Let's talk: MKX on PC

[Rearawt]

Whens the last time you played? We haven't had a patch in over 2 weeks.

It's been quite a few months.

But I reseated my video card and discovered that my cpu fan wasn't properly attached, so I did that and now the game is working fine again. Thanks, guys

 

[Enexemander]

I haven't messed with the settings since I got the game to run fine. What's the best way to check if I'm even getting 60fps. The game feels like it's running at that but I just want to make sure. I've been playing on playstation too and nothing feels off unless i'm online.

Are there 269 people who play MKx on PC?

The best way is to just use Steam's built in FPS counter.

Go to Steam->Settings->In-game->In-game FPS counter

 

[TrulyAmiracle]

so is PC up to date with patches or no? Like do we have the 9/1 patch and the 9/21 hotfix?

 

[Rearawt]

so is PC up to date with patches or no? Like do we have the 9/1 patch and the 9/21 hotfix?

PC doesn't have 9/21 yet.

 

[lslick]

so is PC up to date with patches or no? Like do we have the 9/1 patch and the 9/21 hotfix?

IIRC, we didn't get the 9/21 hotfix patch but we did get the one before it

 

[SaSSolino]

give us this lovely guy as a guest char and we good.

 

[Second Saint]

Hey, we've got the latest patch now, and with it comes fancy new FPS benchmarks so that we can effectively shun even more people due to their mediocre equipment! Now I can finally know if the problem is actually the connection or the other person not having a good enough PC to run the game at 60 fps.

 

[Enexemander]

They must have really done some work on improving performance on AMD cards. Pre-patch, my only option to get a solid 60 fps was to have literally everything on low or off. Post patch with no hardware changes, I can run the game super solid with high textures, 100% particles, very high shadows. I haven't even tested everything like AA and filtering yet.

 

[Juxtapose]

They must have really done some work on improving performance on AMD cards. Pre-patch, my only option to get a solid 60 fps was to have literally everything on low or off. Post patch with no hardware changes, I can run the game super solid with high textures, 100% particles, very high shadows. I haven't even tested everything like AA and filtering yet.

Yeah, it a really excellent patch. Is your Particles set to CPU or GPU?

 

[RVB]

so we still lacking the latest hotfix on PC?

 

[Juxtapose]

so we still lacking the latest hotfix on PC?

Nope. If you go to Steam and look at the patch notes, it's there.

 

[Enexemander]

Yeah, it a really excellent patch. Is your Particles set to CPU or GPU?

GPU. My card isn't even great, Radeon 7800 series (7850 I think?).

I'm waiting for the higher end Nvidia 900 series card to come down in price before I upgrade.

 

[Rearawt]

I'm waiting for the higher end Nvidia 900 series card to come down in price before I upgrade.

But by then you should be waiting for the higher end Nvidia 1000 series cards to come down in price!

 

[Enexemander]

But by then you should be waiting for the higher end Nvidia 1000 series cards to come down in price!

Heh. Nah. I'm always okay with being generally a step or two behind the latest curve. Consoles don't get hardware upgrades, so most AAA games will only push their graphic requirements to the console hardware limits (maybe a little beyond if they're heavy into PC). That means to me that after a console generation you have to upgrade hardware, but during a generation you can float on without major upgrades to play the top titles.

And I only upgrade when I feel I need to. I can play the Witcher 3 with pretties on my current rig, so I'm still happy. Fallout 4 is probably the next test to see if I change my mind.

 

[SaSSolino]

so we still lacking the latest hotfix on PC?

nah we have it

 

[evolution07]

until i upgrade my system i won't be able to play in full 60fps. I have to use frame smoothing.

my specs are:

• AMD 6-Core FX-6200 3.8GHz Processor
• 10GB PC3-12800 DDR3 SDRAM
• Eyefinity Radeon HD 7570 graphics

I'd like to build my own system (budget not an issue but want something powerful for a reasonable amount of $$ lol) so if anyone would like to help me in picking the right stuff, hit me up!

 

[Immortal]

Get something among the lines of i5-4690K (or non K if you wont overlock) since there is no real reason to buy overpriced Skylake atm. As for graphic card assuming you wont play at higher resolution then FullHD then GeForce GTX 970 seems like a best choice in terms of performance / value.

 

[evolution07]

Get something among the lines of i5-4690K (or non K if you wont overlock) since there is no real reason to buy overpriced Skylake atm. As for graphic card assuming you wont play at higher resolution then FullHD then GeForce GTX 970 seems like a best choice in terms of performance / value.

I like to play games in the highest resolution that I possibly can. My monitor is only 24" although a 27" would be sweet but I've had my monitor for years and have no need to replace it when it works fine.

what would be the difference between the titan series and the 970/80?
why an i5 over an i7?

i'm tech savvy but haven't really read too much into what would be best for gaming n such as far as hardware goes.

 

[Immortal]

I like to play games in the highest resolution that I possibly can. My monitor is only 24" although a 27" would be sweet but I've had my monitor for years and have no need to replace it when it works fine.

what would be the difference between the titan series and the 970/80?
why an i5 over an i7?

i'm tech savvy but haven't really read too much into what would be best for gaming n such as far as hardware goes.

Titan X isn't really a gaming card, thou it is the most powerful single gpu card it offers almost the same performance as 980 Ti which is way cheaper.

As for performance difference 980 Ti > 980 > 970 it would go like this 980 Ti is like 25 - 30% faster on average then 980 (depends on resolution, higher one - bigger the difference). 980 is about 10 to 15% faster then 970. But for FullHD gaming 970 is enough and it has the best ratio of performance to price.

As for processor, there is like VERY few games which can make use of HT in I7. Most games these days are optimized for 4 cores thats why i5 is a sweet spot.

Like i said its all about performance to price ratio, so i5 with gtx 970 is an optimal choice, especially for FullHD gaming.

On the other hand if you're tech crazy like me then well... 4K gaming for me is normal these days but im using i7-4790K@5 GHz + 2x GeForce 980 Ti (SLI). But that's just me. In terms of performance to price ratio this is a total overkill but then again i don't care about that.

 

[Damaja325]

does anyone find this new benchmark and fps counter to be inaccurate? i don't have the best hardware, got an i3-3220 @ 3.3GHz and a GTX 750 ti. my machine runs the game like butter. getting 60 frames at 1080p high settings. when the benchmark finished, it gave me a reading of low performance. a few of my steam friends have noted that i have "low performance" but when we're playing it's completely fine. i've rarely had issues online except, a few laggy matches here and there, but all in all my experience has been stellar. never had fps drops of any sort. i don't know what the deal is, but with the limited community on steam i really hope this doesn't keep me from using matchmaking, with the low fps counter letting a potential opponent know that i'm getting "low performance" when in actuality my performance is great.

 

[Rabid Justice]

Like immortal said The 970 is defiantly the best card for 1080p from nvidea. I have a i7 3770 paired with it and it easily plays most new games at near max setting 60fps. But no matter what card you get just make sure its DX12 ready and your power supply is up to par.

 

[Rabid Justice]

d.

I'm willing to bet that the bench mark always turns v-sync setting to fixed when running. That will most likely be the reason you guys are getting different results

 

[Enexemander]

does anyone find this new benchmark and fps counter to be inaccurate? i don't have the best hardware, got an i3-3220 @ 3.3GHz and a GTX 750 ti. my machine runs the game like butter. getting 60 frames at 1080p high settings. when the benchmark finished, it gave me a reading of low performance. a few of my steam friends have noted that i have "low performance" but when we're playing it's completely fine. i've rarely had issues online except, a few laggy matches here and there, but all in all my experience has been stellar. never had fps drops of any sort. i don't know what the deal is, but with the limited community on steam i really hope this doesn't keep me from using matchmaking, with the low fps counter letting a potential opponent know that i'm getting "low performance" when in actuality my performance is great.

Hmm that's weird. Was the benchmark showing 60 frames when it was running?

 

[Damaja325]

Hmm that's weird. Was the benchmark showing 60 frames when it was running?

no, it was giving me like 38-40 fps which is ridiculous. i was already getting 60 frames on the sky temple map to begin with.

 

[Immortal]

It's not ridiculous, benchmark in MK X tests the worst case scenario. Notice that camera angle is a bit different then in normal fights, also particle density looks higher then what you get in actual fight. It serves it purpose which is - filter people with low spec PC to limit desyncs, stuttering and more.

It's a great addition and should have been in the game from the get go.

Also you can adjust settings and retake the benchmark (it's in option settings) if you need.