Opinion: Your toaster computer is your own fault, not Taleworlds.

[SK1PTERS]

Let me say that bugs and crashing aside, stutter, as well as hardware-related bugs, but purely fps and performance, your potato computer is your own problem. Your 8gb ram 3.2 ghz processor is the problem.

I have very consistent FPS on a rig I built in 2015. This is computer gaming, you need a gaming computer.

This game is nowhere near the level of mediocrity that M&B and Warband were in the visuals department. If you were expecting a game that you could play with the same toaster, then you were delusional from the beginning. It has been 10 years of advancement in gaming, and TW obviously was able to pour more resources into this title, yet somehow this game runs even smoother than Warband for me.

I love butter

Specs
16 gb DDR3 1866
i7-4790K 4 core 4.0 ghz
gtx 970

If you look at the recommended system specs (not minimum, recommended specs) listed on the official steam page, you should not need an i7 to run the game passably. I have an i5 8400 and a RX 580, and Im getting poor overall performance, as well as freezes in larger battles. Around 20-35 fps. Siege battle performance is completely borked to around 17 fps because of what I assume to be AI pathing, FPS goes to normal as soon as the gate is broken.

To reiterate, I have a more powerful GPU than you, and the game crashes at least twice per hour with major fps lag in all large scale battles. It's not the visuals that's causing lag, its calculating unit actions/movements and AI. CPU stuff.

Also this game runs fine with 8 GB of RAM, in fact its the recommended amount of RAM listed on the page. My memory usage isn't maxed out when playing this.

Please refrain from strawmanning and saying people with old i3's and integrated graphics are expecting 144 fps with 1000 man sieges. This is not the case, the game is currently poorly optimized. I've watched major streamers with powerful rigs getting performance issues, especially during sieges.

 

[Chaingun]

They are ok/good. 1-2sec.

__

Everything maxed out except for AA, that only 2*.
Playing on WQHD.

Ryzen 3700x / 5700 xt Nitro

65-80fps in multiplayer. Only small maps so far.
Steady 90 fps in SP. Maybe a bit lower with big battles.

Thanks, yeah seem better than 1 minute. I will have to change to SSD install ASAP.

 

[CheetaFRL]

I believe it is clear that the game, as expected still has performance issues regarding optimization.

Now what is notable that it is usually people who have 6gb ram and a more aged CPU.
I myself actually bought a new system for this, knowing that in the beta people had issues with CPU's I went with something that hat a more high-end CPU.

And with my previous system I hardly got 50 fps on warband, eitherway point is - It'll get better.

 

[Athruil]

Translation of OP's post: "It's your own fault for not being able to play this game because you don't have to the money or technical know-how to build a PC that goes way above the requirements that TW set forth for you. You should be richer and smarter than you are. Then you'll deserve this game."

I'm all for not blaming the devs for people's slow rigs, but the arrogance here is palpable.

 

[CheetaFRL]

Translation of OP's post: "It's your own fault for not being able to play this game because you don't have to the money or technical know-how to build a PC that goes way above the requirements that TW set forth for you. You should be richer and smarter than you are. Then you'll deserve this game."

I'm all for not blaming the devs for people's slow rigs, but the arrogance here is palpable.

But to be fair, there's systems with top of the line CPU's and GPU's that still have performance issues with frame stuttering and sometimes just low frames in general.

There are things that need to be optimized, but it is not as bad as people tend to display in these posts.
Some people simpy do not have rigs that meet the requirements as OP said.

 

[Wuzgar]

As much as I love the game I think it is badly optimised. I mean I'm running it on GTX 1080 Ti with the rest of specs to match and I still get stuttering when auto-looting everything, switching between inventory and character screen etc. I mean these are the things that we're going to be doing thousandfold times so I would expect them to run flawlessly smooth early access or not. What's the point of a fancy character gui when it lags to load...

 

[wookdaddy]

1080ti, i7-4790k @4.0 ghz, 16 gb ram. Running it on a standard storage/steam game HDD. I have had so many problems with this game I've just about had it. Couldn't even boot the game forever - finall fixed in a roundabout way. Now I crash at random. GPU locks up, despite having 11 GB VRAM. FPS is garbage with over 300 units. Spent 7 days doing nothing but troubleshooting. Logic would say when I can run every other game maxed out at 2k resolution, it's the game, not my rig.

This was the same problem in warband - poor optimization. I bought new parts to test that theory in warband, because I wanted more units on the screen. Didn't matter. The same reason buying a new CPU/whatever now doesn't matter, because it's horribly optimized. One guy was saying the reason "mid range" cards (like a gtx 970) are doing so well is because the engine was made around that time for those cards. That seems odd to me that every other developer's games run great on my PC but this game doesn't. It's an issue TW has suffered from forever. They aren't a small "indie" studio, they have nearly as many people working for them as CD Project Red. Enough excuses...8 years means they screwed up somewhere majorly and needed funding to continue.

 

[Ganon007]

Flexing our rigs eh? OK here are my specs.

Ryzen 1500X 4 core 3.5ghz (Multi-threaded, OC to 3.6ghz)
GTX 1060 3gb
Corsair LPX Vengeance 8gb 2400 (OC to 2666)

In version 1.0.11 I would get a lot of stuttering on mid-low settings especially in sieges and big battles. In version 1.1.1 the game runs a lot smoother and I can play it at mid-high settings with 45-60 fps. Upgrading to an 8 core CPU and getting another 8gb of ram would go a long way and I'd probably be able to play at 120+ FPS on High-Max settings. That being said, I don't have issues with other games on High settings, except for Monster Hunter World, but it should be expected that there will be compatibility issues for rigs that are 4+ years old.

 

[COOMER]

Irrelevant, there's plenty of issues just the same. I have double those specs(apart from GPU) with severe performance issues.

That's quite the beefy boy. Would drink a pint with.

 

[badman]

some people bought the game based on being well above the minimum specs and are not getting good performance. You can't blame that on the customer.

 

[Floyd]

You dont need a powerful rig for this game. What you REALLY need is 16gb of ram.
Game quickly consumes up to 11.5 gb ram at his higher point.

So less than 12gb wil cause several memory shortages.

I will confirm this, this next week when i receive 8gb of ram to add to my current 8gb.

Now, with my i5 + 1060 6gb i got 30-50 fps with high drops on battles. Im sure i will be able to handle 60fps with very high quality next week wuth 16gb

 

[Slate024]

i7 9700K - 16gb ddr4 2666mhz - MSI gtx 1070 8gb - NVMe M.2 Samsung SSD.

She runs solid locked in @60 with my crappy vsync monitor. Ultra settings except screen space reflections is off. Runs 1000 troop battles pretty good, like one or two little hitches at the initial spawn phase then clears up after about 1 second or two then runs clean @ 60fps. Once they patched all the memory and pathing leaks it helped out a ton with performance.

EDIT: - Yes RAM plays a pretty big factor in large battles, 16gb will work I still want to upgrade to 32 since ram prices are cheap right now.

 

[License2Chill]

You dont need a powerful rig for this game. What you REALLY need is 16gb of ram.
Game quickly consumes up to 11.5 gb ram at his higher point.

So less than 12gb wil cause several memory shortages.

I will confirm this, this next week when i receive 8gb of ram to add to my current 8gb.

Now, with my i5 + 1060 6gb i got 30-50 fps with high drops on battles. Im sure i will be able to handle 60fps with very high quality next week wuth 16gb

That seems to be the fix (at least for me anyways). I was running 8 GB of RAM. Paid 60-70 bucks to upgrade to 16 GB of RAM. The absolute mess of stuttering and low FPS has stopped. Now, it could be because I also made sure V-sync was on (pretty sure I had it on before) and because they have fixed some of the memory leak issues. But I think the upgrade in RAM really really helped.

System now:
i5-8400 CPU @ 2.80GHz, 6 Core
16 GB RAM
Radeon RX 580 Series

 

[Floyd]

i7 9700K - 16gb ddr4 2666mhz - MSI gtx 1070 8gb - NVMe M.2 Samsung SSD.

She runs solid locked in @60 with my crappy vsync monitor. Ultra settings except screen space reflections is off. Runs 1000 troop battles pretty good, like one or two little hitches at the initial spawn phase then clears up after about 1 second or two then runs clean @ 60fps. Once they patched all the memory and pathing leaks it helped out a ton with performance.

EDIT: - Yes RAM plays a pretty big factor in large battles, 16gb will work I still want to upgrade to 32 since ram prices are cheap right now.

Do it! But for the game, 16 is more than enough. It uses a max of 11.5 or .8 gbs. But if u have other apps running on the back, as for example browsers, streaming software of recorders, then yes, upgrade to 32 sounds optimal

 

[Floyd]

That seems to be the fix (at least for me anyways). I was running 8 GB of RAM. Paid 60-70 bucks to upgrade to 16 GB of RAM. The absolute mess of stuttering and low FPS has stopped. Now, it could be because I also made sure V-sync was on (pretty sure I had it on before) and because they have fixed some of the memory leak issues. But I think the upgrade in RAM really really helped.

System now:
i5-8400 CPU @ 2.80GHz, 6 Core
16 GB RAM
Radeon RX 580 Series

Yes i can confirm you that the ram is the problem fixer for stutterings now.

I ve seem many "same specs as my" but with 16gb gameplays and they run smooth as hell... Even in lesser tier machines than mine. Game needs 11gb at least to run smoothly