Neverwinter Nights 2 hardware performance guide

Posted Aug 21, 2008 4:37 pm PT

Poshkidney needs to pull his head out of my ass, thats my bowel your looking at, not the graphics of nwn2. Nwn2 is far better looking than nwn1, stop smoking crack.

Runs great on my machine since the first few patches came out, high FPS maxed everything at 1280x1024.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted May 21, 2008 3:05 pm PT

Everyone needs to stop checking frame rates. If it looks goos to you then it's good.

Human vision tops out at 60fps (give or take a couple of frames). Many of my clients (I maintain machines for the film and TV industry) will run benchmarks and "only" get 100fps. They call me, I "fix" their machines, they play the game and are amazed at how much better it runs.

When I tell them that I did nothing other than to make sure nothing was wrong, they are usually embarrased since many of them went out and bought some high end card (or 2) because the benchmarks were too low at 80-90 fps. I don't charge them (after all they just blew a grand on new hardware)and give them the speech about persistance of vision.

I've been doing this since 1991 and have not had a single client "see" any difference between 70-120fps (with all settings topped).

Hardware makers love benchmarks. I should love them too, as they give me more work as my clients want to upgrade. However it turns into a pain in the butt to try and squeeze in display adapter "upgrades" in between real hardware issues. This is why I have been showing my clients reality.
Funny thing is that I have very loyal customers because of this.

You don't have to believe a word I've just said. Look into it on your own.

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted May 17, 2008 3:16 am PT

dosen't matter its still an ugly game.

Look the first game looked better than this.

I'm sorry but its true the morale of this story is don't give obsidan anything.

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 2 users agree

Posted Dec 28, 2007 6:32 pm PT

QuadCore Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 2400 MHz (9 x 267)
Asus P5B
2048 MB (DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM)
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB)
Microsoft Windows XP Professional

In medium and high details the fps are the same for me: around 30 in the nw area. Technically this game sucks... ;(

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 3 users agree

Posted Dec 23, 2007 12:12 pm PT

None_of_your, do you have FRAPS? What kind of framerate do you get on average?

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Nov 25, 2007 3:30 am PT

I've got a P4 3.06, 1GB, and a 256mb x1550 PCI (Yes PCI not PCI-E)
I can run at 1024 x 768 with nearly everything on high but with shadows off

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Nov 16, 2007 1:27 pm PT

The games problem is the shadows, set them on low/medium with the shadow quality enhancement options turned off and you can bump up all the other settings.

With the exception of the shadow options and AA, I have everything else maxed at 1680x1050 with no major performance problems on my 256mb 7900GT. If you have a decent 8 series card then you shouldn't have anything to complain about; used to just maxing everything with AA from the get go, that's your problem.

This is just one of those games that has a settings that unusually bogs down performance, get over it. If the jaggies in the shadows is that much of a deterrent then you probably wouldn't have valued what the game has to offer anyway.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 1 users agree

Posted Oct 24, 2007 9:53 am PT

8800gtx and you have to lower settings for graphics that are not that impressive...No thanks! I guess I'll stick to WoW (50-60fps at 1440x900, 4xAA, everything maxed, ATHLON X2 3800+, 7600GT)

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 26, 2007 5:31 pm PT

dam how demanding is this game. 8800GTX only 40frames woo. could a 7900GS pull this off at high settings at 10x7?

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 24, 2007 1:29 pm PT

Cheap Computer - Fast Framerate - Good Graphics

Choose 2.

~ David

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 1 users agree

Posted Sep 11, 2007 12:40 am PT

If gamers have to make the game look ugly just to get it to play decently, you have done something wrong, especially when their systems meet the recommended requirements...

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 3, 2007 4:30 pm PT

lolz it says the game doesn't benefit from multiple core CPUs but all the benchmarks were done with that, and the ad at the top says "unlocked by Core2 Extreme"

Everyone knows or should know that graphics intensive games will only benefit from a better GPU and more RAM, a CPU upgrade is just stupid...I could probably still run it with my 2600+ Barton chip if I had more memory and a high-end GPU.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 2 users agree

Posted Jul 27, 2007 5:15 pm PT

Hmm. maybe they will port it to the 360 or PS3, this the problem with Pc games, the quality of the game has to be compromised for so many players. And with that the experience is not what the developers intended.

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jun 27, 2007 8:17 am PT

System Setup:AMD Sempron 2600+,Abit KT880,256 MB Kingmax,80GB Maxtor 7200 rpm SATA Hard Disk Drive,Windows XP Professional SP2,Graphic Card:FX 5500 256MB.Graphic Driver: Nvidia Forceware 93.71.
This is my system configuration.With all the settings at low i still can play the game.So stop complaing about the game.You have high-end comp and still not pleased about the game.You should prey to good not to make something bad to your computers.

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 3 users agree

Posted Jun 22, 2007 4:09 pm PT

The effort that these guys put forth is very noticeable. Any video game these days require a lot of people power in order to stay competitive with other games. You should be ashamed that you could call a video game programmer a baboon. I'm sure you don't have 10% of the educator that these programmers do. Maybe you could show everyone a demo of what you can do in DirectX??

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 9 users agree

Posted May 16, 2007 12:42 pm PT

The memory performance tests say they experienced no difference in a jump from 1gb to 2gb of RAM. Well, I just upgraded to 2gb, and my loading times are probably less than a tenth what they were before, aswell as a 5 or 6 frames increase in performance.

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted May 14, 2007 11:46 pm PT

Mezzanne, while yes, it's dumb that the optimal settings are so demanding, my game works perfectly on mediums settings, and my comp is just within reach of _minimal_ system reqs.... Just so you know...

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted May 10, 2007 4:28 am PT

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted May 10, 2007 4:28 am PT

Im getting a comp with all these requirements....only thing is im getting a (Socket AM2) AMD Athlonâ„¢64 X2 5600+ Dual-Core CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology. it clocks at 2.8GHz i think, but NWN2 doesnt use dual cores. think that processor will work well?

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Apr 25, 2007 11:21 am PT

What an idiotic game. Was this coded by baboons? I enjoyed NWN1, and I'd like to try this, but I'm not quite sure. My system has a core 2 duo and an 8800 GTS, but why does this game run so poorly on high-end systems? Also, these graphics aren't even impressive.

Just out of principle, I want to boycott this game. This kind of thing makes me wish I owned a console sometimes, since developers just ignore the fact that high-end PCs are expensive and we can't upgrade every bloody 6 months. sheesh

• Login to rate this comment
• 3 of 9 users agree

Posted Mar 16, 2007 1:06 pm PT

Man I'm going to have to upgrade once more games get DX10. Games are getting ahead of my hardware now. I could probably run this mid settings most of the time if I wanted a good framerate.

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted Feb 17, 2007 9:00 am PT

any tests for 1440x900 ?

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Feb 14, 2007 4:40 pm PT

I tweak my settings from time to time when the framerates suffer a bit. My pc is Athlon 64 3200, 1GB RAM, GeForce 6600. Performance improves at 800 x 600. Funny though, when I check my task manager for memory usage, NWN2 hogs a whopping 400+ MB of memory. When you get past those performance tweaks, you can enjoy the game, as I have. Patience I guess.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 1 users agree

Posted Feb 13, 2007 3:47 pm PT

I have a problem with the graphic card ATI Radeon 9250 series the driver is ATI Catalyst 6.11it said direct 3D not found what could I do?

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 1 users agree

Posted Feb 2, 2007 10:23 am PT

I have an agreement with totalgridlock, with one addition. When i borrowed this game for a while, it worked perfectly, and my specs are slightly lower... 0.8g ram with a 1280x800... New comp now though and its a little wierd... is worse...

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 26, 2007 4:10 am PT

You know, I don't know why so many people have problems with this game. I've got a 2.8 Duo Core, 1gb RAM and a GeForce 7600 GS, running at 1024x768 and the only thing I turned down was the shadows to medium. Everything else on full whack. Now my system isn't exactly the highest spec around here and yet the game ran like a dream. No slow down.

But then again, I know people with practically identical systems having shockingly differing performances with NWN2. 'Tis odd.

I'm guessing the game eats processors for breakfast, seems to be the issue here rather than fancy graphics cards.

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 22, 2007 6:41 am PT

360gamerz:

That should be enough. I run a 2.4 core duo with a ati x1300 a gig of ram and it runs fine, not completely maxed out but close. Try systemrequirementslab.com if unsure though.

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 21, 2007 5:56 am PT

iam ran on AMD 2.0 ghz (3200) RAM 512 DDR (3200) VGA Nforce6100 and not bad to play it even low/med resolution but still look nice

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 15, 2007 10:35 am PT

i hav a intel core duo but not extreme is tht gd enough i mean thts pretty top of the range

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 15, 2007 9:24 am PT

thanx for wallpaper

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 14, 2007 12:32 pm PT

ahh- keep getting card issue messages- its pci express and process is 2.8 so maybe it the ram- only have 512- thinking of going to 1 gb
thought it was driver issues with the card

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 13, 2007 6:18 am PT

OgreB, I've had that problem before...but never really that bad since mine stays at about 200 but it drops to about 25. You can still upgrade your system, but with a game like this, the only thing you really need to upgrade is your processor...which could also mean your motherboard. Just wanted to let you know the specifics of FPS.

And ninnea, it would work fine if it's not AGP 4x, then it would just work slightly lower than rcommended. But as I typed to OgreB, the processor is what will account for most of the game. RAM and GPU (video card) are important to have, but they are for raising your visual game quality. All in all, your card would work good if you've got about 1g of RAM and probably 2ghz processor.

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 12, 2007 6:29 pm PT

how does the ATi Radeon x 9250 x 256mb card work with the game

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 12, 2007 8:47 am PT

rpg's (turn base) are terrible games and lazy

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 4 users agree

Posted Jan 12, 2007 7:22 am PT

My problem is that the frame rates jump around too much.
It ran better with V1 than it does now..

No matter what resolution or settings it just pogos.

Sometimes I can get 40+ and then just turning the camera plunges it below 10.

Sometimes I can fight a dozen enemies and maintain 20+ and other times just a NPC walking by will drop it to 4.

While in V1 I could set it to pretty high and maintain 20 FPS ( shadows full etc)

Must be the maasive memory leaks...or it sould be because it was a D2D version ( which I will never do again)

P4 3.06
1 gig ram
PNY 6800 gs 256

New rig ( be here by next friday)

Dual core 2.6
2gigs ddr2 ram
7950 1 gig card ( upgrade to 8800 this summer)

I'll give it another go...but for the system requirments...it's not a very good looking game.

With my current rig I can play Oblivion on very high at 2AA and fake HDR and maintain very high FPS ( at 12x10 res...with all shadow options on and set to medium to full)

It's just not that good looking of a game considering the specs required...

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 12, 2007 6:02 am PT

I ran it on my Athlon 64 3200+ (2GHz), 6600GT and 1 GB RAM, in 1024x768, at medium settings (medium shadows too) and it ran smoothly.

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted Jan 11, 2007 11:58 am PT

That motherboard isn't the best. You should try an MSI 965 platnum instead. The drivers need time to mature too. ICH8 as a chipset offers very few benifits over ICH7, and the Nvidia chipset scales best anyhow. Try using an Nvidia chipset and a Raptor. I'd say framerates will improve as drivers come out. RAM doesn't often make that big a difference, but perhaps using Ballistix would help? Even 2 or 3 extra FPS counts with RPGs, which don't need 60FPS to play. But how bummed out would you be if you'd spent the odd €600 on the 8800GTX (and a rig worthy of it) only to find that NWN2 stutters along? Pretty annoyed I'd reckon! @gueycaan: It's obviously that rare 'Raiden' card that's giving you the edge. I wish my computer had the graphics card of a mythical Thunder God!

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 10, 2007 7:05 am PT

RPG makes me wanna throw up!

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 5 users agree

Posted Jan 9, 2007 5:42 pm PT

I have a nearly for year old pc that i havn't changed except for a DVD rom and my Ram is 512 and i think my card is a nividia geforce 5700. I can run the game on the lowest settings and although slow it does not freeze up. I am getting an extra 512 ram to bring it up to 1Gb. If it wasn't for this game i wouldn't be doing this esental upgrade. And although i think this game rocks i would prefer a game that runs smothly than looks good like the original.

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 9, 2007 11:32 am PT

Well you don't really need a strong computer to play the game. Most of the "specs" on side label (which says that my pc cannot play this game) of the game in the stores are just like advertisments. They say this is what you need to play the game, but if you noticed on the pics above there are low rez pics as well.
For instance my pc is 3 YEARS old and I my cpu runs at, no lie, 800Mhz (AMD 64 2800+) and i can run NWN2 at Mediem to almost high. I can also play Oblivion 4 at the HIGHEST setting in HDR!!! If you know how to tweek your pc then forget what the specs are. I laugh at people when I am at the store and they talk about how they spent 1000.00 on some new card or computer just to play a game. Oh yeah and NEVER let the application deceide how to use your card or Automatic setting, THATS A nono!!! AND BEFORE YOU PLAY YOUR GAME SET YOUR WINDOWS TO RUN AT BEST PREFORMANCE, FORGET HOW NICE IT LOOKS, AND WHEN THATS DONE, HIT CTRL+ALT+DEL and close down ALL your crazy progams that are running that don't need to be running! But don't close anything run by the system. If you are not sure which ones your pc needs just click on search and type that file or that program name and if you don't need it close it. YOU WILL SEE A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. The worst that can happen is your PC will restart or tell you that it is shutting down and you'll get an error upon reboot, but thats no biggie.

These are My PC Specs
AMD 64 2800+ (and i can still update it)
Soltek k8 ( i don't even have a pc express)
1GB RAM (2 512MB)
512MB ATI Raiden X1600 (i got if for only 150.00 on newegg.com which i bought last year!)
160GB hdd

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted Jan 9, 2007 9:40 am PT

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 8, 2007 9:59 pm PT

This test was a great help to me, i was trying to think if my 1.8ghz athlond, 1.5mb ram, and 256 video card (its a ati family express 200, no shaders ...) sum1 mail me if u know anything bout my card cuz the 256mb doesnt even seem to do all that great. but since i seen what the 2.0ghz athlond got on this, i was like yeah i definatly cant play it, i might just go with titan quest, and im still skeptical bout that being how 1.8ghz is the min, and idk if my graphics card will let me down like it did in battlefield 2142, and fear

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 8, 2007 2:36 pm PT

P4 3.6 GHZ x800 xt 2GB of ram sound Blaster Audigy

I have been playing this game and yes the graphics engine needs some work, but The worst performance I got at 1280x1024 is 15 FPS in a really really crowded room....Other wise chugs along anywhere between 25-35 FPS.

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 7, 2007 12:05 am PT

Wow I can't belive the time some people spend doing this crap...

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 1 users agree

Posted Jan 6, 2007 9:27 pm PT

i have to respend to this LMAO...ok come on you guys....you have somthing messed up with your PC 28 FPS with 2gb of ram and geforce 8800 and a quad core cpu...i have dual core pentium d....1 gb of ram...and a geforce 7600 gs...and everything max at 1600x1200 i run at 12 FPS...your stats are doubled in ram and cpu and almost 5X in graphics and u only get 28 FPS god...you need some one with experince not some guy u picked off the street...and i beet the PC cost you guys like 4000...i could have biult you a SLI geforce 8800 with 4 gb of ram and a quad core cpu with 500 gb of HDD space and sound blaster xtreme gamer x-fi sound card for 3200

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 4, 2007 10:54 am PT

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 3, 2007 3:00 pm PT

I can't run it....Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh :'(
Have got 2.8 GHz, and 128 mb video card, and like 1000 mb Memory....
This game blows my frame rate is like 0.5 or something, it refreshes every 2 seconds....

I hate you Performance guide, you make me feel miserable.....

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 2, 2007 9:26 pm PT

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Jan 2, 2007 9:10 pm PT

Sorry, but I just had to respond to what someone wrote, it was just too funny.
My dear Thanatos2. I just loved your comment about Valve and the half life two engine. About how well it was optimized. Oh Oh, I see bad news on the rise, yes here it comes, oh man, right between the eyes. Sorry to break it too you, but anyone remembering the first while of playing half life 2 also remembers just how P.O.d they got because the game had the worst case of studder pause I had ever seen. It was doing it on top rated machines with the bested cards out. It wasn't till about 2 to 3 patches down the road that it started finally to smooth out. Now they've got it running great but in the beginning it sucked nasty rotten potatoes. So moral of the story? Not even Valve got it right at the beginning. Lesson over, there will be a quiz later on in the week so I hope yall took notes. No the perfomance doesn't bother me nearly as much as the stupid AI. Having one of your guys run over a trap that is just one second away from being disarmed by your rogue. Now this one really gets me. Maybe one of you can explaine it too me, I must be too narrow minded to see the answer. Has nothing to do with the AI, just the rules of the game (or the interpretation of) , A hostile rogue is coming at me in stealth mode, I see him, I hit him two or three time, he swings and gets a suprise attack on me!!!! Now how in the name of sanity does he do it? It's little things like that that really tick me off, not little things like performance. Almost forgot, having your guy run a giant half cirlce to get to the end of a straight line? You have a straight shot at something and your guy takes off to run around the block to get to a spot 30 feet in front of you? Duh?

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree