[TERA PC & Console] En Masse is closing, but TERA lives on! We will continue to support TERA PC (NA) and TERA Console until service is transferred. Stay tuned for more information.
[TERA Console] The Grotto of Lost Souls update (v85) is now live! Read the patch notes here: https://bit.ly/TERACon_v85
[TERA PC] The 64-bit update (v97) is now live. Check out all the changes delivered on August 11 here: https://bit.ly/tera64_patchnotes
[TERA PC & CONSOLE] Summerfest Part 2: The Beach Bash is on from August 11 until September 1! Participate in event activities to earn tokens redeemable for costumes, consumables, mounts, and more! Details: https://bit.ly/tera_sf20
Comments
It seems like I need a cpu upgrade to run tera, which is a shame but Thats the reality I guess
What I dont really get is everyone saying that upgraded from ___Amd processor to ___Intel processor. Wouldnt that be impossible considering motherboard chipsets? Unless you swap out for a new motherboard too.
Seems like I need a new motherboard AND cpu, as my motherboard only supports am3+ chipset.
Does anyone know if this game will be optimized in the any near future? Or will i be forced to have to upgrade my pc to meet this games terribly optimized game haha.
at least get a ryzen 3 it only cost 140 $
Yeah sorry man, AMD's FX series chips are based off of the Bulldozer architecture which is pretty unanimously agreed upon as their worst series of CPU's in the company's history. They were decent in multi-threaded tasks, but things like games that use 1-2 CPU cores/threads, the chips fall flat on their faces.
Upgrading your CPU will pretty much always involve upgrading 3 parts at once:
- The CPU
- The Motherboard
- The RAM/Memory
This is why I say the AMD option may be better, because AMD motherboards have always been cheaper than Intel ones, and with the AMD CPU's being less too, but still very comparable in performance, Ryzen CPU's make a very good alternative if you aren't interested in absolutely [filtered]-to-the-wall max fps performance where that extra 2-3 fps is a deal-breaker or not.
A lot of people say, "Buy Intel, it's better" because for the last 5+ years (basically since Bulldozer was introduced and was being sold by AMD) Intel has always been better than AMD in every regard. The problem is that Intel charges a veritable arm-and-leg BECAUSE of that mentality.
Tera will likely never get updated because the game is so old and it would take basically rewriting the entire game all over again to optimize it for multi-thread support beyond 1-2 threads. And even then, if they did do that, they would likely drastically upgrade the game at the same time, so even if you were using all of the threads on your CPU, you would still be in the same problem as now.
You don't need to modify/remove "those configs" on Tera to have more FPS, you just dont have a good machine.
If it was capped then you wont get more thant 80 fps but you can, good try thought.
There were times when I got around 100 fps but I wont bother to stay still waiting or moving to spots to get that amount.
The thing is even with that supposed cap you can get more fps without tweeking anything. If you cant then is becuase you dont have a good machine.
The option will always show 80 if you dont modify it however is not a cap for Tera not allowing you to get more FPS.
I already told that I got a new pc and havent touched the ini file but I will show you the actual values in it and you can reach more than 80 fps even in that state.
No idea, this is the interface of nvidia I use to change settings in games.
These are the values in that tab.
Yes, it is a Lenovo Ideapad Y700.
It has an Intel Core i7 @2.66 GHz
The nvidia is a GTX 960m with 4 GB of GDDR5 (I have to correct myself becuase I think I said it was a 970 in another thread)
Has 8 GB of RAM DDR4
And 1 TB of HD
Tera is the only game that my burn my laptop u_u
I have a R5 1600 system and Tera runs perfectly fine on it (and by that I mean it runs infinitely better than my old i5 2500k). I haven't OC'd it because I'm on the stock cooler in a very small case (Node 202), but even then it runs quite smoothly (see my first post in this thread to see the settings I use).
The IPC (instructions per clock) on AMD chips which used to be a huge problem has basically been fixed with Ryzen, and right now the only 'deficit' (dare I even use the word) you will see in them is that the Ryzen chips don't clock past 3.8-3.9 GHz, but honestly even at 3.2GHz, I hit 80fps in Tera in plenty of places, and can hold ~50fps in most dungeons as long as we're not killing a dozen trash mobs at once. I will agree with others though that getting something like a 1600x that clocks up to 3.7Ghz will give you even better results, but at 3.2Ghz I run Tera, streaming Youtube on Chrome with ~25 tabs open, and your typical plethora of background windows programs and it doesn't even try.
The problem with any i3 or R3 chips is that they're quad cores, which now that both Intel and AMD are pushing higher core counts, software developers (game devs too) will start writing game code to utilize several cores. Having 6+ physical cores is going to be a huge deal sooner than later (think about it, why else would Intel effectively shove what used to be top-tier i7 processors down into the i3 segment in a single generation?)
I use MSI Afterburner to tell me what my FPS is and it is almost always within 1-2 fps of what the Steam FPS counter down in the corner is. Both of those are typically within margin-of-error to what Tera's is, so I'm confident that when all 3 tell me I'm at 80fps, I'm at 80fps.
Thank you for answering my curiosity. Still, like I stated before, Ryzen for multitasking while Inte's Core solely for gaming purpose. Ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5 both a good choice with their price/performance value. Personally, I wanted to get a Ryzen setup but after considering unknown performance with TERA, I just don't know. Dilemma is the word.
If only TERA could be more optimized and use more cores efficiently.