Rome 2 performance issues poll

[Tim_Ward]

In the interests of SCIENCE, please vote in this poll to indicate whether or not you are experiencing performance issues with Rome 2. I want to get a feel for how widespread the problems are.

Note: that's performance issues. Nothing about the AI or how the game sucks/is great. Just whether it runs acceptably or not. This includes frame rate, turn processing times and graphics quality, as compared to what you feel your PC should be capable of.

Also, feel free to reply with your machines specs and some kind of pithy comment about the performance you're getting (Ex: "both runs and looks like dogshit", "awesome!" "barely acceptable", "it's like actually being there", "runs smooth but looks like crap", "smells of wee" etc etc).

For SCIENCE.

[talljoe]

i5 4670K at 4.2ghz under Corsair H100i cooler 2x GTX 680 2gb in SLI16gb 1866 DDR3 Samsung 840 Pro 25GB SSDWin7 Extreme present w/ ultra unit detail and shadows. Campaign map: looks good, stutters, random big stutters. Battles: looks... pretty bad. Units appear dark and tiny on screen. Everything stutters once melee is joined, not even zooming in. This game runs much, much worse than any previous TW title for me, ETW-S2TW. UI: This is the worst part... all the faces and maps etc. just look aboslutely ancient without MSAA. Dear god they look cut out in MS paint.

[The Useless Member]

Blargh, don't remind me.

ing 2 second pauses every minute-or-so.

Can barely pull 30 frames on a 20 vs. 20 battle on lowest settings. (when fighting is occurring)

[IlluminatiRex]

i5-3570k standard clock
XFX Radeon 7850 2GB
16 Gigs of RAM
1024X768 Monitor

Playing on Extreme (with the exception of Shadows which are on low, and Vegetative Alpha which is off). Performance is really good actually. Better than Shogun 2 for me.

[Arbitrary Crusader]

AMD 64 X2 dual core 2.9, 4gb of ram, and an Nivida GeForce GTS 450.

can't top that beast.

Anyway, it's run acceptable in battle, but the campaign has these few second of random lag; which, totally pisses me off.

So I pick, "kinda"

Oh what? That's not an option?

So, I will not vote, FOR SCIENCE!

[Tim_Ward]

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
4 GB Ram
ATI Radeon HD 5700 Series
On a MS-7346 Motherboard

PERFORMANCE INFO: Looks like a absolute pelican . Runs even worse.

[Tim_Ward]

[dp]

[Raglan]

intel core i3, gpu 2.1ghz, 4ghz ram

won't say it exactly looks that nice. But other than the units i barely notice it.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

GeForce Experience recommends these settings for my GPU: Low-medium graphics.I have a GTX 780, the second most powerful GPU on the market.

[Irishman]

i5 4670, GTX 770 16g ram. Runs very well until you get very large battles, then some stuttering (on full extreme). Wouldn't expect stuttering with 4-5K men, so not quite there.

[SandraDevilGirl]

i7 3840MX, 680GTX SLi, 32g ram and 4x256SSD in Raid0 and I need to play on Medium if I want to have stable 20+FPS...

[Tim_Ward]

i7 3840MX, 680GTX SLi, 32g ram and 4x256SSD in Raid0 and I need to play on Medium if I want to have stable 20+FPS...

Christ.

[Noif de Bodemloze]

Mostly it running well, but one time I got hugeeeee fps lost when I played in rainy weather.

[Lothar135]

i5 4570s, 8gb ram, GTX 760 2gb.

Ultra settings, except large units, medium textures and low shadows.

Laggy campaign map (laggs all the time!). Big laggs once the units clash into each other in battle. Laggfest in battles with 20 and more units (my + opponents). Playable, but pain.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

I have a fairly dated rig (almost 2 years old, I7 3930k @3.2 Ghz, 16 gigs of DDR3 ram, 2x GTX 680 in SLI) and despite this game not even supporting SLI, I can run it just fine at 6000*1080 on extreme settings.


The problem is that a lot people have fairly old computers because due to cross-platform titles, all they needed was xbox/PS3 performance and any mainstream title would run perfectly and with better textures even on a discounter laptop.

Compared to a proper PC at the time, these platforms were outdated at release. People apparently got used to buy a dirt-cheap computer at wall-mart and expect it to run anything better than a console.

I understand the gripes - 500$ may be a lot of money for a kid, and most of them are confronted with a title purely designed for PCs, and not for 8 year old dirt-cheap consoles for the very first time.

Yes - the game is poorly optimized, but most people complaining are just running terrible hardware.

[Tim_Ward]

Mostly it running well, but one time I got hugeeeee fps lost when I played in rainy weather.

Hmm. Interesting. Try bringing your PC indoors.

[Mauser89]

i5 4670k, 560ti 2gb, 8 gigs ram.

Getting 30+ fps on extreme minus shadows on low. Frames drop on end turn and when I go near smoke on the battlefield.

[HunterKYA]

AMD FX-4100
GeForce 550GTX Ti
8 GB DDR3

This setup is an upgrade from the rig I had when I played Shogun 2 (AMD Athlon II X2 250, GeForce 250 GTX, 6 GB DDR2), which ran well on mostly medium to high settings across the board. It's a misnomer when CA claims if you're able to run Shogun 2 on a low to mid-range rig, you'd be able to run Rome 2 without difficulty; but when people with better rigs than mine are having serious lag issues, CA needs to go back and tweek something.

Aside from Unit Detail and Texture Detail, most everything has to be run on Medium settings to avoid serious lag, and Unit size has to be set to Large to avoid any undo stress.

[WilliVonBill]

i5-3570k standard clock
Gigabyte HD 7870 2GB with latest Catalyst Drivers
16 Gigs of RAM
1920X1080 Monitor Resolution

Playing on Extreme settings. Smooth as silk - no stutters - no graphics artifacting or tearing. Looks friggin' amazing.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

AMD Athlon X2 250 Dual Core (3.2ghz)
8gb RAM
ATI Radeon HD5850 (1gb) graphics card

I know its not a perfect rig, but the game stutters like mad for me, even on medium-high settings (with medium unit size). I could run Shogun easily on these settings previously.

I dunno, what do you lads think?