How does HOMMV perform in your machine (pls list your specs)

[Khelavaster]

Hi people,

I figured I would create this poll to try to understand why HOMMV is such an underperformer in some rigs and makes a good show in others.

From what I´ve read I´m thinking that Nvidia users may be experiencing more performance related issues than ATI card owners. Thus this poll.

For more context, here are the options and the criteria used:

Great = should be really smooth playing, almost no frames dropped when rotating the camera or scrolling the adventure map. This is the ideal scenario especially in big maps with many trees, water, heroes and lots of scenery manipulation.

Acceptable (could be better)= this is playable, but there is noticeable choppiness. You tend to avoid using the zoomed out view whenever you can.

Unacceptable= This is bad enough to discourage playing.

Thanks for your cooperation!

[Angelspit]

Good poll.

I have a 9800 Pro and only experience a few minor hiccups at the standard resolution (the most common being when the Ubisoft logo is displayed when the game launches, which is weird). Later today I will increase the resolution and details to see what my machine can handle.

[Campaigner]

I find this poll to be quite useless since some people with very old cards will vote "unacceptable" and the card gets the blame.

Great - judging from how powerful my system is. ATI Atlantis Radeon 9700 Pro 351/321

[Malicen]

Hehehe. It seems NVidia cards suck here...

I voted acceptable (ATI), from what I have (oooold card) I can't think it is unacceptable, as a mater of fact it's amazing that my card can even do it. So it cannot be anything else than acceptable.

[Marzhin]

The game runs fine, in 1024*768 medium details, even if I have only 512 Mb RAM, with my ATI REDEON 9600 PRO 256...

[Khelavaster]

The objection is true - to be truly relevant only people with systems that reasonable exceed the minimum requirements and are reasonably close to the recommended specs should participate. Otherwise those with old machines will yield logically low results.

Khel.

[Wolfshanze]

The Poll itself is loaded and about as innacurately created as can possibly be.

It doesn't account for market share (since NVidia sells more cards to third-party computer manufacturers [pre-built], while most ATI buys are user-based)... tieing into the fact that a pre-built system usually has lower performance because computer manufacturers will always low-ball the video card, while most end-user purchases are for a performance video card. Another factor is that simply-put, if 100 computers polled, and 90 are pre-built with NVidia low-end cards and 10 are user-upgraded with ATI, you'll get a very biased poll that in NO WAY reflects the capabilities of EITHER card.

ATI makes some garbage cards too... but they rarely make it into systems, as most low-end cards purchased by computer manufacturers are NVidia. Upgrades can be either NVidia or ATI, but who upgrades for a crappy card?

Fact be true, NVidia currently makes the fastest cards on the market... faster then ATI. But they also have the largest share of low-end pre-built systems... this doesn't mean NVidia sucks, this means that NVidia makes a ton of money off of low-end cards to computer manufacturers.

That being said, the poll itself is totally useless... though if people answer (without taking the poll) with both their EXACT card and performance, and whether or not the card was pre-built into their systems, or something they purposely purchased as an upgrade (or hand-picked), then you'll get a good idea of where people are with this.

As for me, I have a 3.0GHz P4 w/1GB DDRAM, and a BFG GeForce 6800GT OC w/256MB. It's a 100% custom-built system by me (so the card is hand-picked).

I have all graphics on MAX... run at resolution of 1152x864 and have AA turned on.

The game runs silky smooth at all zoom levels on all screens... only the well-known "eye level" view slows the game down any at all.

I can assure you people with old useless NVidia cards will report problems, while people with decent NVidia cards will report very good results. The poll is loaded and not well-done. WRITTEN answers will tell the truth, not the poll.

[Sikon]

Performs smoothly on my GeForce 6600GT.

[HodgePodge]

Performs smoothly on my GeForce 6600GT.

Glad to hear that. Since I haven't received my preorder yet, I'll hold off my vote until later. I have a Pentium 4 3.0 MHz & I just purchased a nVidia GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB and an additional 1GB RAM (making it 1.5 GB of RAM now). If Heroes 5 doesn't run smoothly on my computer, then there is something seriously wrong with the game.

[AnjinSan66]

I voted:

Great (I have an ATI card)

It works as smoth as it could on my machine

DFI LP NF4 SLI-DR- X2 4400 0524RPMW-Thermalright XP120-4x512 OCZ3200ELPlatR2-SapphireX850XT-SilverstoneST65ZF

Now back to the game

[Khelavaster]

Right Wolfshanze, the poll is wildly inaccurate (you could even say that everyone choosing "great" are simply less demanding gamers who can live with 15 FPS), but I´m afraid more detail would have made it unwieldly. As it is, it´s just a guidance and a beacon for people to post their specs in detail in the replies as you did - thanks for that.

Here are my own, by the way although I already posted it somewhere else:
Custom-built Athlon XP 2500+ Barton, 2x512 400 mhz RAM= 1 Gig, Asus ANX8X, 120 gig Hard Drive (defragmented), Geforce 6600 GT 128 megs. Not the best, agreed, but completely serviceable for me -- so far.

On this machine the maxed out settings are unplayable in some maps, while lowering the settings yield only marginal gain. HOMMV is easily the worst performer so far in my hard drive, which includes Half Life 2, Call of Duty 2, GRAW, AoE3 and yes it did include F.E.A.R at some point.

I strongly believe I should be getting far smoother performance with this game and the reason I¨m not is that it´s sorely unoptimized. Having tinkered with the options without success I felt compelled to start hearing from you guys. Hence this thread, thanks for your input.

Khel.

[Vlad976]

Vote Not at all. My computer's not cool enough to handle Heroes V yet.

[Sikon]

Not the best, agreed, but completely serviceable for me -- so far.

Actually, pretty close to my configuration, except that I have 2800+. And until recently I had an FX 5700...

[innokenti]

Acceptable. All good except for the DAMNED TREEEEEES. AAAAARGH. Inferno M4 drove me mad with it's unbelievable slowness.

[Purple Sky]

I can only run HoMM V on the lowest settings and it *still* laggs. Its terrible. I can play all other games normally though.

[Wolfshanze]

I agree the game should be optimized better... there is also a memory leak.

Still, as long as you have a decent computer (and I'm not talking old non-gaming cards for your graphics), the game is definately playable. With future patches, hopefully the performance will pick up, but even if they never patch it, it's serviceable.

[cooper82]

Voted Acceptable.

Geforce4 Titanium 4200, 64 MB (Settings: Very Low Quality, 1024x768)
No problems at all. I am very happy that the game runs smoothly. Only at max zoomout and at eye-level chopping.

Cooper

[Paradox]

my machine is a 3/2Ghz pentium4, 1gig ram, and ati 9700 128mb graphics card, the game runs quite well on high settings using 1440x900 resolution (widescreen) i have eyecandy off (really, what does that even turn off? i don't see any difference...) but some parts of the game cause my game to go a bit slow...especially when i accidentily move the camera over half the map from the top of a hill, and then my game nearly grinds to a halt until i can physically DRAG the mouse out of the lag-pool-that-is-the-landscape-of-the-map. couldn't they do something like in dungeon siege 2, where only what you can see is actually rendered or whatnot (don't know the technical term for it) but basically the game is rendering the entire map even though you cant see it through the fog of war..

all in all runs quite well apart from minor slowdowns now and again (which can get quite annoying) but the griffons and gargoyles looking cute makes me forgive the game.

[ThunderTitan]

It runs aceptable if you don't move the camera or play it for too long. And that is stupid.

To the people that voted Great: you don't get any problems while zooming? Not even a small slow down?

[Campaigner]

It runs aceptable if you don't move the camera or play it for too long. And that is stupid.

To the people that voted Great: you don't get any problems while zooming? Not even a small slow down?

Ofcourse I get slowdowns when I zoom out...my system is three years old but this is an TBS so I'm content. I was on the limit of voting acceptable though. But then again, it wasn't mentioned on what settings we were supposed to be happy. I got everything on max (no AA) and it lags just a little when max zoomed out. Will get a new computer as soon as I get a job though. Tired of lag and stuff....