October 28, 2013 at 7:22 pm #2261
~When making a thread about bugs and such, or the performance of any game, I think it would be more suitable that one should give the specs of all the systems they test the game on. It is great to see many people testing on the expanding browser ecosystem out there, however the games performance isn’t only limited only to a browser.
For example, one browser could honestly be just as good as all the other browsers on one system, but on others the performance gains and losses may be much more noticeable.
When posting bugs and performance issues, be sure to list a few major things about your system:
-Operating System <Ubuntu, Windows, Mac, Android, iOS. be sure to include the version as well>
-RAM. <INCLUDING MOBILE DEVICES AS WELL>
-GPU. Browsers may be more CPU intensive, but with modern HTML 5 and Flash updates, the GPU does take a huge part in it.
-Browser <Include VERSION, bit type- ie x32, x64>
Just a nice little guideline. This doesn’t benefit me directly, but it will benefit all of us if Kaive and Whry have a better understanding of how the games work on different systems.
/DO NOT EXPECT TO PLAY GOOD FLASH/HTML5 GAMES ON A SINGLE CORE. Sometimes, even dual-cores can choke./
Note: Intel Atoms/Celerons, as well as AMD C series and AMD E-E1 series just perform poorly overall. These are mainly netbook CPU’s.January 11, 2014 at 9:56 pm #2277
Since I do some testing on the game, I figure I should put my specs here for quick reference:
Windows XP Home Ed., 5.1.2600 s.p.2
G-Byte G31M-ES2L board w/ Intell 2700(?) processor (although the start-up screen tells me 1.80Ghz…)
3GB system memory, 2GB virtual memory, 7GB pagefile capacity
ATi Radeon X1600 w/ 512MB dedicated graphics memory (overrides built-in system graphics chipset)
Preferred browser is Firefox 26.0
The hardware was the result of an emergency rebuild after a massive hard drive failure and my previous board’s inability to talk to SATA devices. I intend to completely discard the board and chip for something that can support a RADEON HD8-Series (Sea Islands or better) graphics card on a PCIe 3.0 slot.
January 12, 2014 at 7:58 am #2279
- This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Firewolfe. Reason: mislabeled the Radeon chipset
@Firewolfe well, you are running on older hardware and shtuff. But I researched the information about the board and there is one of three processors you could have. Intel Celeron, Intel Pentium 4, or an Intel Core 2 variant. I don’t want to assume what type you have but I want to guess that you have a dual-core, as the Pentiums, Celerons, and Core 2’s are most likely dual-core in that era.
for Windows XP and what you have, 3GB isn’t that bad. having a dedicated GPU as well is nice. Its a bit dated but I know it was one of the better GPU’s of its time.
If you’re going to build a Radeon HD 8xxx series, I suggest waiting just a tiny bit longer, as the Radeon R7 and R9 series are emerging. if you want a nice powerful budget build, go with the R7 series. Best part is that it will be perfectly compatible with R9 when you get yourself some money to dish out for the better cards.
Some people may see me AMD Biased, which they wouldn’t be completely wrong. I’ve built mostly pure AMD builds just because its saved me lots of money, not because Nvidia or Intel is bad. Oh, and upgradeability/future proof. Though, a deal is a deal if you find one.
@Developers <Whry already knows my build but I’ll still post for reference>
Windows 8.1 Pro x64 (6.3 Build 9600)
ASRock 970 Extreme4 Motherboard <AMD Chipset
AND Phenom II X4 910a @ 2.6Ghz
6GB DDR3 RAM, 12GB Virtual, ?GB Paged <Automatic>
Nvidia GeForce GTX 550Ti w/ 1GB GDDR5 Memory
Preferred browser is Internet Explorer 11 (Current: 11.0.2)
Windows 7 Pro x64 sp1 (6.1 Build 7601) / Ubuntu 13.10 x64
ASUS OEM Motherboard for HP dv6
AMD A8-MX series, Quad-Core @ 1.6Ghz
8GB DDR3 Memory, 10GB Virtual, 8GB Pagefile
AMD Radeon HD 6620G Integrated GPU <Low Profile/no demanding applications> to
AMD Radeon HD 6750 w/1GB GDDR5 Graphics Memory <High Performance>
Preferred browser is Waterfox 24.0
January 12, 2014 at 5:07 pm #2286
- This reply was modified 3 years, 11 months ago by Sparky.
This is actually interesting info from a developer’s perspective, as we’d very much like to move into full 3D game engines and everyone seems to have some kind of graphics card nowadays.
I’ve noticed the web version of House of Tail has dropped frame rate for me the more its updated. I’m using an Intel D 2.8Ghz, maybe 8 years old. I think it’s a good benchmark, but I’m wondering if newer cpu’s are so much better that it’s not anymore.
And then I see things like Firewolfe’s cpu and I don’t even know XDJanuary 12, 2014 at 10:26 pm #2288
This is what I’m trying to explain. Anything of the newer flash variant <or heck, even some old flashes> and HTML5 will always be CPU intensive unless you’re using a newer GPU that kind of splits the workload. Your and Firewolfe don’t exactly have er… the best of CPU’s. they’re too dated. I honestly don’t see how you can render with that CPU but I digress, I actually admire that you’re patient enough for it. I however lack patience.January 14, 2014 at 5:18 pm #2289
I’d like to use another AMD build like my original was, despite the heat output it was a fantastic system. I think my CPU ship is a Dual core, but I grabbed the first one I could afford at the time, so I’m not sure. I’m not happy at all with the result of the emergency rebuild I had to do, so the next time around will be drastically different. For the GPU, I do know AMD is rolling out new cards since the Sea Islands series was made, so I’m watching those closely. I’ll be building the new system based on the GPU I get 😉
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.