You are running Windows 7 and Windows 8.1, which means you are relying more heavily on an emulation layer for DirectX 9--so, at the OS level you are going to have a little extra CPU overhead in general because this is currently a DirectX 9 game. Couple that with SE's typical shoddy DirectX implementations (ever play FFXI?)--and it gets compounded further. As others have mentioned, this is a CPU intensive game by design, just from the graphics engine side of things. Couple this with all the extra work it has to do in the background because of the sheer volume of data this game is swapping back and forth, and it puts even more background load on the CPU and memory as well.
Again, you have to compare how the games are designed. The graphics engines are designed very differently. TSW is simply coded to more effectively use DirectX, even at the DX9 level. Not to mention, it already has good DX11 support available--we are talking DX11 tessellation support for heavens sake. While there may also be issues with AA, it does manage AF better as well compared to XIV. This points back to more effective use of the DirectX API, and thus more effective use of your GPU.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Benchma...d.78310.0.html
That article is about the benchmark they used to test some systems. It draws an interesting contrast across different CPU/GPU's. They found they could actually run the game fine on HD4000 graphics at 1024/768.
That game's engine is simply designed to more properly use the DirectX API, so is better equipped to more fully unlock the potential of your GPU. XIV is only unlocking a small portion of your GPU's power--the GPU components that impact it more at this point of it's development are the number of pipelines, bus width, and bus speeds since a lot of effects are still processed on the CPU. Hopefully a lot of that will change when they complete the move into DX11 support and <hopefully> start to offload more to the GPU.
Edit:
Oh, and I just googled the system req's for TSW... they aren't as high as you listed them. It can run just fine on 5 or 6 year old hardware--even lists that it supports XP, C2D at 2.6Ghz, 512MB NV 8800 or better, Internet connection of 512Kbps or better:
http://www.geforce.com/games-applica...m-requirements
http://forums.thesecretworld.com/showthread.php?t=25908
Apparently, there may be more truth to that statement than you realize. Notebookcheck ranks that A4 at 223, while your i7 is ranked 33:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html
Here's their individual pages and a few scores from each:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-A-S...r.91973.0.html
3DMark06: 2284, Cinebench(32bit): 2734 & 4345, Cinebench(64bit): 0.91 & 1.45
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-C...r.80051.0.html
3dMark06:6392,Cinebench(32bit): 4654 & 18059, 1.41 & 6.41
And here's some Passmark scores as well:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...00+APU&id=1447 Passmark: 2038
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look....40GHz&id=1444 Passmark: 7734
And here's something else interesting from there as well:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...3.00GHz&id=955 Passmark: 2164
That's the processor I was able to pull from 5300 to 6600 out of the benchmark with an old 4850 512MB card.Yeah, it's PC grade hardware vs. laptop hardware--but both the CPU and GPU dated back to 2008. The mobile version of that core ran at 2.26GHz and still scored a passmark score of 1464... and it was also released in 2008.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...2.26GHz&id=973
Basically, all this boils down to you having gone from a more gaming class laptop to more an HTPC level PC. That is more likely your problem in general.
Can you run it? Apparently so. Can you run it with all the eye candy turned on and ramped up? Likely not.



Reply With Quote




