Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Optimization and Performance

13»

Comments

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,466Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Zyllos

    That is a nice post by ANet. My only issue is that, running a FX-4170 (4.2ghz) with 16gigs of DDR3 (1600) and a 7970 and I feel with Shadows Low, FXAA off, but everything else maxed at 1400x900 @ 75hz (vsync on), I should not be dropping below 60 FPS during PvE (understandable in WvWvW due to the shear number of models) but I seem to be dropping as low as 40 FPS.

    The only ideas that comes to my mind about why I am having such poor performance with all this hardware is optimization or the AMD FX series of CPUs really do not perform at all. Which, if that is the case, I will have to spend another $600+ to replace the mobo, new CPU, and Heatsink/Fan.

    The reasoning behind my suggestion is that I can reduce the resolution down to 1024x768 and I gain no FPS, which sounds like my CPU is maxed out.

    Someone already posted that Umbra is not working,A-Net said bugged.

    It is the code that has the game not include non visible surfaces,it greatly reduces the needed gpu bandwidth and of course cpu draw which works with the gpu.For example you walk towards a rock you don't see the back of the rock,so why draw it.

    So i would imagine if you have a longer view distance for quality,the more the game will draw needlessly without  Umbra working.

    As to this guys claim that a driver can make a 20fps difference,i say nope.I have been around a VERY long time and it only makes ANY difference if it was just really poor to begin with.GW2 is doing NOTHING that either Nvidia or ATI have not alrerady seen so any driver developed specifically for GW2 would have little impact.I have seen claims of increased fps many times on past games and found what they CLAIM and to be fact in game is always MUCH less.Example i have seen Nvidia claim 15  and i saw 3 in game,many times no improvement at all.

    I think A-Net makes a lot of excuses ,so my guess is they are claiming driver issues to buy them some time to fix Umbra.


    Samoan Diamond

  • AndorhalAndorhal City, CTPosts: 73Member

     

    Originally posted by Reehay

    Originally posted by Andorhal
    Originally posted by Zyllos

    That is a nice post by ANet. My only issue is that, running a FX-4170 (4.2ghz) with 16gigs of DDR3 (1600) and a 7970 and I feel with Shadows Low, FXAA off, but everything else maxed at 1400x900 @ 75hz (vsync on), I should not be dropping below 60 FPS during PvE (understandable in WvWvW due to the shear number of models) but I seem to be dropping as low as 40 FPS.

    The only ideas that comes to my mind about why I am having such poor performance with all this hardware is optimization or the AMD FX series of CPUs really do not perform at all. Which, if that is the case, I will have to spend another $600+ to replace the mobo, new CPU, and Heatsink/Fan.

    The reasoning behind my suggestion is that I can reduce the resolution down to 1024x768 and I gain no FPS, which sounds like my CPU is maxed out.

    I think your bottleneck assesment is correct. In practice, AMD CPUs end up performing on par with intel chips that have half the number of cores. It looks like you are essentially using a Core 2 Duo.

    thats just not true. intel CPUs perform better because of their design architecture not because # of cores. actually my  AMD1100t outperforms comparable pricepoint Intel CPUs in heavily multithreaded applications. but even if what you said was true it wouldnt explain his low performance because # of cores does not scale well with performance in videogames. tests have shown that past 2 cores, adding more cores has a small impact on FPS. also past 3.5 ghz todays games dont run significantly better with more CPU clock. check Toms Hardware for their articles on this. past 2 cores at 3.5 ghz, the GPU is far more impacting on FPS. over 4 hours of tonights beta stresstest, my AMD1100t @4.0 with a 6950 at 1600x1050 logged 41-78 FPS with all settings on High except shadows on low. personally i think Zyllos' issue is either drivers or something else not mentioned. especially with him running a 7970 at only 1400x900

    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Zyllos

    That is a nice post by ANet. My only issue is that, running a FX-4170 (4.2ghz) with 16gigs of DDR3 (1600) and a 7970 and I feel with Shadows Low, FXAA off, but everything else maxed at 1400x900 @ 75hz (vsync on), I should not be dropping below 60 FPS during PvE (understandable in WvWvW due to the shear number of models) but I seem to be dropping as low as 40 FPS.

    The only ideas that comes to my mind about why I am having such poor performance with all this hardware is optimization or the AMD FX series of CPUs really do not perform at all. Which, if that is the case, I will have to spend another $600+ to replace the mobo, new CPU, and Heatsink/Fan.

    The reasoning behind my suggestion is that I can reduce the resolution down to 1024x768 and I gain no FPS, which sounds like my CPU is maxed out.

    Turn vsync off..

     

    Reehay: You pretty musch summed up my point but didn't get it. I was simply stating that people do sometimes think that because AMD CPUs around the same price-point have more cores, that they will preform better in gaming, when in fact they will not. His issue is most likely the CPU because he may have more cores than an i5, but doesn't have the architecture to back it up.

    Also, performance in hyperthreading is completely irrelevant when we're talking about someone playing a single instance of a videogame.

    Precursor: That is not how vsync works. It caps your FPS at the sync speed of your monitor to prevent tearing. It does not lower performance. Things can seem stuttery with it on (not FPS related) which is fixed by using triple buffering.

    Zyllos: If you are only concerned with gaming, an i7 is unessisary (performance gains aren't worth the money), stick with an i5 to save money.

  • ZezdaZezda Posts: 685Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by The_Korrigan
    Originally posted by Zezda
    AMD, at this point in time, simply just cannot compete with Intel when it comes to performance and like it or not some games require you to have a decent CPU. Funnily enough most MMO's are CPU bound as well.

    My "old" Phenom2 X4 940 doesn't even get close to 100% CPU usage in GW2, while my HD6870 is now fully used with the latests improvements.

    In GW2, the "bottleneck" for me is definitely not the CPU.

    I agree that Intel CPUs generally perform better (and hyperthreading is the major component of that performance), but AMD motherboards+CPU performance/price ratio is still unmatched. My PC is now definitely "old" by any standard, yet I keep on using it for both gaming and professional uses (notably real time graphics), and it still runs the latest games in 1920x1080 with high settings at a very satisfying speed. I was running TSW during closed beta with settings pumped up at 60 fps (refresh rate, I always turn on vsync) in most situations. Why would I change? :)

    Just because it isn't at 100% load doesn't mean it's not the bottleneck. A good example would the game I'm playing right now, Endless Space.

    2 cores are around 50% and the other two are 20-25%, this is while I'm running a stream on twitch.tv as well mind you. The game itself is extremely choppy in between turns due to the map size and the length of the game, same kinda thing that happens to Civ 5, but my processor is nowhere near 100% on any core and my graphics card is chillin while hitting the target of 60 fps i set in the options.

  • ZezdaZezda Posts: 685Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kumate
    Originally posted by Zezda
    Originally posted by The_Korrigan
    Originally posted by Kumate

    WOW = 220fps in 1920x1080

    If you have 220fps in WoW while flying above Stormwind with your computer, then it's me who will doubt your word... ;-)

    PS: 220 fps is useless anyway. Turn on vertical sync so you don't render images that will be never displayed anyway, and enjoy a much cooler computer.

    I got 18 FPS in WoW while flying over some of the content in Northrend while running the following system

    I7-950

    6GB RAM

    2 X GTX460 (Heavily Overclocked)

    5280x1050 resolution

    I can't recall if I was overclocking the processor or not but the general gist is that WoW scales horribly with high end equipment.

    In Aion with the same system I was getting no lower than 25-30 FPS in the middle of a very busy town. It never went lower than that and in some places (inside caves etc) it was as high as 100+ fps while still running at 5280x1050.

    GW2, for myself, has had performance similar to what I expected. I think the thing people are having a hard time with is with the lower end processors. For years people have got away with having lower end processes in comparison to their video cards and in some games it really hurts to have that kind of setup. This link here shows how the processors compare, at least in gaming, http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,review-32485-5.html

    AMD, at this point in time, simply just cannot compete with Intel when it comes to performance and like it or not some games require you to have a decent CPU. Funnily enough most MMO's are CPU bound as well.

    Your computer is very strange and sadly not being used correctly.  You run the game at a resolution that your graphics cards can not handle.  The GPU power is fine but the cards do not have enough ram to support that resolution. 

    Take this link for example.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-460-gf104-fermi,2684-10.html

    The 460 with 768 ram and the 460 with a gig of ram are literally the same card.  The only difference is the ram.  So the resolution size is what is bottlenecking the 460 with 768 ram.  Now with your resolution size doubling what they are benchmarking, your 460's can not even closely handle that.  SLI does not "double" your ram, yes it does optimize it a little better then just a single card but like 10-15% better not "double"  If you put a single card GTX 460 that had 3 gigs (they don't make them) you would actually get more FPS then your two card's SLI'd together.  The overclocking on those GTX's only effect when your are not using all the ram which in a MMO at that resolution is almost never.

    I'm not using those cards at the moment, and while they did bottleneck it only happened in one or two games when you pushed the settings above a certain point. None of which were MMO's. There was a Zotac GTX 460 2GB card that was released and it was a very marginal FPS boost unless you were trying something like Metro 2033 with AA enabled.

  • HorrorScopeHorrorScope Norcal, CAPosts: 612Member
    Originally posted by Andorhal

     

    Originally posted by Reehay

    Originally posted by Andorhal
    Originally posted by Zyllos

    That is a nice post by ANet. My only issue is that, running a FX-4170 (4.2ghz) with 16gigs of DDR3 (1600) and a 7970 and I feel with Shadows Low, FXAA off, but everything else maxed at 1400x900 @ 75hz (vsync on), I should not be dropping below 60 FPS during PvE (understandable in WvWvW due to the shear number of models) but I seem to be dropping as low as 40 FPS.

    The only ideas that comes to my mind about why I am having such poor performance with all this hardware is optimization or the AMD FX series of CPUs really do not perform at all. Which, if that is the case, I will have to spend another $600+ to replace the mobo, new CPU, and Heatsink/Fan.

    The reasoning behind my suggestion is that I can reduce the resolution down to 1024x768 and I gain no FPS, which sounds like my CPU is maxed out.

    I think your bottleneck assesment is correct. In practice, AMD CPUs end up performing on par with intel chips that have half the number of cores. It looks like you are essentially using a Core 2 Duo.

    thats just not true. intel CPUs perform better because of their design architecture not because # of cores. actually my  AMD1100t outperforms comparable pricepoint Intel CPUs in heavily multithreaded applications. but even if what you said was true it wouldnt explain his low performance because # of cores does not scale well with performance in videogames. tests have shown that past 2 cores, adding more cores has a small impact on FPS. also past 3.5 ghz todays games dont run significantly better with more CPU clock. check Toms Hardware for their articles on this. past 2 cores at 3.5 ghz, the GPU is far more impacting on FPS. over 4 hours of tonights beta stresstest, my AMD1100t @4.0 with a 6950 at 1600x1050 logged 41-78 FPS with all settings on High except shadows on low. personally i think Zyllos' issue is either drivers or something else not mentioned. especially with him running a 7970 at only 1400x900

    Originally posted by Precusor

    Originally posted by Zyllos

    That is a nice post by ANet. My only issue is that, running a FX-4170 (4.2ghz) with 16gigs of DDR3 (1600) and a 7970 and I feel with Shadows Low, FXAA off, but everything else maxed at 1400x900 @ 75hz (vsync on), I should not be dropping below 60 FPS during PvE (understandable in WvWvW due to the shear number of models) but I seem to be dropping as low as 40 FPS.

    The only ideas that comes to my mind about why I am having such poor performance with all this hardware is optimization or the AMD FX series of CPUs really do not perform at all. Which, if that is the case, I will have to spend another $600+ to replace the mobo, new CPU, and Heatsink/Fan.

    The reasoning behind my suggestion is that I can reduce the resolution down to 1024x768 and I gain no FPS, which sounds like my CPU is maxed out.

    Turn vsync off..

     

    Reehay: You pretty musch summed up my point but didn't get it. I was simply stating that people do sometimes think that because AMD CPUs around the same price-point have more cores, that they will preform better in gaming, when in fact they will not. His issue is most likely the CPU because he may have more cores than an i5, but doesn't have the architecture to back it up.

    Also, performance in hyperthreading is completely irrelevant when we're talking about someone playing a single instance of a videogame.

    Precursor: That is not how vsync works. It caps your FPS at the sync speed of your monitor to prevent tearing. It does not lower performance. Things can seem stuttery with it on (not FPS related) which is fixed by using triple buffering.

    Zyllos: If you are only concerned with gaming, an i7 is unessisary (performance gains aren't worth the money), stick with an i5 to save money.

     

    The i7 3820 isn't expensive and still powerful. It gives you an updated MB which should be more future proof for upgrades. That would be a reason to go i7, no?

  • xholyaccxholyacc jakarta baratPosts: 57Member
    so im basically dead with my i3 2100 and hd 6850?
  • ZyllosZyllos Oklahoma City, OKPosts: 537Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Andorhal

     Zyllos: If you are only concerned with gaming, an i7 is unessisary (performance gains aren't worth the money), stick with an i5 to save money.

    Thanks for the info but I have already ordered one. I think this will future-proof me so that I do not have to buy all new components for a while, except maybe the video card.

    MMOs Played: I can no longer list them all in the 500 character limit.

  • seridanseridan ThessalonikiPosts: 1,202Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by xholyacc
    so im basically dead with my i3 2100 and hd 6850?

    Your CPU is indeed a bit low, your GPU should be fine

    Block the trolls, don't answer them, so we can remove the garbage from these forums

  • xposeidonxposeidon Sandston, VAPosts: 384Member
    Is there any poor soul out here that plays on a computer with Intel HD 3000 graphics? My brother has this and it hinders his game experience so much I wonder if there's been any improvements since we havent been able to test it lately :(

    Remember... all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.

  • banadonabanadona IlawaPosts: 16Member
    Sry for bothering you guys but could someone give me an honest opinion on how will GW2 run on this hardware?
    Intel Core i5-2410M 2x2.30GHz
    8 GB ram
    Radeon HD 6770M
    Will it be a slideshow or will I be able to play on a decent level?
  • AerowynAerowyn BUZZARDS BAY, MAPosts: 7,928Member
    Originally posted by banadona

    Sry for bothering you guys but could someone give me an honest opinion on how will GW2 run on this hardware?
    Intel Core i5-2410M 2x2.30GHz
    8 GB ram
    Radeon HD 6770M
    Will it be a slideshow or will I be able to play on a decent level?

     

    should be just fine:) might have to adjust some things in big battles but it should be perfectly playable all around

    I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  • banadonabanadona IlawaPosts: 16Member
    Thanks for a quick reply :) My friend keeps telling me that GW2 is terrible in terms of optimization and that basicly noone will be able to play without any problems.
  • AerowynAerowyn BUZZARDS BAY, MAPosts: 7,928Member
    Originally posted by banadona

    Thanks for a quick reply :) My friend keeps telling me that GW2 is terrible in terms of optimization and that basicly noone will be able to play without any problems.

     

    in very early builds it was.. that has almost all gotten straightened out.

    I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  • banadonabanadona IlawaPosts: 16Member
    Originally posted by Aerowyn

    Originally posted by banadona

    Thanks for a quick reply :) My friend keeps telling me that GW2 is terrible in terms of optimization and that basicly noone will be able to play without any problems.

     

    in very early builds it was.. that has almost all gotten straightened out.

     

    That's good to know. I was starting to get afraid that I've spent money on a game that I wouldn't be able to enjoy playing. Hopefully it will be smooth and pleasant ;)
  • LakytusLakytus Winnipeg, MBPosts: 59Member
    I have an i7 2700k at 4.8ghz, GTX580 3GB SLI overclocked to 920 mhz, 16 GB of ram, HyperX SSD, and I still was getting 40 fps in Beta 3 a lot of the time. My cpu and gpus were only being used about 50%. This game should be flying on my computer.

    I have not tried since the recent stress tests, but something was seriously wrong before. It could be because of DirectX 9. DirectX 11 has many optimization features without adding extra graphic effects. My computer eats up any other game.
  • AerowynAerowyn BUZZARDS BAY, MAPosts: 7,928Member
    Originally posted by Lakytus
    I have an i7 2700k at 4.8ghz, GTX580 3GB SLI overclocked to 920 mhz, 16 GB of ram, HyperX SSD, and I still was getting 40 fps in Beta 3 a lot of the time. My cpu and gpus were only being used about 50%. This game should be flying on my computer. I have not tried since the recent stress tests, but something was seriously wrong before. It could be because of DirectX 9. DirectX 11 has many optimization features without adding extra graphic effects. My computer eats up any other game.

    i'd try these drivers http://www.nvidia.com/content/devzone/opengl-driver-4.3.html

    I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  • ZyllosZyllos Oklahoma City, OKPosts: 537Member Uncommon
    Well, just an update. I got the i7 installed with all the stuff, ready to go. Was hoping to get it done before the Stress Test started today so I can test it out but alas, I had issues with no boot device (kinda hard to boot when your cables unplug themselves =P ). But, I did get a test run in another game and it seems to run better than the FX-4170 so that is a hopeful sign.

    MMOs Played: I can no longer list them all in the 500 character limit.

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.