But it's just unplayable for me. So I have bought this game day one and it runs horribly I have a gtx 970, i5 6400 and 8gb ram. (i know cpu isnt the best) When I shoot a bandit the game freezes for 2 seconds, game stutters the whole time. Cant even walk in a city without wanting to alt f4. Please help I have tried lowering sound channels. etc.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
Yeah CPU looks a lil below min req. More ram and putting game on SSD helped me out a lot and many others but YMMV
Well I have an i5 6500, but I run it on a with a dual channel 2x8 RAM and an evo plus ssd and its 60fps most of the time.
Just get whatever. As long as you get that additional 8gb. If you can afford 3200mhz, go for it. It should still work with your motherboard just not at 3200mhz specs. But as soon as you get a new board or upgrade, you can keep using that RAM. Or just get 2133mhz RAM if you save alot by doing that. Not sure about current RAM prices since they fluctuate so much recently.
But to be honest, that behaviour seems a bit off. I doubt it's just the RAM that is causing this.
I run it smoothly almost all the time with a FX6300, good old AMD won't let me down... Problem here is optimization, the AI calcs are done in what I believe to be a very convoluted an un-optimal code. Sometimes the game freezes, most times not, and it's always mid-battle, suddenly a 10 second freeze, then it comes back normal... The game is broken performance wise (still), hopefully it'll get fixed soon™
Dunno about that but I'm on 9900k so I can't be sure. I wish I could test it on my old i5 2500k though just out of curiosity.
Ram hertz don't really effect fps in games. 2133 is fine. Don't replace yours, just add another 8 gb 2133. Though if you plan to change your motherboard, and have the means, than go ahead and buy 2 8gb 3200 mhz.
And installing the game on an SSD makes HUGE difference.
Well, depends on the price difference. If he can get 3200mhz ram for like 5-15$€ more and upgrades his CPU/Mobo later on anyway... I'd pay the extra for the 10-20% extra.
nah, 2333 ram does just fine, everything above that changes ****. It's pure marketing.
Don't fall for that... In fact, most enthusiasts have no knowledge of what they're doing, they see big numbers and buy, whereas most of the time they bottle-neck their own systems... Anyway, RAM doesn't change much, it's the CPU for this game... Too much simultaneous AI calcs... It's like CSGO (also CPU based)... You can have the best VGA in the world, with a not so top of the line CPU your FPS in CSGO will never go above a certain cap.
I believe (and hope that I'm right) that they've tailored their engine properly this time around, and with a bit of tweaking to the code they'll manage to make it perform well even in low-end specs.
Also, remember that the game on shows they've presented it also had performance issues in their own PCs (freezing, mini-stutter, etc.). Just wait a bit and it might get fixed.
what makes calcs isn't the RAM, it's responsible only to store information, temporarily. This game's heaviest part are the battles (which run AI codes for everyone on the field, much like Warband), so what's being taxed is the CPU, it doesn't really matter the RAM. Sure you need a big amount of RAM, but not a "fast amount of RAM". Wanna nag me, fine, but instead you should study more about the subject if it interests you.Not sure about all that mate
I have a i5-3470, 8 GB RAM and gtx 1650 SUPER, I run it on a SSD and the game runs fine, there are some hiccups at 600 people in a battle but it's playable.
I am running the game on high/1080p with a GTX 970, i5 4750 and 8GB RAM.
50-60 FPS, sometimes it drops to 30 but only for seconds.
50-60 FPS, sometimes it drops to 30 but only for seconds.
Will you wish to play 2-3k unit battles ? Then buy 9900k or Ryzen 3900x. 6cores/12t will be minimum in that case.
Yep, it's the CPU I'm sure...
Yeah I think we are at that point again where some people feel that below 60fps is acceptable and others don't and both are chiming in coming to different results.
I for one don't deem not having 60fps at all times at max settings at 1080p acceptable. That's the bare minimum for me. That's why I upgrade contiously all my life in 1-2 year intervals depending on what is necessary. That doesn't mean that there weren't freak occurences like my i5-2500k (Oc'd to 4,6ghz) that I got in 2011 and kept until December 2018.
Then again, OPs info is somewhat vague and limited. Not blaming him. Just saying. Computer problems are always hard or almost impossible to remote diagnose
I for one don't deem not having 60fps at all times at max settings at 1080p acceptable. That's the bare minimum for me. That's why I upgrade contiously all my life in 1-2 year intervals depending on what is necessary. That doesn't mean that there weren't freak occurences like my i5-2500k (Oc'd to 4,6ghz) that I got in 2011 and kept until December 2018.
Then again, OPs info is somewhat vague and limited. Not blaming him. Just saying. Computer problems are always hard or almost impossible to remote diagnose
