anyone with a gtx 1080 play starmade?

[Gonzalo]

curious how many fps you get in starmade

 

[FireG0dz]

I currently have a gtx 750ti and i run it extremely well, with a few crashes here and there, but everyone gets those

 

[nightrune]

My GTX960 does a good job, but I don't know how well. Its capped at 120fps

 

[Lukwan]

I have a GXT 960 but I don't know how to get it above 60 FPS regardless of whether I set to 60 or unlimited in the menu. I have twelve Gigs of system memory allocated for SM.

Also, the fan-noise sounds like a dial tone when inactive and a turbine when the game is afoot.

 

[SkylordLuke]

I have a GXT 960 but I don't know how to get it above 60 FPS regardless of whether I set to 60 or unlimited in the menu. I have twelve Gigs of system memory allocated for SM.

Also, the fan-noise sounds like a dial tone when inactive and a turbine when the game is afoot.

what cpu do you have

 

[Lukwan]

what cpu do you have

Intel i5 (650?) at 3.2 GHz

 

[SkylordLuke]

Intel i5 (650?) at 3.2 GHz

well,that is one hell of a bottleneck for your GPU

 

[OmegaGame]

I am currently using a GTX 1070 that is OC'ed to 2050 mhz on the core which with the same architecture as the card you're looking at. I can say that it runs it great at 1440 res. But i should point out that you would benefit more in SM with a very fast newer i7 more then you would from a high end GPU. For example.
A few months ago before i recently upgraded. I was using a i5 2500k CPU coupled with a GTX 780. It ran the game well of course. But i noticed that when i moved from that CPU to the i7 6700k with faster DDR4, that my frame rates were FAR more stable especially when around big 700m+ ships/stations.
A month later i bought the gtx 1070, but only noticed slight performance gains in SM vs the 780. Point being is that if your only real concern is playing SM. Then you would be better off getting a high performing i7 then you would be with a high end GPU when you consider that SM and java games in general are more CPU dependent/intensive.
My GTX 1070 rarely exceeds 50% usage in any scenario. It generally rest around 25% usage. Showing that this game really doesn't utilize the GPU all that much. While my CPU can see as much as 90% usage at times while generally averaging about 50%.
[doublepost=1470759481,1470759151][/doublepost]

I am currently using a GTX 1070 that is OC'ed to 2050 mhz on the core which with the same architecture as the card you're looking at. I can say that it runs it great at 1440 res. But i should point out that you would benefit more in SM with a very fast newer i7 more then you would from a high end GPU. For example.
A few months ago before i recently upgraded. I was using a i5 2500k CPU coupled with a GTX 780. It ran the game well of course. But i noticed that when i moved from that CPU to the i7 6700k with faster DDR4, that my frame rates were FAR more stable especially when around big 700m+ ships/stations.
A month later i bought the gtx 1070, but only noticed slight performance gains in SM vs the 780. Point being is that if your only real concern is playing SM. Then you would be better off getting a high performing i7 then you would be with a high end GPU when you consider that SM and java games in general are more CPU dependent/intensive.
My GTX 1070 rarely exceeds 50% usage in any scenario. It generally rest around 25% usage. Showing that this game really doesn't utilize the GPU all that much. While my CPU can see as much as 90% usage at times while generally averaging about 50%.

Also to answer your question about frame rate. It can vary widely depending on the scene. Bear in mind i have every setting, render distance..etc to the max. Also that i cap my frame rate at 120 fps because anything above that is simply wasted energy due to it being more then my monitors refresh rate. But when i turn 120fps cap off it can go up to 600 fps+ in some instances. or i could be around a dozen titan sized ships and see it get as low as 60 fps.. But never less then that unless a 400k ship is dry humping a planet.

 

[_Scooter98_]

Im on a GTX 960, Intel I5-3470 @ 3.20 GHz, 12GB RAM (two 4GB matched and one 4GB salvaged from another computer) DDR3. All 6 years oldish except GPU, 1.5 years old.

Frames tank a little when joining, loading big ships, and changing into high populated sectors. But other than that, frames are locked at 60. unlocked the ingame fps counter says 120-200.

 

[ewr2san]

I have an EVGA GTX 1070 SC. Running under Linux I get a steady 120 FPS with the GPU fans barely spinning.

 

[DoomCarrot]

Lmao, Athlon x2, with GT 610, and 2 gb RAM.

Runs consistently at about 60-80 fps. Drops to about 10-30 fps around planets or huge ships. No crashing problems.

Proof you don't need a supercomputer to play starmade.

 

[madman Captain]

Have a i7 -4790s with 3,2 GHz, 16 gb Ram, a GTX 1070 OC, I'm running 2 Monitors and the amount of chunks I load is 20000, AA and V-sync are off, the texture res are 128 . I can see this station with 70 fps it is over 1000m long 800m wide and 600m high.

Or in other words: Starmade dont need a stong PC, BUT the stuff that you build need it.

Lmao, Athlon x2, with GT 610, and 2 gb RAM.

Runs consistently at about 60-80 fps. Drops to about 10-30 fps around planets or huge ships. No crashing problems.

Proof you don't need a supercomputer to play starmade.

Why I'm think your "huge" is my tiny?

 

[DoomCarrot]

Meh, I consider huge as server limits-anywhere from 1-10 million blocks normally.

Any bigger ships aren't even allowed on most servers, so I don't really care lol.