How can this game be so heavy?

[NieksterNL]

My PC can run games that you'd think are heavier than M&B just fine.... But I get an average FPS of below 20 in this game.... I have all the graphics settings set as low as possible, except DirectX 9 instead of 7 (does that make a difference?). Especially the castle sieges are almost impossible to play with a fun amount of soldiers... Are there some settings that I may have set all wrong to make it so laggy?

Specs:
2,4 gHz Pentium IV
~1200 Mb RAM
Ati Radeon 9550, 128 mb

try directX 7, graphics look the same, but your fps will increase alot
i can play the game in directX 7, but not in directX9 for some reason (slow fps)
this is weird, because i can even run team fortress 2 at more fps in directX9
oh well, thats the difference between valve and taleworlds
valve render their games as the bests, taleworlds renders mount&blade poorly yet this is one of my favorite games

 

[HTAPAWASO]

My PC can run games that you'd think are heavier than M&B just fine.... But I get an average FPS of below 20 in this game.... I have all the graphics settings set as low as possible, except DirectX 9 instead of 7 (does that make a difference?). Especially the castle sieges are almost impossible to play with a fun amount of soldiers... Are there some settings that I may have set all wrong to make it so laggy?

Specs:
2,4 gHz Pentium IV
~1200 Mb RAM
Ati Radeon 9550, 128 mb

try directX 7, graphics look the same, but your fps will increase alot
i can play the game in directX 7, but not in directX9 for some reason (slow fps)
this is weird, because i can even run team fortress 2 at more fps in directX9
oh well, thats the difference between valve and taleworlds
valve render their games as the bests, taleworlds renders mount&blade poorly yet this is one of my favorite games

I've never played TF2, but I was under the impression it's of a typical FPS style...

In which case I doubt it has to render and manage dozens/hundreds of bots at a time... which is the real resource drain of M&B, and any game with large numbers of independently thinking bots.

 

[NieksterNL]

My PC can run games that you'd think are heavier than M&B just fine.... But I get an average FPS of below 20 in this game.... I have all the graphics settings set as low as possible, except DirectX 9 instead of 7 (does that make a difference?). Especially the castle sieges are almost impossible to play with a fun amount of soldiers... Are there some settings that I may have set all wrong to make it so laggy?

Specs:
2,4 gHz Pentium IV
~1200 Mb RAM
Ati Radeon 9550, 128 mb

try directX 7, graphics look the same, but your fps will increase alot
i can play the game in directX 7, but not in directX9 for some reason (slow fps)
this is weird, because i can even run team fortress 2 at more fps in directX9
oh well, thats the difference between valve and taleworlds
valve render their games as the bests, taleworlds renders mount&blade poorly yet this is one of my favorite games

I've never played TF2, but I was under the impression it's of a typical FPS style...

In which case I doubt it has to render and manage dozens/hundreds of bots at a time... which is the real resource drain of M&B, and any game with large numbers of independently thinking bots.

tf2 takes more memory as mount&blade >.>
its no typical fps, atleast watch a vid of the game before commenting
face it, m&b is poorly rendered

 

[HTAPAWASO]

My PC can run games that you'd think are heavier than M&B just fine.... But I get an average FPS of below 20 in this game.... I have all the graphics settings set as low as possible, except DirectX 9 instead of 7 (does that make a difference?). Especially the castle sieges are almost impossible to play with a fun amount of soldiers... Are there some settings that I may have set all wrong to make it so laggy?

Specs:
2,4 gHz Pentium IV
~1200 Mb RAM
Ati Radeon 9550, 128 mb

try directX 7, graphics look the same, but your fps will increase alot
i can play the game in directX 7, but not in directX9 for some reason (slow fps)
this is weird, because i can even run team fortress 2 at more fps in directX9
oh well, thats the difference between valve and taleworlds
valve render their games as the bests, taleworlds renders mount&blade poorly yet this is one of my favorite games

I've never played TF2, but I was under the impression it's of a typical FPS style...

In which case I doubt it has to render and manage dozens/hundreds of bots at a time... which is the real resource drain of M&B, and any game with large numbers of independently thinking bots.

tf2 takes more memory as mount&blade >.>
its no typical fps, atleast watch a vid of the game before commenting
face it, m&b is poorly rendered

I have seen videos of it...

And I don't see any reason why the game should be particularly demanding.

Look at how demanding Total War games are - and they group the individual soldiers into 'units' with a single AI.
M&B has every single bot working individually.


Like I say I've never played TF2 and am not passing judgement on that game, but it is obviously totally different to M&B and I'm not really sure why you're comparing them in this way.

 

[NieksterNL]

My PC can run games that you'd think are heavier than M&B just fine.... But I get an average FPS of below 20 in this game.... I have all the graphics settings set as low as possible, except DirectX 9 instead of 7 (does that make a difference?). Especially the castle sieges are almost impossible to play with a fun amount of soldiers... Are there some settings that I may have set all wrong to make it so laggy?

Specs:
2,4 gHz Pentium IV
~1200 Mb RAM
Ati Radeon 9550, 128 mb

try directX 7, graphics look the same, but your fps will increase alot
i can play the game in directX 7, but not in directX9 for some reason (slow fps)
this is weird, because i can even run team fortress 2 at more fps in directX9
oh well, thats the difference between valve and taleworlds
valve render their games as the bests, taleworlds renders mount&blade poorly yet this is one of my favorite games

I've never played TF2, but I was under the impression it's of a typical FPS style...

In which case I doubt it has to render and manage dozens/hundreds of bots at a time... which is the real resource drain of M&B, and any game with large numbers of independently thinking bots.

tf2 takes more memory as mount&blade >.>
its no typical fps, atleast watch a vid of the game before commenting
face it, m&b is poorly rendered

I have seen videos of it...

And I don't see any reason why the game should be particularly demanding.

Look at how demanding Total War games are - and they group the individual soldiers into 'units' with a single AI.
M&B has every single bot working individually.


Like I say I've never played TF2 and am not passing judgement on that game, but it is obviously totally different to M&B and I'm not really sure why you're comparing them in this way.

i'm not comparing gameplay
i'm comparing the fps between the games
the fps in directX9 is like 20... even at 5vs5 battles
the fps in tf2 is always constant 30fps at my pc even 16vs16
and tf2 takes alot more to run then m&b

 

[HTAPAWASO]

My PC can run games that you'd think are heavier than M&B just fine.... But I get an average FPS of below 20 in this game.... I have all the graphics settings set as low as possible, except DirectX 9 instead of 7 (does that make a difference?). Especially the castle sieges are almost impossible to play with a fun amount of soldiers... Are there some settings that I may have set all wrong to make it so laggy?

Specs:
2,4 gHz Pentium IV
~1200 Mb RAM
Ati Radeon 9550, 128 mb

try directX 7, graphics look the same, but your fps will increase alot
i can play the game in directX 7, but not in directX9 for some reason (slow fps)
this is weird, because i can even run team fortress 2 at more fps in directX9
oh well, thats the difference between valve and taleworlds
valve render their games as the bests, taleworlds renders mount&blade poorly yet this is one of my favorite games

I've never played TF2, but I was under the impression it's of a typical FPS style...

In which case I doubt it has to render and manage dozens/hundreds of bots at a time... which is the real resource drain of M&B, and any game with large numbers of independently thinking bots.

tf2 takes more memory as mount&blade >.>
its no typical fps, atleast watch a vid of the game before commenting
face it, m&b is poorly rendered

I have seen videos of it...

And I don't see any reason why the game should be particularly demanding.

Look at how demanding Total War games are - and they group the individual soldiers into 'units' with a single AI.
M&B has every single bot working individually.


Like I say I've never played TF2 and am not passing judgement on that game, but it is obviously totally different to M&B and I'm not really sure why you're comparing them in this way.

i'm not comparing gameplay
i'm comparing the fps between the games
the fps in directX9 is like 20... even at 5vs5 battles
the fps in tf2 is always constant 30fps at my pc even 16vs16
and tf2 takes alot more to run then m&b

Why do you say it "takes a lot more to run"?

If you're getting better FPS in TF2 it suggests that it takes less to run.

 

[Archonsod]

From memory I think M&B only utilizes two cores, and the second one is not used much. Could be mistaking this for another game but I think that's right.

It uses all four. I posted the stats about a year ago, but IIRC on my quad (Q6700) I get around 15 - 25% use across all four cores normally, and if I force it to single thread it'll use 50% of a single core. That's without the battlesizer or similar.

 

[-Ignorak-]

TF2 is alot more consuming than M&B

I play TF2, and M&B own both on steam.

I play M&B on my old desktop ( it decided it would be fun to destroy itself recently, using a laptop now) with ~100-130 FPS, Tf2 on Dx8.1 And all gfx on low, i get 40FPS At the biggest of fight scenes which is 16v16 all shooting each other.

While as on M&B i ran it on DX9, All on High fully maxed out, also with alot of gfx enhancing mods.... with 120max fps compared to 40..... which game is more consuming?

 

[Sushiman70]

Get a proper GPU, avoid geforce 9600 and below(dated). Se if you can get your hands on a Radeon 5670(or was it 5770?).

Actually, they're not. I've got an 8400, and I can run most games at mid-high graphics.

 

[NieksterNL]

My PC can run games that you'd think are heavier than M&B just fine.... But I get an average FPS of below 20 in this game.... I have all the graphics settings set as low as possible, except DirectX 9 instead of 7 (does that make a difference?). Especially the castle sieges are almost impossible to play with a fun amount of soldiers... Are there some settings that I may have set all wrong to make it so laggy?

Specs:
2,4 gHz Pentium IV
~1200 Mb RAM
Ati Radeon 9550, 128 mb

try directX 7, graphics look the same, but your fps will increase alot
i can play the game in directX 7, but not in directX9 for some reason (slow fps)
this is weird, because i can even run team fortress 2 at more fps in directX9
oh well, thats the difference between valve and taleworlds
valve render their games as the bests, taleworlds renders mount&blade poorly yet this is one of my favorite games

I've never played TF2, but I was under the impression it's of a typical FPS style...

In which case I doubt it has to render and manage dozens/hundreds of bots at a time... which is the real resource drain of M&B, and any game with large numbers of independently thinking bots.

tf2 takes more memory as mount&blade >.>
its no typical fps, atleast watch a vid of the game before commenting
face it, m&b is poorly rendered

I have seen videos of it...

And I don't see any reason why the game should be particularly demanding.

Look at how demanding Total War games are - and they group the individual soldiers into 'units' with a single AI.
M&B has every single bot working individually.


Like I say I've never played TF2 and am not passing judgement on that game, but it is obviously totally different to M&B and I'm not really sure why you're comparing them in this way.

i'm not comparing gameplay
i'm comparing the fps between the games
the fps in directX9 is like 20... even at 5vs5 battles
the fps in tf2 is always constant 30fps at my pc even 16vs16
and tf2 takes alot more to run then m&b

Why do you say it "takes a lot more to run"?

If you're getting better FPS in TF2 it suggests that it takes less to run.

TF2:
Minimum: 1.7 GHz Processor, 512MB RAM, DirectX® 8.1 level Graphics Card (Requires support for SSE), Windows® Vista/XP/2000, Mouse, Keyboard, Internet Connection

Recommended: Pentium 4 processor (3.0GHz, or better), 1GB RAM, DirectX® 9 level Graphics Card, Windows® Vista/XP/2000, Mouse, Keyboard, Internet Connection

MB:
Minimum PC System Requirements
PC Operating SystemWindows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows XP, Windows Vista
PC System Memory512MB RAM
PC Hard Drive Space700MB
PC Video64MB video card

almost the same

and graphics in tf2 look way better

 

[Gallus Domesticus]

Hey I'm thinking of buying a pc with

AMD Athlon Phenom x4 Quad Core 9550 2.2Ghz
4 GB DDR2 Memory
EVGA GEFORCE 9500GT 1GB PCI-E 2.0 550MHZ
(+650GB Hard Disk & DVD)

for about $450

Anyone know how well it would handle the game at about 500 battlesize with high detail? Also is it a good deal for $450?

 

[NieksterNL]

i'm not sure about this but, you should be able to run this game at high settings without any problems
and thats a good deal imo
but i'm not sure, i dont know very much about computers

you should ask on other forums specialized on those kind of questions