EPTWildstar MMO - Page 65
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
| ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On June 21 2014 05:54 Firebolt145 wrote: LaNague, I just saw this video: A few of those tips might help? thanks for the video, he links a tool to reduce spells on screen which will help me as i lag during adventures | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20340 Posts
I dont think i am actually CPU bound. I just think they waste a lot of CPU time with multithreading errors. I've said it like 7 times, they have a pretty fat primary thread and it's very difficult for them to fix it, it's mostly a problem with directx11. It's been talked about quite a lot recently relating to API's, opengl, mantle, dx12 etc. They can improve it, but it's extremely difficult to balance an MMO-style load across a ton of threads with the current tools - SOE dedicated most of their team for like A YEAR for Planetside 2 to work on it instead of new content etc, and they peak like 70% load on a quad core with it dropping like 30-40% with lots of people when performance is at its worst - because 25% of that on the primary thread, which throttles back performance and then the other threads have little to do, so their load drops You're CPU bound, you can debate about why but it's not a case of "i'm not cpu bound because they're not running all four cores at 100%" because they have a primary thread that's always busy which is limiting your FPS. ^As for drivers etc, it's just a case of nvidia driver might get 80fps out of a Haswell quad core @4.5ghz, while Radeon one might get 55 in the same place. As for comparing dx9 and dx11.. You REALLY have to compare same place down to the exact camera position and angle, and then take into account that dx9 disables some shader stuff. I'l give it a shot later, when i install 340 family drivers. I'l triple emphasize the exact place and camera angle though, or EXACT benchmark run (with a pretty big margin for error) because sometimes my FPS increases by 1.5x+ by changing where i'm pointing the camera. On June 21 2014 06:17 killerdog wrote: Cyro's tech support blue is leaking :p Well, i feel somewhat obligated to research and point out some things, because the vast vast majority of playerbase doesn't seem to be tech literate to the point of following latest discussions about overclocking, driver efficiency, api's and tracking stats like individual thread load as well as where the game runs slower and why, etc | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
It may not seem like it, but i know a bit of PC stuff myself, as i design real-time applications where runtime is literally money, you dont need to write pages on my account. I was just frustrated that my shiny new PC is lagging in my new game  | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20340 Posts
 sorryI hate to see people frustrated because they have an FX processor and are trying to run stuff that isn't split ideally onto a ton of threads, or more recently because of a problem with one side's drivers being way more efficient than the other side for directx. It's a pain and a lot of people will be affected, but best i can do is gate people towards intel/nvidia for a while as well as monitor performance etc so less people feel that way with new systems. I don't really want it to become another sc2 though (wildstar engine guys seem way way more competent than blizzard guys!!) where the first message to everyone entering tech forum is that you need a certain system config to play the game nearly optimally and that a lot of setups that people were told were "high end" get outperformed by systems costing a quarter as much ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ANcDGZH.jpg) This is why you have to be EXTREMELY careful with hardware and what works well, when it works well, when it doesn't etc. Right now with 2'nd-4'th gen i5 you're good for running anything without any real weaknesses - but bad API (dx11) paired with less efficient radeon driver hurts | ||
|
Thalandros
Netherlands1151 Posts
| ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On June 21 2014 06:43 Cyro wrote: aha i get it sorryI hate to see people frustrated because they have an FX processor and are trying to run stuff that isn't split ideally onto a ton of threads, or more recently because of a problem with one side's drivers being way more efficient than the other side for directx. It's a pain and a lot of people will be affected, but best i can do is gate people towards intel/nvidia for a while as well as monitor performance etc so less people feel that way with new systems. I don't really want it to become another sc2 though (wildstar engine guys seem way way more competent than blizzard guys!!) where the first message to everyone entering tech forum is that you need a certain system config to play the game nearly optimally and that a lot of setups that people were told were "high end" get outperformed by systems costing a quarter as much This is why you have to be EXTREMELY careful with hardware and what works well, when it works well, when it doesn't etc. Right now with 2'nd-4'th gen i5 you're good for running anything without any real weaknesses - but bad API (dx11) paired with less efficient radeon driver hurts one day im gonna build a pc and play this game with graphics above the loewst | ||
KristofferAG
Norway25712 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20340 Posts
On June 21 2014 11:10 KristofferAG wrote: This game runs like absolute ass on my computer. I've turned everything as far down as I can tolerate. It's soooo bad. What's your hardware? If you're CPU bound, then turning down most stuff doesn't do anything | ||
|
KristofferAG
Norway25712 Posts
Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2120 CPU @ 3.30GHz 4 GB RAM GeForce GTX 550 Ti | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20340 Posts
On June 21 2014 20:15 KristofferAG wrote: Well, it is getting old, so I suppose it's time for an update. Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2120 CPU @ 3.30GHz 4 GB RAM GeForce GTX 550 Ti probably gpu more than anything, there were GPU's 2.5x stronger then that in like 2010 | ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On June 21 2014 22:30 Cyro wrote: probably gpu more than anything, there were GPU's 2.5x stronger then that in like 2010 would that mean a gtx 460 would struggle?  noo my one hope | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20340 Posts
On June 21 2014 23:05 Targe wrote: would that mean a gtx 460 would struggle? noo my one hope 460 is slightly stronger than 550ti - for 1080p, it probably wouldn't run great at mostly max settings. Midrange GPU from a few years ago does great though, is just "midrange from over 4 years ago" is not ideal for such a combination of resolution, graphical quality and FPS. You have a triangle there and you have to compromise on at least one point if you have bad graphical hardware. Graphical side of hardware is still leaping forward, even if CPU's have been stagnant for 2011-2014. I don't think there is any optimization/usage problem with GPU's, like there is with it being difficult to load a ton of CPU cores. I'm getting a GPU that's faster by 2x in the next 9 months or so, but i already spend a ton of time at 100-180fps at max settings aside from those three (dynamic shadows off, small object detail low, view distance 512) so i get the impression it's just people having issue with singlethreaded CPU strength, driver efficiency and cpu-based performance walls in general when they have a graphics card that is decent by todays standards* and can't run the game well. It's extremely rare that my GPU is maxed out and my framerate is poor - it usually only gets to stretch its legs when my CPU + driver combination allows for high FPS in the first place, because otherwise it's sitting around waiting for the CPU most of the time. *The 750ti costs like £110 and is suitable for use + normal in a system around ~£350-400 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1133?vs=1130 If you struggle with FPS on 1080p and high settings using a 550ti or a 460, then the problem is not really the game - the problem is that your GPU is half as fast as what you'd expect to find in a £400 system, these days | ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On June 22 2014 00:32 Cyro wrote: 460 is slightly stronger than 550ti - for 1080p, it probably wouldn't run great at mostly max settings. Midrange GPU from a few years ago does great though, is just "midrange from over 4 years ago" is not ideal for such a combination of resolution, graphical quality and FPS. You have a triangle there and you have to compromise on at least one point if you have bad graphical hardware. Graphical side of hardware is still leaping forward, even if CPU's have been stagnant for 2011-2014. I don't think there is any optimization/usage problem with GPU's, like there is with it being difficult to load a ton of CPU cores. I'm getting a GPU that's faster by 2x in the next 9 months or so, but i already spend a ton of time at 100-180fps at max settings aside from those three (dynamic shadows off, small object detail low, view distance 512) so i get the impression it's just people having issue with singlethreaded CPU strength, driver efficiency and cpu-based performance walls in general when they have a graphics card that is decent by todays standards* and can't run the game well. It's extremely rare that my GPU is maxed out and my framerate is poor - it usually only gets to stretch its legs when my CPU + driver combination allows for high FPS in the first place, because otherwise it's sitting around waiting for the CPU most of the time. *The 750ti costs like £110 and is suitable for use + normal in a system around ~£350-400 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1133?vs=1130 If you struggle with FPS on 1080p and high settings using a 550ti or a 460, then the problem is not really the game - the problem is that your GPU is half as fast as what you'd expect to find in a £400 system, these days my dad's computer has a 460 gtx which i may have been able to take seems like its still better to invest in a system myself though from what you're saying | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20340 Posts
On June 22 2014 00:54 Targe wrote: my dad's computer has a 460 gtx which i may have been able to take seems like its still better to invest in a system myself though from what you're saying + Show Spoiler + If you wanna use the 460 and run like lower resolution or settings, you could make a really cheap system but it wouldn't run the best. If you wanted great wildstar performance, that would be ~750ti+ paired with something picked out of~ stock pentium, OC pentium*, i3, stock i5. Maybe even overclock i5, but that's probably not worth it unless you do a build like firebolt and spend more, because although quite a few games (LoL, sc2, WoW, etc) love CPU power and don't get held back much or at all by weaker graphics, there's also a lot of games that do need the graphical power too, and 4690k@4.6ghz + 750ti is a bit lopsided for those *Pentium is dual core, missing AVX instructions which hurts a bit for some loads, but rarely make any difference in games. Overclockable one can take over i3 in frequency and run many games better. The processor itself is ~£53 and you can run near-max overclock on a cheap motherboard and the stock cooler, so it can be amazing price/performance for the games that don't get big performance boosts going from 2 cores to 4+, but are CPU bound. i3 is dual core with hyperthreading, so it runs games that can use more than 2 threads well a bit better, also has a bit more cache i think than pentium. You can't overclock them though. i5 is quad core, but more expensive. They're locked unless you pay like £165 for OC model and have added costs for motherboard and cooling if you do so | ||
|
Dismay
United States1180 Posts
I don't have full details on all the CPUs, all I know is we're rocking various generations of the i5. | ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On June 22 2014 01:23 Cyro wrote: + Show Spoiler + If you wanna use the 460 and run like lower resolution or settings, you could make a really cheap system but it wouldn't run the best. If you wanted great wildstar performance, that would be ~750ti+ paired with something picked out of~ stock pentium, OC pentium*, i3, stock i5. Maybe even overclock i5, but that's probably not worth it unless you do a build like firebolt and spend more, because although quite a few games (LoL, sc2, WoW, etc) love CPU power and don't get held back much or at all by weaker graphics, there's also a lot of games that do need the graphical power too, and 4690k@4.6ghz + 750ti is a bit lopsided for those *Pentium is dual core, missing AVX instructions which hurts a bit for some loads, but rarely make any difference in games. Overclockable one can take over i3 in frequency and run many games better. The processor itself is ~£53 and you can run near-max overclock on a cheap motherboard and the stock cooler, so it can be amazing price/performance for the games that don't get big performance boosts going from 2 cores to 4+, but are CPU bound. i3 is dual core with hyperthreading, so it runs games that can use more than 2 threads well a bit better, also has a bit more cache i think than pentium. You can't overclock them though. i5 is quad core, but more expensive. They're locked unless you pay like £165 for OC model and have added costs for motherboard and cooling if you do so ill reply in the computer build thread in tech forum cyro so as not to derail here too much! ^_^ dismay, thats great to hear if i decide to use the 460 | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20340 Posts
On June 22 2014 01:53 LaNague wrote: key piece to run this game is some kind of nitrogen cooled processor at 6 ghz apparently It's not so much mean to low end hardware as much of it makes the shortcomings of a lot of types of hardware (fx cpu's, current radeon DX drivers) really obvious | ||
|
SixStrings
Germany2046 Posts
I can play D3/Skyrim/WoW and even Bioshock Infinite reasonably well at 720p, but this game looks like arse and doesn't run smoothly at all even at 480p. Too bad, I might have given it a go. | ||
| ||
