Recommended Specs???

Running a system that slightly more than meets Minimum Specs, I'm getting horrifically poor performance no matter how low I set rendering in Preferences and Debug. But I assume that lots of people are getting adequate or good or great performance. I'm ready to upgrade, but I don't know how high-end I need to go. So, I'm interested in trying to discover just what level of hardware it takes to play this game.

My Specs: 1.2g Intel Celeron Tualatin 0.13 micron process w/ 256kb L2 cache [this CPU is faster than a Copper Mine 1.6g P4]
Intel 810e Chip Set with 256mb SDRAM, 100mhz bus
55gb free space on 100gb ATA100 7200 RPM
SoundMAX Integrated Digital Audio (but I keep audio muted)
RADEON 9200 Pro 128mb DDR, ATI Catalyst 3.10 set to Optimal Performance
OpenGL_VERSION 1.3.3920, DirectX 9.0b
720/256 DSL

What would I consider adequate performance? Sustained fps of 10+ pretty much continuously, regardless of location or whatever. My fps looks deceptively good if I'm standing still; typically around 15. But as soon as I move, or try to do anything, fps never gets above 6 and often freezes below 1. By freezes, I mean that the client has to be shut down from Task Manager, which shows it Not Responding.

The most I could do with my current system is switching to a PIII Tualatin with 512mb L2, and then upgrading memory to 512mb 133mhz SDRAM. And I could also upgrade the video card of course. But would it be enough, or do I have to upgrade the mobo/cpu to get tolerable performance? I want to be ready when 1.3 Preview comes along.

My system is lesser, but not too different from yours. Celeron 1.0Ghz(128 Kb L2), 768Mb 100Mhz RAM, Radeon 9100 AGP/64 MB. I usually get 5-9 fps, almost never freeze or see fps less than 2. I do have resolution up to 1024x768 and have some of the visual goodies turned on.

I would try more RAM first. 256MB really isn't a lot these days, especially if you are running background apps. Try turning off unnecessary services, etc. If you are adventurous, you might boost the priority of newview.exe, although I personally haven't seen any appreciable performance gains from doing this on my system. Also, from what I have read, the Celeron and the more expensive Pentium processors show exhibit the greatest performance differences in 3-D graphics applications. This is due both to differences in L2 sizes and in the bandwidth of the on-chip CPU/L2 connection. If you have the PIII laying around, it couldn't hurt to give it a try.

Also (I hope this isn't too obvious): check the actual bandwidth you are getting from your DSL. Check for packet loss. Experiment with your SL network preferences. Let us know what you come up with; if you see any performance gains lots of us would be interested.

Heh if you always want 10+fps, you're in the wrong game.

SL can bring any system to it's knees. I'm typically at around 20fps moving around and doing stuff, about 27-30 standing still if it's not too 'dense' an area (at 1280x1024 with most graphics options on, detail all the way up, etc)

However, unless i'm on barren land with noone around, I don't break 30fps, and I drop below 10fps if it's too crowded with avs, and i'm using:

3.06ghz P4
1GB DDR333 ram
GeForce FX 5600 256mb.

There isn't much out there which will 'constantly' give 10+fps. Maybe if I upgraded to a 5950u 256, but basically unless you have the absolute best hardware out there, you're not going to see it in SL.

I'd say the single biggest improvement would be more memory. I recently upgraded from 512MB to 1GB, and noticed a major improvement in densely built-up areas. After that, the biggest improvement would probably be a faster CPU, with the least improvement coming from a better graphics card.

Firstly, thanks to all for your input.

Dusty, the performance level you're describing is exactly what I was getting prior to the 1.2 release; it was quite adequate. And of course I could always turn off some rendering with Debug when attending events. I've already turned off all unneeded services. And I shut down background processes and then defrag memory before starting the client. Like you, I've seen no benefit to running it with High Priority; even at normal it eats 98% of cpu cycles.

The bandwidth I'm getting seems adequate; I keep it set to 500k in Preferences with virtually no packet loss. Rarely does SL use more than 300k. I've tried all the different cache sizes, and 500 seems to be fastest and most stable. In the future, I'm also going to try clearing the cache manually after every session, as has been suggested in other threads. It's also been mentioned that reducing the number of items in Inventory helps a lot, so I've been working on that. (Why did I have 7 copies of my house to begin with??? DOH!!)

si, you've sort of confirmed my worst fears. (Note to self: call Alienware and cancel MJ-12.) I do want 10+ fps, and hope that someday LL will be able to provide all of us with a much smoother experience (*cough* Havok 2 *cough*).

Carn, the upgrade to 512mb, and possibly the PIII, has also been Colin Linden's suggestion. Sounds like the memory upgrade is worth trying, so I'll do that first. It might also allow me to increase my video ram usage from 32mb to 64mb without those trippy artifacts. (What?!? You mean the streets aren't paved with rainbows?!?)

Yeah Dusty, the 1.4g PIII Tualatin w/ 512mb L2 kicks butt in 3d gaming compared to pretty much any cpu under 2ghz. No, I don't have one yet, but it sounds like the benefits (faster fsb, and larger L2) would be worth the cost. So, if the memory upgrade isn't sufficient, I'll go for the PIII.

To be continued...

I would reliably say that I get on average about 10-15fps.

P4 2.26
1GB RAM
FX5900 128mb

Running SL 1600x1200 windowed, and driving a second monitor at 1024x768.

I would guess I lost about 5-10fps to driving the second monitor.

Prior to upgrading, I had a GF2MX 32mb and 512mb RAM, and I would get anywhere btwn 8-13fps on average @ 1024x768 windowed.

Getting a new video card made things look better, and run a bit faster, and let me check a lot of display options.

More RAM allowed me to multitask much more smoothly while in SL, as well as have SL be smoother because I lessened memory swapping.

I would also recommend you upgrade your RAM first. CPU next. Your video card seems more than adequate at this point, excepting that it's an ATI, for SL's case.

I get about 10-15 fps with bump and reflect maps on.

My specs:

Athlon 3200+ (2.2Ghz) Barton (512K L2 cache)
512MB DDR266
GeForce FX5200 128MB.

I run SL windowed at 1024x768, but I have dual monitors going on too, so I could get a bit of a boost if I was willing to give that up.

My frame rate had been fine, but I noticed that with the release of the last update, things seem to have slowed down considerably, despite the fact that I have optimised the display settings. Now in a crowded environment it's not unusual for frame-rates to drop below 5.

My system, so far as I remember is a p4 2.6G CPU, NVidia Geoforce 4 card, 1024 RAM, 120 Gb drive with about half of that still available. The only resource-hungry settings in my display options are water ripple (essential ) and local lighting. Everything else is set to minimal. Distance is set at something like 172. I had to reduce the resolution from my normal 1280 x 960 to a lower figure (can't remember offhand).

I really think I should be getting a better performance than this. Mind you, my inventory is very cluttered, so I will be having a clear-out to see whether that will make any difference.

I took the first step and upgraded my system memory from 256 to 384. Additionally, I've started using O&O CleverCache Pro to manage system memory. And, I'm deleting everything in the SL cache after each session. The results:

1. The 128mb video memory option for my 128DDR Radeon is no longer grayed out. I now leave mine set to 128 with no texture corruption or performance degradation, as long as I don't check the AGP option. I can even keep Avatar vertex rendering turned on.

2. If this was There, I would insert the word wOot right here (or is it woOt??). The increased system memory hugely improved SL's overall performance. I'm frankly astonished. The fps when I'm standing still has increased a bit; but at the low end, when I'm moving around, the fps rarely drops below 5, and usually stays near a very tolerable 7. The long pauses and <1 fps freezes are gone. I'm now getting performance comparable to what I used to get in the 1.0/1.1 days.

3. Some textures are definitely coming into sharp focus which hadn't been prior to the upgrade. But there's still room for improvement.

Note: I'm still running SL at 800x600 with low rendering settings for the time being, just to be able to make a fair comparasion. I'll gradually ramp things up to find the best balance between speed and quality.

Next steps; I've started to clean out my Inventory, but it's a long-term project. I'm going to use the Nomads' trick of packing dozens of items I'm not currently using into a few boxes.
When I'm feeling more adventureous, I'll try out ATI's new Catalyst 4.1 driver which is supposed to have improved OpenGL implementation.
Then, the upgrade to 512mb ram.

To be continued....

I tend to doubt this line. The 256k cache is nice for a Celery, but is low end for a Pentium line. If you compare to a pentium with 256k the performance may be similar. Its a combination of cache and bus speed, but a 1.6 Pentium should be faster than a 1.2 celeron - assuming same or better cache size and bus speeds.

That is just an aside though, SL is extremely memory intesive as you have just witnessed. I am not too suprised that the increase in RAM gave the benefits you see. Especially when you know that the amount of video ram SL will use (or allow you to set) is partially dependant on the amount of system ram you have.

You would think so, but it wasn't the case. I was referring to the outdated, first generation Coppermine P4. Many hardware sites published similar benchmarks showing that the Tualatin Celerons/PIII's were faster than the Coppermine P4's when run at comparable bus speeds; and it was a huge embarrassment to Intel. Of course, benchmarking is more art than science, and I take it with a grain of salt.

The reasons for the speed advantage were that the Tualatins used full-speed L2 cache, instead of the half-speed used by the Coppermines. Also, the Tualatins were the first to use Data Prefetch Logic, and were running on the more efficient, low voltage, 0.13 micron core.

For example: "Also, at least compared to the Pentium 4, the Tualatin CPUs can run faster on the same available memory bandwidth, because of the CPU design (the Pentium 4 generally uses more memory bandwidth because of the tradeoffs made in its caching efficiency in order to increase the clock speed)."
http://www.roberthancock.com/dell/plip3t/powerleap-v2.htm

My point was simply that it's an adequate cpu; not a great one.

w00t! H2 wont help FPS, the game'll still act laggy. I'm really hoping that when H2 fixes the way av's move. I'm used to low framerates. Even in games like Wolfenstein, I can hit 10 fps with lots of explosions and lots people on the screen. But I know exactly how far I'm going to move/jump because the of the way their physics are implemented. I could run around a a wolfenstein level blind. As long as there is no packetloss, my guy always moves and jumps consistently. And I know rtcw doesnt use H2 but still - I am REALLY excited to see the new physics in SL.

Are you sure it's spelled with 2 capital O's???

But seriously, I'm really tired of the herky-jerky Avatar animation. I agree with you; it's all about the smoothness and predictability. I'm especially excited about the possibilities for vehicles. We're gonna' need a bigger world.

Sadly, you're right about lag Jack. It's universal. It's a frickin plague! The Federal government needs to step in and...

Never mind.