Thread: For those of you playing on Ultra High graphics settings and experiencing NO lag...

Originally Posted by whh82

Any thoughts on whether that would allow me to run lotro on ultra-high in any area with at least 30fps on 1680x1050 (or higher in case I decide to buy a new display as well ).

I would say no, as you should be easily able to run it at top performance settings already. Which means that something else is wrong, either with your system or your client settings.

16 gigs of memory are completely useless to lotro(and in general too) as it hardly even uses 1 gig, and that is if you set the texture cache size to full(you have done that, right?).
Upgraded processor won´t do you much good either as it´s the graphics card that does all the work, and yours is easily able to handle lotro.

Maybe your SSD performance isn´t optimal, if you´ve set her up on your own under WinXP or Vista. Only Win7 can do it automatically right. Google some guides on that.

Though getting from slideshow to something barely playable sounds like a pretty decent improvement.

You guys should stop buying AMD processors , right now they suck compared to intel for gaming on pretty much any budget.

The AMD vs. Intel processor power difference has been quasi irrelevant to gaming for a couple of years now.

Anybody telling you differently either bought the marketing voodoo or was trying to sell you something himself.

Main bottlenecks in gaming are graphics card processing power and hard drive data transfer speeds.

Originally Posted by Miridor_eu

I run ultra high rez and have no lag unless: 1) I am in Galtrev, 2) have a ping rate above 250ms (standard for the Netherlands is ~115ms) or 3) am in a full Ettenmoors raid fighting creepraid with a side-order of non-associated burgs and wargs.

MB: MSI K9A2 Platinum
CPU: AMD Phenom x4 925
GPU: ATi Radeon 5870 - displaying 1920x1080, no AA.
Mem: 4GB Kingston DDR2 1066 memory with fast timings.
Storage: Crucial M4 120GB SSD.

LotRO is pretty lenient on system specs. It doesn't have AI or Physics which need plenty of processing time like most current single-player games. A good graphics card and enough system memory do help and one CPU core fast enough to feed the graphics card its data. Also, to keep loading times small when switching instances and to smooth out additional loading while moving through the game world, a solid state drive does wonders.

Ow ... and never EVER use a wireless connection!!!1!11one

Thanks for your comment. Basically compared to my setup you have a faster cpu (Phenom II X4 2.8Ghz vs. my Phenom I X4 2.4Ghz), faster memory (DDR2 1066 vs. DDR2 800) and a somewhat newer mainboard. The graphics cards should be pretty similar (5870 vs 6870) and storage as well (both SSD). Care to share some of your framerates? For example when you enter Galtrev and how high the framerate is after it stabilizes in Galtrev?

Your results seem to indicate that I should upgrade cpu, mainboard and memory to improve my frame-rates (I am also from the Netherlands, my pings are similar... I am often between 100ms and 110ms... on a good night 95ms... using a wired connection of course ).

Also, alot has to do with your ISP. I run cable with 25 down and 6 up. Thats fast... I have 2 machines an AMD 6 core and the new AMD 8. The 8 has a Nvidia 580, the 6 a lesser AMD/ATI 5870. Both good cards but I have no probs with either. I have a friend who has a I-7 with cable 5 down and 1 up and can't run close to ultra and still has some lag issues.

Originally Posted by Flatfoot789

I would say no, as you should be easily able to run it at top performance settings already. Which means that something else is wrong, either with your system or your client settings.

16 gigs of memory are completely useless to lotro(and in general too) as it hardly even uses 1 gig, and that is if you set the texture cache size to full(you have done that, right?).
Upgraded processor won´t do you much good either as it´s the graphics card that does all the work, and yours is easily able to handle lotro.

Maybe your SSD performance isn´t optimal, if you´ve set her up on your own under WinXP or Vista. Only Win7 can do it automatically right. Google some guides on that.

Though getting from slideshow to something barely playable sounds like a pretty decent improvement.

The SSD is setup correctly (Windows 7 64b, fresh install), I've done performance tests which indicate that everything is running fine. Personally I still believe (also based on comments from Miridor_eu) that the cpu and memory speed is the bottleneck. I know 16GB is overkill right now but it makes the system future proof. I consider 8GB the minimum for a new system since it allows the OS to use plenty and still have plenty left for a process or two (firefox is often open with a couple of tabs and the memory is cheap anyway).

My connection shouldn't be the problem either, its 50Mbit down and 5Mbit up and I don't experience any loss in game.

Its unfortunate I can't easily test with a faster cpu (not going to overclock it). The main cpu resources in this game are probably loading stuff (and loading is needed a lot in this game), particles (rain, snow, waterfalls), animations, cloaks (!!). I guess all this stuff is at least partially handled by the cpu (unlikely that this game has a very modern graphics engine in which all this is offloaded to the GPU). And the game probably doesn't exploit multi-core machines very well either. Looking at the Windows resource manager one of the cores is pretty close to 100% all the time while riding through Bree. The other cores are sitting around 50%, 30% and 25% respectively. My frame rates in Bree vary from 15fps to 60fps with an occasional drop to 7-10 when entering a new subarea (and currently it isn't very crowded). Currently standing in front of the Pony, a mini concert going on, two or three others listening and some people running by (but pretty quiet): 25-40fps.

The upgrade was planned anyway (since every other aspect of my computer is very decent) so I hope to be able to do some comparisons later this year.

i do. well not with "NO lag," because there is so much server-side lag. but no lag on MY end!

all my LOTRO advice boils down to a single statement:

***LOTRO hated NVIDIA***

other than that, any modern equipment should run this game great!

every trouble ive had has come down to the above statement. also, everytime i talk toa friend having LOTRO issues, they have NVIDIA technology.

Originally Posted by Flatfoot789

The AMD vs. Intel processor power difference has been quasi irrelevant to gaming for a couple of years now.

Anybody telling you differently either bought the marketing voodoo or was trying to sell you something himself.

Main bottlenecks in gaming are graphics card processing power and hard drive data transfer speeds.

Not really. There are plenty of very CPU intensive games out there on the market (Starcraft 2 for example) which will be bottlenecked by a lot of current gen technology. And AMD consistently performs much worse than Intel chips on a price/power ratio. Besides , even if the power difference didn't matter , why would you buy a lesser chip for the same price?

I don't claim to be an expert on the inner workings of the chip technology but I did a lot of research before purchasing my latest chip and I never saw any genuine expert or hobbyist recommend an AMD chip over an Intel chip.

I play at 2560x1600 myself.

CPU: Intel 2500K
Memory: 16GB Corsair Ram
GPU: NVidia 690 GTX (Dual GPU card)
Storage: Main boot drive is a SSD, then about 3TB in other drives.
Monitor: 30" HP ZR30W

Overkill for LoTRO i know, but i also play more CPU/memory-intensive games and programs also, so every little bit helps...
I DO think that the extra memory helps some though, but that's my own opinion.
And like others have said, a fast, good and steady ISP/connection will be a lot of help in combating lag also.
My average FPS in LoTRO per Fraps is about 140-150 or so...

Originally Posted by blueroses

I play at 2560x1600 myself.

CPU: Intel 2500K
Memory: 16GB Corsair Ram
GPU: NVidia 690 GTX (Dual GPU card)
Storage: Main boot drive is a SSD, then about 3TB in other drives.
Monitor: 30" HP ZR30W

Overkill for LoTRO i know, but i also play more CPU/memory-intensive games and programs also, so every little bit helps...
I DO think that the extra memory helps some though, but that's my own opinion.
And like others have said, a fast, good and steady ISP/connection will be a lot of help in combating lag also.
My average FPS in LoTRO per Fraps is about 140-150 or so...

lol that video card is ridiculous (although I'm still jealous)

ASRock 890FX Deluxe 4 motherboard
AMD Phenom II x4 955 Black Edition (Overclocked to 3.8GHz)
8GB G.Skill DDR3 1333 RAM
60GB Samsung SSD (for Windows and LOTRO)
500GB Seagate Barracuda (For data)
AMD Radeon HD 6870
23" Samsung LED monitor, 1920x1080 2ms refresh

I think those are the important bits. Runs with no lag, no issues except maybe in VERY heavily populated areas, and then it still only dips into the 20-30FPS rate, otherwise it's 60FPS (I lock V-sync) pretty much everywhere. Loading is also very fast with the SSD.

Since you're looking for a laptop, I can certainly recommend the Alienware M18X. Mine has dual ATI 6970's, 8gb RAM, i7 2720QM CPU, Seagate 500gb hybrid HD for o/s and files + 128gb Vertex 3 SSD for game files.

I tried having Windows and LoTRO on the SSD but the performance was not as good in my findings. Personally I don't care about my o/s booting in record time, and seeing I really only use the laptop for gaming, it proved best to keep Windows on a separate drive. This leaves the SSD as random read\write free as possible, and those large dat files just fly off it.

Originally Posted by Xtreme_Logic

Also, alot has to do with your ISP. I run cable with 25 down and 6 up. Thats fast...

It's not the speed of the connection (bandwidth), it's the LATENCY that causes lag.

Originally Posted by whh82

My connection shouldn't be the problem either, its 50Mbit down and 5Mbit up and I don't experience any loss in game.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by guffyjohnson

Not really. There are plenty of very CPU intensive games out there on the market (Starcraft 2 for example) which will be bottlenecked by a lot of current gen technology. And AMD consistently performs much worse than Intel chips on a price/power ratio. Besides , even if the power difference didn't matter , why would you buy a lesser chip for the same price?

It depends on what hardware you have. If you have an AMD board, buying an Intel chip isn't going to do you any good. Also, it's not a matter of buying "a lesser chip for the same price". It's a matter of getting "more CPU at a lower price". Intel may rule the high-end, but AMD provides an amazing amount of power in the sub-$200 space. It's all about bang for the buck.

Originally Posted by guffyjohnson

I don't claim to be an expert on the inner workings of the chip technology but I did a lot of research before purchasing my latest chip and I never saw any genuine expert or hobbyist recommend an AMD chip over an Intel chip.

That's because most "hobbyists" are still stuck in the "mine is bigger/faster than everyone else's" phase of development. They think that if you don't have the absolute latest, greatest, and fastest then there's something wrong with you. They fail to recognize that most people don't care to live on the bleeding edge, and when you grow up and have a family, a job that requires 40-50 hours a week, and a mortgage to pay that suddenly having the fastest CPU money can buy isn't a priority.

Originally Posted by kmcferrin

It's not the speed of the connection (bandwidth), it's the LATENCY that causes lag.

You're right of course. I'm not sure how much bandwidth a MMORPG uses but one can assume that the developers do everything in their power to keep it to a minimum to support as many connections as possible.

Earlier in the topic I stated already that the ping times in game are between 100-110ms for me (and around 95ms on a good night). Thats as good as it gets in Europe (The Netherlands to be specific). It was far better when Codemasters hosted the servers, but there is nothing we can do about that I'm afraid .

I'm considering buying a dedicated Intel LAN card to replace the internal Realtek one. But everybody says that it won't help me a bit nowadays, so probably not worth the effort.

GTX 680 UC
Phenom II 1090T
16 Gigs RAM
Vertex 2 SSD
Recon3D (because my X-Fi2 broke, good old times)

Graphics related lag: none
Loading time: minimal
Communication lag: since U6 it's become worse
"Level Up" lag: still present, but the screen only freezes for a very short moment
What helps the game most is the SSD for short access and loading times. Of course a good graphics card increases fps, but it won't change much on the lag you encounter at times.

Originally Posted by Scarletstarr

What are the system specs for your computer? I'm looking for a new computer to play LOTRO on and would love to know what i'd be looking for to get the best out of the game. The question is aimed at those who can play without a single hint of lag really, especially in crowded places like Bree and skirmish camps - I get the worst lag there and in instances.

If anyone plays on 'High' settings, please still post your specs and thoughts, as i recognise the ULTRA high option may be an expensive one.

Oh, and i'll be looking for a laptop, obviously a powerful one, but a laptop all the same.

Notice alot of people are posting specs of Desktops and you seem to be looking for a Laptop. A great place to get info for High end laptops is Notebookreview.com. Check the Forums Alienware and Clevo/Surgar They tend to be the High end of Laptops.

Well I only lag in one area in the last 2 years. But I think that was due to Firewall or a bug on lotro. But my setup is alienware M17x r2 Intel i7 720, Dual ati 5870s crossfire. 8gb ram, SSD drive. Pritty much everything close to max out. I did have lag with the hard drives. System had dual 620gb hard drives in a Raid. But lag really bad.


Now kmcferrin I agree with you Partly Amd vs Intel. For Desktops It cheaper going for Amd. But Amd dose not make a good Laptop cpu. Now games like StarCraft2 or Star ruler. They tend to stress even the fastest cpu out there.

Originally Posted by kmcferrin

It depends on what hardware you have. If you have an AMD board, buying an Intel chip isn't going to do you any good. Also, it's not a matter of buying "a lesser chip for the same price". It's a matter of getting "more CPU at a lower price". Intel may rule the high-end, but AMD provides an amazing amount of power in the sub-$200 space. It's all about bang for the buck.

That's because most "hobbyists" are still stuck in the "mine is bigger/faster than everyone else's" phase of development. They think that if you don't have the absolute latest, greatest, and fastest then there's something wrong with you. They fail to recognize that most people don't care to live on the bleeding edge, and when you grow up and have a family, a job that requires 40-50 hours a week, and a mortgage to pay that suddenly having the fastest CPU money can buy isn't a priority.

Well higher end chips there is no comparison, but even lower end chips out-do AMD chips on a price/power ratio. an i3 processor for $100 bucks is better than anything AMD has in that price range. Heck, even the new celeron chips built on the sandy bridge architecture (that cost 40 bucks) are better than most sub-100 AMD chips. I think there are points where it's debatable (ie maybe there's an AMD chip for $110 that doesnt have an intel equivalent that performs well for that price) but in general it's intel across the board. And intel socket 1155/1156 motherboards which support a very broad range of chipsets are a good investment even if u only have a low end chip. So u can buy a lower end model now and when u can afford it later, get a bleeding edge chip.

Again this is just what I gathered from my recent research. Of course if you currently have an AMD motherboard and there's a decent chip out there for cheap that's compatible I'm not saying break your bank account to get an intel instead. I'm just saying that intel is the way to go from a fresh build

My Current rig is in my sig, if you wish to take a look

I run Lotro (and practically every other game I have) with all settings maxed out.

And being a water-cooled system, the temp never exceeds 25C. But it does mean I'm cleaning the fans on my Radiator pretty often

For sheer speed of loading you need to put Lotro on an SSD drive

Originally Posted by Flatfoot789

Upgraded processor won´t do you much good either as it´s the graphics card that does all the work, and yours is easily able to handle lotro.

Just wanted to comment on this in case others looking for system upgrades (as I am) are also following this thread. In some cases the processor can very much be the bottleneck depending on it's age. That is my issue right now, my graphics card can still handle the game fine (nvidia 460 gtx) but all the system tools show my CPU maxed out trying to keep up even with nothing but the OS, game, and tools running. New processor for me means new mainboard, ram, and power supply as well so I read the threads of other peoples' computer questions to give me info to shop with. Even if the CPU isn't the issue for this player, it may be on some systems.

Originally Posted by Eramin

Even if the CPU isn't the issue for this player, it may be on some systems.

That is true though there is still a very wide margin where processor power is actually impacting performance noticeably. Note the last word.

There are always a ton of benchmarks around impressing people with performance increases in low double digit percentages that actually mean having a negligible couple of fps more.

The LotrO client really is an old piece of software virtually unchanged I dare say from it´s release date a couple of years ago. I find it hard to believe it´s the only reason your processor/mobo are taxed so hard.
That said I´m really curios now about the rest of your hardware specs.

As for the esteemed reader so fond of Intel, I find getting denied actual ownership over the hardware you bought with your own money quite a good incentive to shun the company. No matter how many uselessly arcane benchmark points it´s ahead.

Intel Builds Sandy Bridge With a DRM Tollbooth

Originally Posted by guffyjohnson

Well higher end chips there is no comparison, but even lower end chips out-do AMD chips on a price/power ratio. an i3 processor for $100 bucks is better than anything AMD has in that price range. Heck, even the new celeron chips built on the sandy bridge architecture (that cost 40 bucks) are better than most sub-100 AMD chips. I think there are points where it's debatable (ie maybe there's an AMD chip for $110 that doesnt have an intel equivalent that performs well for that price) but in general it's intel across the board.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure where you're getting your prices. I normally buy from NewEgg because they have pretty awesome service and their prices are usually the lowest around (or pretty close to it). I looked for a $100 Core i3 CPU and couldn't find one. The cheapest I could find was this guy at $119:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115078 - Dual core 3.1 GHz

Looking on the AMD side for the same price:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103727 - Quad core 3.4 GHz

I know there's more the CPU performance than clock speed, it's about Instructions Per Clock (IPC). But even if the Core i3 above could pump double the IPC of the Phenom II (and it can't) it would still offer less processing power due to the fact that it has only two cores AND they operate at a lower clock speed.

So lets bump it up another $20 and see what you can get. Here's Intel's pick:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115090 - Dual core 3.1 GHz

Yup...it's essentially the same CPU as before, with a slightly improved graphics core that you won't use because you have an add-in video card. Now it's on to the AMD pick:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819106009 - Quad core 4.2 GHz (4.3 GHz turbo)

It's not even close. It's got twice the cores, 1100 MHz higher clock speed, it's a newer CPU architecture so the IPC is even closer to Intel's best, and it's an FX-series so the CPU is unlocked (for easy overclocking if you go that way). It's not even close.

Don't get me wrong, Intel definitely rules the roost at the high end. But if you're looking to spend around $200 or less you're going to have a very difficult time beating the value of an AMD CPU with an Intel chip.

[QUOTE=Flatfoot789;6255148]
That said I´m really curios now about the rest of your hardware specs. QUOTE]

It has been a very solid computer and still handles most games on lowered settings, but it is showing it's age as new games or expansions have higher requirements and/or I want to use all the 'pretties' the games offer.

AMD Phenom 9150e Quad Core 1.80ghz
5GB ddr2 RAM
ASUS M2n68-LA mainboard.
and the previously noted nVidia 460GTX

I'm seeing a whole bunch of posts for what everyone understands as MASSIVE overkill for LOTRO. I'm curious to find out how "cheaply" one can get to Ultra. Or at least good, usable performance. For example, I play on a macbook pro with a 2.4 ghz c2d, and a Nvidia 320m integrated (woot woot!). Through crossfire (lets you play windows games in mac)I used to be able to play on high/medium, but since isengard, I had to drop down to low/medium. Though I do get all kinds of other problems =) Hopefully saving up for a new windows pc at some point.

I also think the mobile aspect is important for some of us. I like playing on my couch, or bed, or wherever. I'm also married and a father of a 4 month old. My office space is my son's room! So for practical purposes I'm beyond desktops. I know I'm not the only one in that boat! So any mobile LOTROers who want to share their results?

Originally Posted by kmcferrin

I'll be honest, I'm not sure where you're getting your prices. I normally buy from NewEgg because they have pretty awesome service and their prices are usually the lowest around (or pretty close to it). I looked for a $100 Core i3 CPU and couldn't find one. The cheapest I could find was this guy at $119:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115078 - Dual core 3.1 GHz

Looking on the AMD side for the same price:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103727 - Quad core 3.4 GHz

I know there's more the CPU performance than clock speed, it's about Instructions Per Clock (IPC). But even if the Core i3 above could pump double the IPC of the Phenom II (and it can't) it would still offer less processing power due to the fact that it has only two cores AND they operate at a lower clock speed.

So lets bump it up another $20 and see what you can get. Here's Intel's pick:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115090 - Dual core 3.1 GHz

Yup...it's essentially the same CPU as before, with a slightly improved graphics core that you won't use because you have an add-in video card. Now it's on to the AMD pick:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819106009 - Quad core 4.2 GHz (4.3 GHz turbo)

It's not even close. It's got twice the cores, 1100 MHz higher clock speed, it's a newer CPU architecture so the IPC is even closer to Intel's best, and it's an FX-series so the CPU is unlocked (for easy overclocking if you go that way). It's not even close.

Don't get me wrong, Intel definitely rules the roost at the high end. But if you're looking to spend around $200 or less you're going to have a very difficult time beating the value of an AMD CPU with an Intel chip.

Well in your first example, according to cpubenchmark.net here are the ratings:
AMD Phenom II X4 945 3616 245 34.44 $104.99*
Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz 3861 216 35.10 $109.99*

and in your second example:
Intel Core i3-2105 @ 3.10GHz 3937 211 29.17 $134.99*
AMD FX-4170 Quad-Core 4597 166 32.84 $139.99*

Your second example AMD probably has Intel beaten in that price range up to the $200 with their 8 core chips like you said, but I still feel like you're on a lesser upgrade path and personally I've just never had good experiences with AMD chips in terms of performance or durability. Maybe I should take back that they aren't worth it period, but I would just never personally recommend an AMD chip over Intel - at least right now with my experiences.

Originally Posted by daveward9

I'm seeing a whole bunch of posts for what everyone understands as MASSIVE overkill for LOTRO. I'm curious to find out how "cheaply" one can get to Ultra.

It's not just about "ultra", because there is no such thing. Ultra can mean the high Res texture pack with Max detail and draw distances, but does it mean dx9 features only? Or does it include dx10 and/or dx11? At what anti-aliasing level? 2X? 16X? What level of anisotropic filtering? What resolution? It's easy to say that the game was originally released 5 years ago, ergo its graphic demands are low, butt that's not true. Newer areas have a higher level of detail. Using higher resolutions and quality levels will absolutely kill your frame rate, even on brand new graphics cards (as in my case). And anything someone could tell you today wouldn't be accurate when RoR ships, because (as been stated multiple times) there will be a new game engine with RoR.

Originally Posted by guffyjohnson

Well in your first example, according to cpubenchmark.net here are the ratings:
AMD Phenom II X4 945 3616 245 34.44 $104.99*
Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz 3861 216 35.10 $109.99*

and in your second example:
Intel Core i3-2105 @ 3.10GHz 3937 211 29.17 $134.99*
AMD FX-4170 Quad-Core 4597 166 32.84 $139.99*

Your second example AMD probably has Intel beaten in that price range up to the $200 with their 8 core chips like you said, but I still feel like you're on a lesser upgrade path and personally I've just never had good experiences with AMD chips in terms of performance or durability. Maybe I should take back that they aren't worth it period, but I would just never personally recommend an AMD chip over Intel - at least right now with my experiences.

You're putting an awful lot of faith in a single number from a synthetic benchmark that won't necessarily be indicative of real-world performance. I'll take the extra cores any day of the week.

As to claims of durability go, it's a CPU, not an off-road tire. In 20 years of using AMD cpus I've never had any reliability or compatibility issues. As far as I can tell those are just FUD and myths.

Originally Posted by kmcferrin

So there's a ton of things that can factor into your PC performance running LotRO, and some of them won't be in your control. The biggest things that ARE in your control are your PC's specs, your graphic settings, and your resolution. I was asking questions about video cards a few weeks back looking to upgrade from an ATI Radeon 4850 card. Most people swore up and down that the 4850 could run this game on max settings with no problems. They were wrong. One person even went so far as to tell me that the problems with my graphical performance was not using an SSD (as opposed to a spinning hard disk), so that goes to show you the quality of some of the advice that you'll get from non-technical internet forums. Here's my hardware:

AMD Phenom II X4 945 (quad-core 3.0 GHz CPU)
8 GB DDR3-1600 memory
XFX Radeon HD 7850 2GB video card
Samsung 830 256GB (game installed)
OCZ Summit 60GB SSD (OS installed, user files, some key applications)

So there was a sale on a Samsung 830 256GB SSD last week that was too good to pass up. I bought one and moved some additional apps to it (including LotRO). I still didn't see an increase in frame rate, but I did notice considerably less of the stuttering as textures are loaded, especially in Galtrev. I'm still hitting the vsync cap in most of the older/less populated areas, and still peaking in the 35-40 FPS range in Galtrev (even after turning AA and AF down to 2X). So frame rates didn't really increase, but minimum frame rates may have gone up some due to faster texture loading.