61 replies to this topic

[Lictor]

went looking for updated drivers for windows 8.1 for my laptop last night and ended up downloading the Geforce Experience and it had optimize settings for MWO, nice to see it finally getting in there.

[focuspark]

do be aware that "Geforce Experience" (aka GFE) tracks a lot more about you than you probably realize. NVIDIA's not terrible good at coding application software and the Russian team who designed / developed the GFEwere originally hired because they were expert hackers who could work around Windows OS safeguards to make debugging hardware easier.


As an ex-NVIDIAN, I keep GFE disabled because the NSA is bad enough. I don't have any specifics, but after knowing some of the devs who work on the project I don't feel comfortable using it.

Edited by focuspark, 11 September 2013 - 11:55 AM.

[Goose]

Soooo do we know what said tweaks are? What they accomplished?

[Rorvik]

GeForce Experience is practically worthless, ESPECIALLY for MWO.

My current system (Q9550 2.83 GHz, 4 GB DDR2 RAM, GTX 470 1.28 GB, Win7-64bit) meets or exceeds most of the RECOMMENDED system requirements for MWO (I sincerely doubt PGI's recommended 8 GB of RAM makes any difference whatsoever, however).

GFE, however, says the "optimal" settings for my system is to set EVERYTHING to Low and to set the resolution to 1280x720 (I have a 1080 monitor). What's worse, despite recommending the lowest settings possible for my rig, GFE claims my system STILL isn't good enough to run the game at the recommended "optimal" setting.

Ever since PGI fixed that graphics bug back in February, I've been able to get a 30 FPS average with most settings at Medium and a few on High, and while the game could definitely be better optimized (I can get 50 FPS average while spectating...), I think GFE is on just running on crack in this case.

Of the 8 supported games I have, GFE has only manage to optimize Battlefield 3, so, take it's recommendations with a heavy grain of salt...

Edited by Rorvik, 20 September 2013 - 04:28 PM.

[Goose]

You see the other threads about over-clocking? I'm beginning to believe the game doesn't like any CPU with only 2.8GHz, or less, regardless of core count …

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Rorvik, on 12 September 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

GeForce Experience is practically worthless, ESPECIALLY for MWO.

My current system (Q9550 2.83 GHz, 4 GB DDR2 RAM, GTX 470 1.28 GB, Win7-64bit) meets or exceeds most of the RECOMMENDED system requirements for MWO (I sincerely doubt PGI's recommended 8 GB of RAM makes any difference whatsoever, however).

GFE, however, says the "optimal" settings for my system is to set EVERYTHING to Low and to set the resolution to 1280x720 (I have a 1080 monitor). What's worse, despite recommending the lowest settings possible for my rig, GFE claims my system STILL isn't good enough to run the game at the recommended "optimal" setting.

Ever since PGI fixed that graphics bug back in February, I've been able to get a 45 FPS average with most settings at Medium and a few on High, and while the game could definitely be better optimized, I think GFE is on just running on crack in this case.

Of the 8 supported games I have, GFE has only manage to optimize Battlefield 3, so, take it's recommendations with a heavy grain of salt...

That depends on your understanding of GFE is actually there to do.
And using a 5 year old Quad Core and DDR2 Ram isn't going to help you.

[Wyg]

Can someOne add screenshot from settings thats are adjusted by above mentioned Experience addon ? Thx for any kind of effort!

[Rorvik]

DV McKenna, on 13 September 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

That depends on your understanding of GFE is actually there to do.
And using a 5 year old Quad Core and DDR2 Ram isn't going to help you.

GFE managed to optimize Battlefield 3, a much better looking and more sophisticated game (hello destructible environments!) for my system. MWO is nowhere near BF3 levels of graphics quality or game complexity, so why does it run 20 FPS LOWER than BF3? Clearly it's NOT the hardware...

[Enderman]

You don't need GFE.

Just use Nvidia Control Panel, and default ingame menu to set the settings yourself.

Use nvidiaInspector if you want to set more precise settings.

Rorvik, on 20 September 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

MWO is nowhere near BF3 levels of graphics quality or game complexity, so why does it run 20 FPS LOWER than BF3?

Different game engine with worse performance + poor optimisation.
Cry engine's performance makes me want to cry sometimes.

Edited by Enderman, 21 September 2013 - 04:52 AM.

[Goose]

Enderman, on 21 September 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

You don't need GFE. Just use Nvidia Control Panel, and default ingame menu to set the settings yourself.

Annnnnnnnd those settings would be?

[evilC]

The reason GFE is so utterly useless in most cases (even counter productive) for MWO is that it only takes into account the GPU, and assumes all settings are 100% GPU dependant.
In fact, a bunch of Graphical settings in MWO will incur a CPU hit regardless of your GPU.

In other words, MWO is currently massively CPU bound. If you do not have an uber CPU and you value FPS (ie you demand a steady 60FPS), drop as many graphical settings to minimum as possible.

Edited by evilC, 21 September 2013 - 09:29 AM.

[Henchman 24]

Also keep in mind GFE settings are mostly user submitted averages as well. I would advise against anyone with mobile GTX 600m series chips to use these settings, I have seen two different people with two brands of laptops(both quad intel sandy bridge units) using a 670m and a 660m both have the game be completely unplayable after using GFE recommended settings. One had to reset both his nVidia drivers to stock and undo all the game changes it made before it was stable enough to launch and not crash immediately to desktop on drop.

So far, my experience with GFE has been of a "what's the point?" nature, as most of their settings are focused on how much pretty it can attain, and not performance benefits.

[ArmageddonKnight]

Rorvik, on 12 September 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

GeForce Experience is practically worthless, ESPECIALLY for MWO.

My current system (Q9550 2.83 GHz, 4 GB DDR2 RAM, GTX 470 1.28 GB, Win7-64bit) meets or exceeds most of the RECOMMENDED system requirements for MWO (I sincerely doubt PGI's recommended 8 GB of RAM makes any difference whatsoever, however).

GFE, however, says the "optimal" settings for my system is to set EVERYTHING to Low and to set the resolution to 1280x720 (I have a 1080 monitor). What's worse, despite recommending the lowest settings possible for my rig, GFE claims my system STILL isn't good enough to run the game at the recommended "optimal" setting.

Ever since PGI fixed that graphics bug back in February, I've been able to get a 30 FPS average with most settings at Medium and a few on High, and while the game could definitely be better optimized (I can get 50 FPS average while spectating...), I think GFE is on just running on crack in this case.

Of the 8 supported games I have, GFE has only manage to optimize Battlefield 3, so, take it's recommendations with a heavy grain of salt...

GFE (one would) has settings that will allow as close to or higher, constant 60 fps. The reason its likely saying ur rig isnt good enough is that 1 or more components simple dont reach the minimum requirments to run the game at said constant FPS accoridng to Nvida.
As you urself have admitted, on medium settings u only get 30FPS on average when in battle. For a online FPS, thats very bad, u wont nothing less than 60FPS were it can be helped, otherwise ur settings urself up with a disadvantage.
Now i know 60 FPS constant isnt possible all the itme in MWO, iv seen times where iv droped into the low 50's and my GPU is only at 40% usuage, and its not even due to a slow CPU ether, at this point thats just down to the game engine. However it is entirly possible to stay way above 30 FPS so long as u have a up to date gaming rig.

If a program sugests a set of settings, it is rarely perfectly accurate enough, it will usualy requir tweeks to increase fidelity or performance. however they can be in the ball park. It its sugesting Low setitngs, and ur FPS is what u stated at medium(~30), then i highely sugest using low.

[Rorvik]

ArmageddonKnight, on 21 September 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

GFE (one would) has settings that will allow as close to or higher, constant 60 fps. The reason its likely saying ur rig isnt good enough is that 1 or more components simple dont reach the minimum requirments to run the game at said constant FPS accoridng to Nvida.

Let's put that to the test:

MechWarrior Online minimum requirements:
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz / Athlon II X2 245e
GPU: GeForce 8800GT / Radeon HD 5600/5700
RAM: 4 GB
OS: Windows XP 32-bit SP3
DirectX: DX9
HDD Space: 4 GB


MechWarrior Online Recommended System Spec:
CPU: Core i3-2500 / AMD Athlon II X4 650
GPU:GeForce GTX 285 / Radeon HD 5830
RAM: 8 GB
OS: Windows 7 SP-1 64-Bit
DirectX: DX9
HDD Space: 4 GB


My system:
CPU: Intel Core 2Quad Q9550 2.83 GHz (unforutnately, no Hyperthreading...)
GPU: GeForce GTX 470 (w 1280 MB of GDDR5 VRAM)
RAM: 4 GB DDR2-6400 SDRAM (i.e. 800 MHz)
OS: Windows 7 SP-1 64-Bit
DirectX: DX11
HDD Space: 1 TB

As you can see, my system exceeds the minimum system requirements and exceeds the recommended GPU.

According to Tom's Graphics Card Guide, the GTX470 is two tiers higher than a GTX 285, which means, at worst, they are roughly equivalent.

I don't know how my CPU stacks up as there is no such thing as an i3-2500. There's an i3-2100 and i5-2500 but it's not clear which one they mean. In any case, I think the biggest factor here is the fact the Q9550 doesn't have hyperthreading. Back in January, there was a big issue with the engine that could be rectified if you turned on hyperthreading. Alas...

As for the RAM, again, I don't see what 8 GB will do for you. The game isn't particularly complex, nor does it have huge maps or complex animations on the mechs. And as I said, I have the game set to medium, including texturing. The only thing 8 GB of RAM will do for you is, if there's a memory leak, it will take longer for the game to crash.

ArmageddonKnight, on 21 September 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

As you urself have admitted, on medium settings u only get 30FPS on average when in battle. For a online FPS, thats very bad, u wont nothing less than 60FPS were it can be helped, otherwise ur settings urself up with a disadvantage.

Now i know 60 FPS constant isnt possible all the itme in MWO, iv seen times where iv droped into the low 50's and my GPU is only at 40% usuage, and its not even due to a slow CPU ether, at this point thats just down to the game engine. However it is entirly possible to stay way above 30 FPS so long as u have a up to date gaming rig.

And what kind of gaming rig would that be? I'd expect that the recommended system requirements would let you run the game at roughly 50-60 FPS. I'm assuming that's why they are recommended.

ArmageddonKnight, on 21 September 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

If a program sugests a set of settings, it is rarely perfectly accurate enough, it will usualy requir tweeks to increase fidelity or performance. however they can be in the ball park. It its sugesting Low setitngs, and ur FPS is what u stated at medium(~30), then i highely sugest using low.

Let's put that to the test. I'm going to update GFE and run the game at both the current settings and the recommended settings, and I'll report back shortly what I get.

I'll also run a round of Battlefield 3 on it's recommended settings and report back what I get for comparison's sake.

[ArmageddonKnight]

I suspect its ur CPU. I have seen peopel in the past comment about performance and the reoccuring factor is a low performing CPU.

Its got nothign to do with HT. The C2Quad/Duo CPU's have different older architecture than the i series. 2nd gen i series and onwards are leagues faster than the old Core2 series. I know, i went from a QX6850 3.66ghz(extreme edition) to my current rig and saw massive single thread performance gains.

The 470 GPU is a solid card so i wouldnt think thats the issue.

[Rorvik]

Just to follow up with the results of my testing earlier, I updated GFE and my drivers and here are the results:

MWO
- The settings I normally use:
+ All settings at Medium
+ AA: On
+ Motion Blur: Off
+ Resolution: 1920x1080
+ VSync: On
> This averages about 35 FPS, though for some strange reason will jump to 45 FPS while spectating...

- GFE's recommended "optimal" settings:
+ All settings at Low
+ AA: Off
+ Motion Blur: Off
+ Resolution: 1280x720
+ VSync: Off
> This, surprisingly, averages about 35 FPS, the same as the settings I use. So, really, turning down the graphics settings just makes the game look worse and does nothing for performance.

- Just for the hell of it, I tried out the following settings:
+ All settings to High
+ AA: On
+ Motion Blur: High
+ Resolution: 1920x1080
+ VSync: On
> This averages about 25 FPS.

Battlefield 3
- GFE's recommended optimal settings:
+ Ambient Occlusion: SSAO
+ Anisotrophic Filtering: 16x
+ AA deferred: Off
+ AA post: High
+ Effect Quality: Ultra
+ Fullscreen: On
+ Mesh Quality: Low
+ Resolution: 1920x1080
+ Shadow Quality: High
+ Terrain Decoration: Low
+ Terrain Quality: Medium
+ Texture Quality: Low
This will average about 45-50 FPS, even on large maps.

ArmageddonKnight, on 22 September 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

I suspect its ur CPU. I have seen peopel in the past comment about performance and the reoccuring factor is a low performing CPU.

Its got nothign to do with HT. The C2Quad/Duo CPU's have different older architecture than the i series. 2nd gen i series and onwards are leagues faster than the old Core2 series. I know, i went from a QX6850 3.66ghz(extreme edition) to my current rig and saw massive single thread performance gains.

The 470 GPU is a solid card so i wouldnt think thats the issue.

It just sucks because we're always being told that the biggest factor is the GPU when it comes to framerate, and it's not like I have a crappy CPU. Sure it's a bit older, but it's a solid CPU. As I pointed out, Battlefield 3 runs just fine with it.

What's worse is that now is a really bad time to upgrade, what with the next gen just around the corner (not that I would ever upgrade for this game, given its current state), so I'm unlikely to upgrade until at least the middle of next year. Hopefully by then there's been some fixes done to the engine...

Edited by Rorvik, 22 September 2013 - 04:51 PM.

[Damian Frost]

Henchman 24, on 21 September 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

So far, my experience with GFE has been of a "what's the point?" nature, as most of their settings are focused on how much pretty it can attain, and not performance benefits.

agreed, I believe GFE and windows 8 were made for each other

[NocturnalBeast]

GFE has had a MWO profile for quite some time, but since the last couple MWO patches, GFE no longer shows MWO as Optimized, since GFE does not seem to be able to change a couple of the settings that were in MWO previously. Overall, GFE makes MWO look very nice, however, since 12 man groups were added my framerates are no longer as stable as they were with 8 mans.

[xWiredx]

Rorvik, on 22 September 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Stuff and things

Something that apparently nobody is taking into account is the fact that your system is DDR2-based. The same Core2 setup on a DDR3-based platform is 5-10% faster depending on the task. I can pretty much guarantee when they set out the minimum spec they were using a DDR3-based platform. Your system is holding back the GPU. Upgrading to an i3 with 4-8GB of DDR3-1600 should show a pretty decent difference. I mean, the parts are relatively cheap, so what can it possibly hurt to finally upgrade?

In other news...

I'd like to know exactly what GFE sets for GTX 660 Ti users. I just cranked everything in-game and I get a steady 55-60FPS, but if I could knock one thing down a peg without losing much in the way of eye candy but still gaining a few more FPS I'd like to know which one it recommends. I absolutely refuse to install it myself to find out, though.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Rorvik, on 22 September 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Just to follow up with the results of my testing earlier, I updated GFE and my drivers and here are the results:

MWO
- The settings I normally use:
+ All settings at Medium
+ AA: On
+ Motion Blur: Off
+ Resolution: 1920x1080
+ VSync: On
> This averages about 35 FPS, though for some strange reason will jump to 45 FPS while spectating...

- GFE's recommended "optimal" settings:
+ All settings at Low
+ AA: Off
+ Motion Blur: Off
+ Resolution: 1280x720
+ VSync: Off
> This, surprisingly, averages about 35 FPS, the same as the settings I use. So, really, turning down the graphics settings just makes the game look worse and does nothing for performance.

- Just for the hell of it, I tried out the following settings:
+ All settings to High
+ AA: On
+ Motion Blur: High
+ Resolution: 1920x1080
+ VSync: On
> This averages about 25 FPS.

Battlefield 3
- GFE's recommended optimal settings:
+ Ambient Occlusion: SSAO
+ Anisotrophic Filtering: 16x
+ AA deferred: Off
+ AA post: High
+ Effect Quality: Ultra
+ Fullscreen: On
+ Mesh Quality: Low
+ Resolution: 1920x1080
+ Shadow Quality: High
+ Terrain Decoration: Low
+ Terrain Quality: Medium
+ Texture Quality: Low
This will average about 45-50 FPS, even on large maps.




It just sucks because we're always being told that the biggest factor is the GPU when it comes to framerate, and it's not like I have a crappy CPU. Sure it's a bit older, but it's a solid CPU. As I pointed out, Battlefield 3 runs just fine with it.

What's worse is that now is a really bad time to upgrade, what with the next gen just around the corner (not that I would ever upgrade for this game, given its current state), so I'm unlikely to upgrade until at least the middle of next year. Hopefully by then there's been some fixes done to the engine...

You need to stop comparing BF3 to this, they are entirely different engines, BF loads on the GPU more than CPU.
MWO Loads on the CPU (It is still DX 9).

The biggest effect on performance in MWO, is and has always been the the CPU and your running an old Quad core, that simply just doesn't cut it in Cry Engine 3.

Minimum Specs are for you to launch the game, Recommended allow you to play at no given level of quality so just because you meet them, doesn't mean the game will run well, but it'll run.