Good Morning all, Apologies, I know this has probably been asked so many times but I'm not overly tech savvy, so getting my heads around the specifications for TSW3 gives me a headache. My current laptop hits the minimum, but not the recommended so I assume that's why I get horrible FPS and stuttering. I'm looking at a desktop now, (I assume I'd get more bang for buck) but the CPU is confusing, the recommended for TSW3 is "Processor: Intel Core i5-11600K @ 3.9 GHz" but I've seen a desktop with " Intel® Core™ i5-12400 Processor - 2.2 GHz / 4.0 GHz" is that worse or better? Any tricks when looking at desktops to figure which CPUs are ideal?
i5-12400 above the recommended requirements. Its performance will be enough with a large margin for the future. The processor will be loaded by 20-35%. It is also not as hot as 11600. TSW rests on the performance of the video card. The recommended RTX3070 provides 60 fps in 4k resolution.
The PC I have been using for 2 years is: Intel Core i9-9900 @ 3.60 GHz 32.0 GB installed RAM 1 TB SSD HD 4 TB drive Video NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8 MB GDDR6 memory Gives me great performance in game. As uvm0902 noted, its the graphics card that matters
Just remember that no matter what you do you will get some juddering and stuttering because it's inherent in the game engine and the way the engine is used by DTG; You will get a lot LESS by upgrading your GPU and using a fast M.2 drive, the desktop CPU will also be a lot faster than a laptop version. With regards to the 2 processors you've specified the 12400 is a decent processor with good energy performance, but it's got a bit less abject grunt than the older 11600, BUT being more up to date it will also take DDR5 memory and more of it than the older chip which can only use DDR4 Both processors will more than handle TSW2 or 3
Thank you all for the advice! I think I've narrowed down my options to 2. Both have 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD and GeForce RTX 3070 8 GB, the only difference lies in the processor. One is Intel i7-12700F and the other is AMD Ryzen 7 5700X. The both seem broadly similiar, but I've read Intel is slightly better for gaming than AMD?
I'm considering buying an M.2 drive, but I already have my game installed on an SATA SSD. Any idea if this will noticeably improve (reduce) stuttering/hitches or is this more about going from a mechanical HDD to an SSD (PCIe or otherwise)?
Both M.2 and SATA SDD are a connection technology and can have huge ranges of access and transfer speeds, also depending on if it's on board, USB, whether the connector is on the CPU bus or not etc etc so it's not really possible to say "M.2 is better than SATA SSD" without knowing the specs of both As an example my current Mobo has two M.2 slots (non-SATA) with different transfer rates because of where on the bus they sit so even with the same drives in both, the transfer rates would be different because one would have to go through more components than the other
It's worth noting that M.2 is a connector, not a data protocol; NVMe is what you are thinking of. This is an important distinction because M.2 SATA SSDs exist and can be mistakenly purchased if not careful, leading to disappointment in actual performance. You can't go wrong either way, but buying the Intel platform leaves you with an upgrade path to the next generation of CPUs (13th gen) should you wish for more performance down the road. The Ryzen 5700X is part of the last generation of the AM5 platform, meaning that any generational upgrades would require a motherboard replacement. Really, I would get whichever is cheapest. Cheers
Northbridge is connected directly to the cpu bus, thus giving faster transfer speeds. But will require the installation of a intel driver during windows setup, otherwise windows will not recognise the drive as usable. Also there is two types of m.2 drives. M.2 sata and m.2 nvme. Nvme being superior to sata. Having used both types of drive and North and southbridge the difference in gaming or windows performance is marginal.
And within those there are various transfer rates Just had a quick look at ebuyer for example. Kingston NV1 NVMe PCIe 3.0 SSD - read transfer rate 2100MBps Curcial P3 NVMe PCIe 3.0 SSD - read transfer rate 2500MBps WD Green SN350 NVMe PCIe 3.0 SSD - read transfer rate 2400MBps WD Black SN770 NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD - read transfer rate 5150MBps In other words it's not as simple as saying "NVMe" is better, because even within NVMe there are differences (and my Mobo won't read SATA at all so that's a consideration too)
Still you can get much higher transfer rates using nvme than sata. With sata you are still using the sata interface, which effectively is no faster than having a ssd hooked up to the mb via sata cables. Also with nvme you can connect the drive directly to the cpus bus, allowing the cpu direct access to the drive, whereas sata i belive, goes via the mb chipset.
Yeah, which goes back to what I said earlier, though as you said above in game you don't notice the effect much
Even the "slowest" one of those is about 4 times as fast as 6 Gbps SATA (assuming you're not actually using SATA connectors ) The NVMe M.2 I'm looking is about 12 times (!) as fast my current SSD (7000 vs 560) in sequential read/write. I have no idea about the comparison regarding random read/write (or how important that is). Mind you my primary reason for upgrading is not TSW, I'm sure I'm way into the range of diminishing returns for TSW.
Also: I heard that one of the big reasons for regular hitch in TSW is not due to loading in a new tile but rather it has something to do with Unreal Engine synchronizing your position. I can't remember the exact name for this function though, but I presume this might be dependent on CPU performance (?). EDIT: World Origin Rebasing is what it's called.
Random read write has much less of a problem on SSDs simply because the "seek time" is in nanoseconds (billionths) rather than milliseconds (thousandths) on an old style disk. I imagine that's because of the way the tile loading works in TSC
What do you want the PC for? Is it just gaming, or do you plan to do CPU intensive tasks on it such as graphic design or video editing / rendering? If it’s the former (gaming only) then the best CPU currently on the market by some margin is the AMD 5800x3D (note NOT the 5800). It’s also very reasonably priced. If you are planning on using your PC for other tasks then you might want something with more cores & threads. A PCI 4.0 Nvme 2 SSD is a also a must (I’ve just bought the 2TB WD Black SN770 as a dedicated gaming drive and would highly recommend it) as is a decent GPU. You can run TSW in 4K Ultra at 60fps with a 2080ti. In a newer PC you ought to be going for at least a 3080 though. Make sure you get at least an 850W power supply to futureproof your build. There’s a thousand different ways to skin a cat but you won’t wrong with those options.
Ah no... that's not what I meant TSC when loading scenarios does load a fair few things, but the scenery is still loaded in tiles in a similar fashion to TSW, hence why both judder and splutter along. This is why you get tiles stutter on that game which is made better by having it on an SSD. TSW's tiles are larger in filesize but a bit more optimized, but UE has an issue with juddering itself which all adds up I haven't played TSC on my new machine (in fact now for 24 months) so don't know if the newer 3rd party routes are better than some of the ones DTG produced which had chronic stuttering at some points in the busier cities
I got it from Scan just after Christmas for £129. It’s now jumped up to £159 but it’s definitely a great drive. I’m finding btw that TSC on that drive is almost entirely stutter free. I see the occasional ‘hiccup’ (can’t think of a better word) but when I think back to the days of having it on an HDD (or even my other Nvme 2 drive) this is chalk and cheese.
In fact you can get stock 5800x3D-based computers for well under $1000. Of course, the GPU won't be all that great, but that can be upgraded.
I did HDD - SATA SSD - NVMe SSD and yeah the change is dramatic, alongside the improvements DTG have made in the game generally
It's still hit and miss, some routes work well and others are a mess. Waterloo to Portsmouth still cripples most pc's.
That's the reason I moved to SSD in the first place... Ran much better after that I think a lot of people are trying to run these things on laptops and then complaining
It don't run too bad standard, get around 30fps at Waterloo and 50s once I get out of London. On the ap scenarios though especially with the 411 I struggle to get 20fps out of Waterloo! Yeah running it on a laptop isn't really viable. I suppose one running on a toned down 3090 laptop might be alright but 3-4k is probably better spent on a pc.
I started running TSC on a surface laptop... 10-15fps out in the open and the clock running at 1/3 time... I updated back to a standard desktop fairly quickly
Well, I looked at some gaming laptops before I finally settled on a desktop last year and some of them had impressive components, like an I9 12900 CPU, RTX 3080TI GPU, 32 GB DDR5 and fast SSD storage. I was very tempted, because I think they would have run TSW very well. Expensive yes, but actually less than the desktop I ended up buying.
The other day I was helping someone with why her laptop was having trouble running stuff and when I asked how much graphics memory she had it was measured in megabytes. My own laptop has a discrete RX 6600 graphics card and so can run CP77 on high at 1440p 60fps*, so I was, needless to say, quite shocked someone would even consider gaming on something clearly not designed for more than internet browsing and word processing.. *the VRR keeps my display stable between lows of 53 in the most intense action scenes and highs of 74 when just walking the streets taking in the sights, I'm using FSR2.1 in Quality mode, PotatoOfDoom's anti-ghosting beta
Unfortunately I am never surprised by such things... It's like they buy a computer and expect it all to run as smoothly as on ANY computer, of course it doesn't work like that but many many people don't understand the distinctions
Recently upgraded from an 850 EVO to an SN850X, did not notice a difference. That's trying both the Gen 3 and Gen 4 M.2 slots on my PC.
Surely you paid that for the 2TB SN770 drive not the 1TB (or even 1Tb!!!)? The SSD prices have fluctuated quite a bit of late. Going back to a p[rvious comment about the 5800X3D chip. I agree it's a great chip. Not sure I would recommend it for a new build as that is at the end of AM4 socket line. Might be worth considering the next generation for a bit more future proofing. I may jump to the 5800X3D in order to stretch my X570/DDR4 Mobo out as long as possible - it's not exactly ancient!
Absolutely! I’d referenced the 2TB part in a previous post but that didn’t carry over. Just to be clear, it is most definitely the 2TB version re The 5800x3D, I think it all comes down to budget. I’d agree that it is the end of the line, but as it stands it’s the best chip out there for gaming. If it’s for TSW/TSC specifically than I think you’ll get years of use out of it. I ‘downgraded’ from a 5900x to get it and it’s gaming performance is just so much better. It’s even removed all CPU limitations from Train Sim Classic which I never thought I’d see.
Agree. The new line might be worth waiting for i.e. 7800x3d - supposedly next month. Price could be high though!
According to the reviews I've seen the i9 13900k is faster than the 5800x3d (on average 6%). But obviously it's quite a bit more expensive and much more power hungry. I'm not sure if TSW is the type of game where the big cache size of the 5800x3d will make the difference less or more.
My i7-12700K in 4K resolution on the ultra settings loads only 12-18%. It is redundant in performance, quite voracious and heats up to 73 degrees with a water cooling system. You can pay attention to the younger models of processors.
To be fair, there's barely anything right now which really takes advantage of the higher speeds when it comes to loading games, so on any game that doesn't use DirectStorage (Read: every pre-2023 game) - the result is that you see very diminishing returns at the higher ends of SSD speeds when it comes to loading. We saw this last gen too, when the Series X launched you could see how XBox One games loading from a SATA drive load in almost exactly the same time as they do from the internal M.2 drive, because those games, designed for HDDs, never had more data to load than a 6Gbps SATA interface could handle. We're just starting to see games that really push to take advantage of those new generation SSDs.
I'm getting good results with a mere 5800x CPu coupled to a GTX 3080. That's with games running 4K on high or Ultra settings including TSW3.
Wasn't this conversation about the issues with the streaming of textures? The new drive solved that in most other games I play but it's still present in this game.
I was specifically directly responding to someone comparing their experience of gen3 vs gen4 drives, and explaining why you see extremely limited improvement in basically any game that currently exists, barely perceptible in comparison to the jump going from slower drives to these ones, and won't see the real benefits in this regard until more games are designed to require them. So on the topic of the thread, PC buying advice, you can save a bunch of money by getting a Gen3 drive if you don't plan on using it for brand new games that are not out yet, and won't lose out on too much unless you also plan on using it for read/write intensive tasks related to your job or other hobbies. It's why I was content to pay considerably less for the version of my Ayaneo that includes a Gen3 drive rather than a Gen4 one, since I am well aware that once games do start to launch that really take advantage of the Gen4 drive, that handheld system will already be bottlenecked on those games by such limitations as its CPU, and so I will probably want to upgrade to a newer model anyway.
I got a PC that will run TSW in 4K for the price of the RTX 4090 on its own. Over kill for TSW on its own. Am sure other newer games may say some of the 4090s power though.
4090 is absolute overkill, and even if you go for a 4080, unless you are mostly playing RT games, the 7900XTX is 20% cheaper for closely matching or even greater performance in many cases of raster rendering. Not to mention how the 4090 still hits bottlenecks in many games that are CPU limited, so you can't even get the full benefit of it without sticking it alongside something like the upcoming 7900X3D. I'd definitely only consider it for a serious future proofed cutting edge gaming build. But honestly, look at picking up something like a 3080 or 3090, still solid performance and probably something you can pick up way cheaper right now.
