CPU Cooler
Planar SA2311W 120HZ 3D monitor 1920 x 1080

[Deathsyt]

yeah, but that's not the point.

the point is that with a 560ti and 2500k, you're not even suppose to turn anything on low or off, that's considered childs play and you're a wuss for doing so.

Keep everything high and just a notch down on the anti-aliasing is what we are discussing here. My old athlon 64x2 and 8800 gt can pull consistent numbers out of its rear end, but that's not the direct point of this thread. Op was just boasting about his specs without any info on his resolution, nor any actual numbers to second-handily verify his claim.

Oh, I know. I was more trying to add numbers to this to debunk his claims of it running smooth as butter maxed out, since I have a similar PC. Even if he were to feel that 40FPS classified as "smooth as butter", the fact that it jumps between 60FPS and 36FPS (likely closer to 40-45FPS for him due to the higher RAM, but 8GB won't make a huge difference for this game) doesn't even come close to anything smooth.

[Sand0kan]

IMO the obtimization is great. I have a small 20" screen @ 1600*900 and I got a solid 60 fps with everything maxed out except MSAA at 4x.

I have a i5 2500k @ 3.3Ghz | 8 Go | GTX 560Ti

Every console port should be like this amazing game.

[Metal_Izanagi]

To the OP:

Quit telling people to upgrade their PCs, bag of douching. Not everyone has the money to burn on expensive components, and to try to get out of an argument by pulling the legion card is just pathetic.

That is all.

[Flakz]

Yeah, GTX 580 here and everything maxed completely out at 1080p gives me a silky smooth 60fps. Of course my GTX 580 is clocked to 930mhz core and my 2500k is at 4.6ghz and I have 8gbs of ram too. :)

Same here, I have a decent OC'd 580, and it runs the game really well. No complaints here. Lucky you got that core up to 930mhz!

ASUS Sabertooth P67
i7 2600k @ 4.5ghz
8 gigs Corsair XMS 3 @ 1600mhz
eVGA GTX 580 @ 850mhz/2050mhz
Creative X-Fi Titanium HD
Win 7 64-bit

[Whiteclaw]

I can play Witcher 2 with Ubersampling turned off on max settings with 1920x1200 resolution with the following rig:

Intel Sandy Bridge i3-2100 3.1 Ghz with HT
ATI 6950 HD
4GB DDR3 RAM
Windows 7 Home Premium

But, Alan Wake is unplayable even on the lowest settings. I'm sorry but no, there is no need to upgrade if I can play a plethora of other games on max or close to max settings and I practically get 1 FPS with this game.

[Spyder810]

This game does not require any high end computer so any problem with the game that meets recommended specifications is due to poor optimization.

Just because you meet "recommended" specifications for hardware, doesn't mean you can crank everything to maximum and pull 60+ fps. It means you should be able to run the game decently(med-high settings) with good performance.

[Misguided]

AMD phenom x4 and ati HD 5770.
Everything maxed in settings. Although i think some of the options in setting were limited. I didnt see 16x FSAA only 8x

[robs03gts]

I can play Witcher 2 with Ubersampling turned off on max settings with 1920x1200 resolution with the following rig:

Intel Sandy Bridge i3-2100 3.1 Ghz with HT
ATI 6950 HD
4GB DDR3 RAM
Windows 7 Home Premium

But, Alan Wake is unplayable even on the lowest settings. I'm sorry but no, there is no need to upgrade if I can play a plethora of other games on max or close to max settings and I practically get 1 FPS with this game.



Its probably a diver issue, you have a decent rig aside from the dual core cpu but im not sure how cpu limited alan wake is anyway.

Aside from that I think ATI is doing better than Nvidia right now in this game so something is really up for you.

[MD1990]

I know you may want to complain that you can't run this game. But, it may just be time to upgrade that tired system you are trying to run this game on.

All the fannboys are going to rush to defend this game. That with all the extra trimmings, it needs sli and high end hardware to run properly, and that it shouldn't be expected to run smoothly on older hardware, even though the xbox itself is 5-6 years old.

You're expecting people to run out and buy that kind of hardware to run a 2 year old console port?

[Kyorisu]

A single 460GTX on high at 1920 gives me 30+ frames with ease. With the SLI hack that doubles.

[bubbacho]

Well to put the "high end rig" B.S. to rest I'm running a 980X on a Rampage
Black Edition board with 8 Gigs of 1600Mhz Corsair Vengeance and two 600Gb
Raptors SATA III in RAID. Oh and I just upgraded my 5870's for two MSI 7970's in crossfire on Win 7 64 bit and this POS keeps crashing every five minutes or so. It's funny to see such ♥♥♥♥ty performance on a two year old game on DX9 when I'm running BF3 at 2560x1200 on Ultra at over 100fps. The funny thing is that I all ready have the game for my 360 but I thought it would be cool to play it on my 30" Dell Ultra-sharp with the two new cards. Maybe the video cards are just too new?

It's running at around 45fps.

[gingerbill]

Ah yes, older hardware. Good hardware, but outside the limelight in terms of rapid support of new releases.

570's and 580's are old hardware? WTF you talking about?!?

[Turzumi]

Without reading too much this thread I also have i5 2500K with 560 Ti SLI (which obviously doesn't work that much) with 1900x1200 and game is smooth as a butter with everything turned max. Nice game, I own the Xbox version but PC graphics seem more fine to me.

[BC2 Cypher]

Ah yes, older hardware. Good hardware, but outside the limelight in terms of rapid support of new releases.

GTX 570 and 580 are old hardware?

HAHA funny joke is funny.

[acsummerfield]

Is anyone having really crazy crashing issues? I have an AMD Phenom 2.60 Quad-core, an ATI Radeon 4870, and 5gbs of ram and the game crashes after Alan says "I was still in shock from the crash, I could hardly stay on my feet" no matter what I try and do.

I'm getting increasingly frustrated, especially since all of my other 70+ Steam purchases run "smooth as butter".

[trek554]

AMD phenom x4 and ati HD 5770.
Everything maxed in settings. Although i think some of the options in setting were limited. I didnt see 16x FSAA only 8xas if a 5770 can run the game with 16x AA? lol

you must be at a low res to even be running the max settings and 8x AA smoothly on a 5770.

[Whiteclaw]

Its probably a diver issue, you have a decent rig aside from the dual core cpu but im not sure how cpu limited alan wake is anyway.

Aside from that I think ATI is doing better than Nvidia right now in this game so something is really up for you.


I have the 12.1 drivers for ATI. There is 12.2 preview but I'm not sure it would fix the issue for a 2 year old game.

I really don't know what to do, should I try upgrading CPU drivers or something? I'm out of ideas really, this needs a patch fix or something.

The biggest issue are the lights. Whenever I see a lamp, the game just halts to 0 FPS, and that is on lowest settings.

[Dethstar]

Have you actually checked the specs of those complaining about bad performance? Most of them have far better PC's than you have. Personally, it runs perfectly for me, but just because it works properly for us, does not mean that this is the case for everyone.

Agree.

Op has a mid to low end rig. I suspect 60% of people have better. Generally I think the game performs fine but then the textures are still console quality so it should do on any decent pc.

Even at 8x AA and 16 aniostropy etc its not too demanding because the textures are pretty low rez to start with. Would love to have seen it with truly HD textures but the environbment is pretty.

Using quadfire AMD GPUs on this machine (dual 6990) amazingly for AMD these days I am not getting driver issues other than the known ones such as AMD Overdrive failing etc.

Have found a couple of scripting / story progressions bugs though.