171 replies to this topic

[TurkeyMcCoolRay]

Gremlich Johns, on 23 December 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

I have an FX-8350 with a GTX760 4GB video card and my gameplay is just fine. I don't know why Intel guys always have to justify spending more money than me. I regularly own guys running Intel CPUs.

I have the exact same hardware you do and I do not get the performance I would like out of this game. I can run most other games very well but this one is always spotty on frames. My machine is also OC to 4.4

[MercJ]

Sorry to revive this thread (it's not THAT old ), but I wanted to include my results in this thread as well, with frametimes I captured from multiple systems (Intel *and* AMD):

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4161306

Spoiler

Quote

I have both. AMD and Intel. To be specific, I play MWO on the following systems, all at 1080p:
i5-2500K@4.8 GHz + R9 290@1100 MHz + 2x4GB DDR3 1600Mhz CAS8,
i5-3570K@4.6 GHz + GTX750ti@1400 MHz (~boost) + 2x4GB 1866 CAS10,
i5-4670K@4.6 GHz + GTX970@1450 MHz (~boost) + 2x4GB 2133 CAS10/11 (don't remember right now) (main MWO system for obvious reasons),
FX-8350@4.8 GHz/2.4 GHz NB + (any of the cards above or an R9 270X@1100 MHz) + 2x4GB 1866 CAS 10,
FX-8320@4.6 GHz/2.4 GHz NB + (same as the above system or a 7950@1000 MHz) + 2x4GB 1600 CAS 8,
FX-6300@4.6 GHz/2.2 GHz NB + (same again, usually another R9 270X) + 8GB 1600 CAS 8,
A10-7850K@4.4 GHz + GTX960@1500 MHz + 2x4GB 2133 CAS 10/11,
Intel G3258@4.7/4.8 GHz + GTX750ti or a GTX660

I've probably used every combination of the above too, interchangeably, testing the different GPUs on the different systems. I'm not trying to list my hardware for bragging, rather than to hopefully show I currently operate on BOTH platforms and a wide range of systems. Here are my observations (and I've been collecting frame times to back them up) - PLEASE NOTE THE EXACT SCALE ON EACH GRAPH!!! I tried to match the scale on all of them, most cut off at 60ms, but if it's higher the graph will look like it has lower frame times than it actually does!

The FX CPUs MUST be at (at least) 4.6GHz to begin to feel "smooth." The higher NB clocks help too, but depending on your motherboard you may not be able to get over 2.2 GHz anyway. Even still, particles need to be set to low, and you'll still experience dips down into the 20s/30s in-game. There's also the frame time issue that ISN'T reflected in the FPS figure (I'll update with a few examples). The FX CPUs just don't provide the same experience in MWO as the Intels.


The frame times on the FX-8320 above are actually pretty decent - some spikes still, but hovering around that magical 16.7ms mark (I think which corresponds to the refresh rate of the display, 60fps/hz etc.). Most of these are 2-minute frametime captures, with varying settings - most of the AMD systems have most settings on low to get these frametimes though. EDIT: Note the top of the vertical scale for this one - the frametimes aren't as low as they appear at first glance, because the scale isn't the same as the others (140ms vs 60ms). There is actually a lot more variance than it may first appear - I'll try to find this log and re-upload it with the right scale.

***The two following graphs are set to the same scale as the Intel CPUs, and are most useful for comparing the two at a glance - look how much the frames vary on the FX CPUs.

EDIT: NOTE THE CHANGED SCALE! Sorry, I'll have to find one cut off at 60ms for this too, the graph expanded vertically to include the spikes, but it should be cut off at 60ms It's really the same experience as the two graphs above, just looks a little more compressed because of the scale /EDIT- Here's the 8350 at the same speed, it runs a little cooler at lower voltage settings and same speed as my 8320, but there's still a decent variance in frame times - the tighter the line, the better overall perception of "smoothness". Again, particles and most other settings are low. Different GPU, but I saw similar patterns on all FX CPUs no matter the GPU.
I couldn't get my Kaveri to cooperate It was barely stable at 4.6, cooling wasn't an issue (most of the above systems are watercooled to keep those 200W at bay ), just...wouldn't cooperate. Might be lack of L3 cache in the FM2+ CPUs? I don't know. NB was stuck at 1.8/1.9 MHz too, which the higher NB clocks on the FX CPUs seemed to be the key for communication between the modules in those processors (helped smooth out the "jumpiness").

The Intel CPUs are much "smoother"/consistant in MWO, even at stock speeds. To push the higher framerates, the OC's become more and more necessary it seems. Even still, to be competitive in CW, I generally set the particles to low even on the Intel systems (High is still playable in public drops, but I play the Intel systems on a 144Hz monitor and don't like to drop below 100 if I can :/ ). Again, I'll update with some frametime examples.
I haven't captured frametimes from my GTX970 yet, but...I had a better experience with the i5 and 750ti. The frames don't vary as much - you can tell at a glance. Less "stutter".
I've since retired the GTX660 on the i5-3570K system, but it performed pretty similar (in overall FPS) to the overclocked 750ti. The GTX750ti's higher clock speeds were nice though - if I could make any conclusion, it's that raw clock speed (CPU or GPU) is the most important factor in MWO performance.I've since overclocked the i5-2500K system above to 4.9 and 1100 MHz (GPU), and it's smoothed out a bit more - again, raw clock speeds help, but the Intel's higher single-threaded performance helps it churn at frames at similar rates, rather than varying as much as the FX CPUs. You CAN get frametimes to be somewhat comparable with a lot of work, tinkering (and cooling!) - but the experience is better on an Intel platform.

Basically, I want to see if those users in here with FX systems have any examples of their systems running MWO "flawlessly" - my 8350 is pretty smooth, but I still get stutters into the 20s. Would it be worth upgrading from a highly-overclocked 8350 to an i5? Probably not, it's still a "gameable" experience - but I would have to objectively admit that my Intel systems are a noticeably better option for MWO, even though the AMD systems can still game in OTHER titles more similarly to the Intels.

Edited by MercJ, 03 February 2015 - 11:15 AM.

[xWiredx]

MercJ, on 03 February 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

Sorry to revive this thread (it's not THAT old ), but I wanted to include my results in this thread as well, with frametimes I captured from multiple systems (Intel *and* AMD):

Hard data is -always- welcome, and you have a lot of it which is even better!

[Bill Lumbar]

Just fired Windows 10 TP 9926 back up for the first time in a while, after the patch today and the hot fix this is one match in the bog.

2015-02-04 02:35:19 - MWOClient
Frames: 12521 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 69.561 - Min: 39 - Max: 99

All my settings are at high-very high, I turned off AA, Heard it doesn't really make much difference with 1920x1200. Everything seems a bit smoother now. I have played one or two rounds on Windows 7, same settings in CW, and have benches from those games too. Looking interesting for sure, and I am hoping PGI keeps improving because I just pulled the trigger on that 32" 1440p BenQ monitor for $600 on sale from the egg. Should be here in a few days :-)

I have also waited on getting the new I7 4790K parts, and really had a hard time not getting them and a new R290X 4 gb XFX DD series card. I found it on sale for only $329 free shipping. I am trying to hold off on the other parts and the card right now and see what my 7970 3gb can do with the new fixes from PGI, and the new monitor coming. Should be interesting.

I am also gonna hold off on the Intel build right now till my monitor gets here and I can test a few things out. I have ordered some G.Skill tridents 2400 series ram, and I am gonna try to see if my Kingston Hyper X 1866 are holding back my FX-8350. Maybe I can get 5.5 ghz out of her? If I can get a steady 45-60+ Fps and no dips below 40's I might not even pick up the I7 4790K and the Asrock OC board, and just pick up the XFX DD R290X 4gb. Seriously, what would be the point?

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 03 February 2015 - 11:58 PM.

[Hardin4188]

Has anyone else done any benchmarks after the performance increase yesterday? How much does it help?

[MercJ]

I'm excited to capture some more data with the new patch. Subjectively, it was enough of a performance difference to get me excited - watching the F9 FPS counter on my main MWO machine (i5-4670K/GTX970) in community warfare move from an avg 60-70 FPS to 90-120+ was...wonderful.

Was asking some guys in my unit how it performed on any AMD machines (haven't tested mine yet at the time), they said it felt better too.

Fired up my Kaveri system (7850K@4.3 now, with the GTX960), and...it was actually, competitively, playable. Like, 60fps avg, without the annoying stuttering shown in the frametimes. There's a hint of it still there on the AMD machines, but...I feel like, for the first time, I can play MWO on my AMD machines without getting frustrated.

Without data, all that is subjective so far I hope to capture a few frame time plots from a few different systems post-patch to see if the performance matches up to the in-game feel.

[Goose]

MercJ, on 04 February 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

Fired up my Kaveri system (7850K@4.3 now, with the GTX960) …

Oh, %$#@: We've collectively pointed and laughed at ~ two AMD-APU posts since that 22DEC2014 patch, the one that changed core loads on AMD modules completely, even though Smokie had tested on a simulated FX-4xyz.

I don't know APUs well enough to predict what's all that different from a FX-4wat to the A10s, to the current Athlons: I think you just volunteered to tell us.

Since you have an nVidia card, I take it would be a colossal pain to pull it and run on the IGP?

[MercJ]

The reason I bought a Kaveri was to see if those Steamroller cores made any sort of difference - they're still the "Bulldozer" type design, but slightly better IPC. Architecturally, they're still similar enough to the FX CPUs to have the same "problems" in MWO - at least before this most recent patch. Main difference being the lack of an L3 cache. Of course, they're HSA processors, so technically those graphics / GCN cores can compute and have access to the CPU as well, but...pretty sure MWO doesn't take advantage of that.

Yeah, I have no problem capturing some data on just the IGP if you want - any particular settings/requests? I usually run 720p or 1600x900 window when using the integrated Radeon on the A10-7850K... I aim for "playable" - which means all settings low except for textures for me on the APUs

[Hardin4188]

Goose, on 04 February 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

Oh, %$#@: We've collectively pointed and laughed at ~ two AMD-APU posts since that 22DEC2014 patch, the one that changed core loads on AMD modules completely, even though Smokie had tested on a simulated FX-4xyz.

I don't know APUs well enough to predict what's all that different from a FX-4wat to the A10s, to the current Athlons: I think you just volunteered to tell us.

Since you have an nVidia card, I take it would be a colossal pain to pull it and run on the IGP?

Kaveri's use a newer architecture then the older FX series and a newer socket, FM2+. They also support pci express 3.0. Unfortunately they only have 4 cores, or two modules whatever.

[Goose]

MercJ, on 04 February 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

Of course, they're HSA processors, so technically those graphics / GCN cores can compute and have access to the CPU as well, but...pretty sure MWO doesn't take advantage of that.

I think we have no less a persanlity then Karl Berg getting wistful over what that might be like.

MercJ, on 04 February 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

Yeah, I have no problem capturing some data on just the IGP if you want - any particular settings/requests? I usually run 720p or 1600x900 window when using the integrated Radeon on the A10-7850K... I aim for "playable" - which means all settings low except for textures for me on the APUs

[insert "all the" memes here]

"All Medium" is my first thought, but medium Textures is ~800MB on the "card," and I know "card" RAM is a BIOS setting, so low Textures in all cases might be best …

What RAM you got in that? Tight DDR3-2133? http://www.tomshardw...ity,3419-8.html

Edited by Goose, 04 February 2015 - 10:55 AM.

[MercJ]

Yeah - low settings sound good then - have to make some sacrifices playing on integrated graphics I suppose I could try both 720p/1080p if I have time, but no promises.

Yep, 2133MHz RAM in the Kaveri - used these: CML8GX3M2A2133C11G, running at the 11-11-11-27 timings. Haven't tried overclocking them/tightening timings, as it was tricky enough to get the APU stable at any sort of overclock :/

And for kinda proof, here's a photo of the current Kaveri build with the GTX 960, going with the green theme (yep - AMD. Green. Yep.)

Edited by MercJ, 16 May 2015 - 08:26 PM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Hardin4188, on 04 February 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

Kaveri's use a newer architecture then the older FX series and a newer socket, FM2+. They also support pci express 3.0. Unfortunately they only have 4 cores, or two modules whatever.

I am cerain they are 4 cores. 4 threads. no mudulized business......

[Smokeyjedi]

My lancemate has a 6800K? IIRC, we have it OC to 4.6, he can now run his minecraft server and play MWO without bogging down.........@ stock he didnt like how it handled both. I advised him on a AIO liquid cooler H60 we went with.......plays MWO daily, even purchased a MSI 760 2GB after he maxed his old card out.......with said OC/

[Hardin4188]

Smokeyjedi, on 04 February 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

I am cerain they are 4 cores. 4 threads. no mudulized business......

I was not sure so I looked it up. http://www.anandtech...-7600-a10-7850k

Unfortunately it looks like it is indeed two modules.

[MercJ]

Okay, so, a few runs done on the APU only. Unfortunately, when the GCN cores are loaded, the A10-7850K clocks down to 3 GHz :/ No, APM isn't on, HPC is on AFAIK, it's just...an APU thing - keeps stuff under that 95W TDP I guess. Anyway, overclocked the integrated R7 GPU to 955 MHz, and took a couple frametime captures during multiplayer rounds.

Results were....playable...ish...well, no, not really. The patch helped the discrete GPU situation with the Kaveri, since it could actually stay at the 4.3 GHz overclock, but IGP only...not so much:

First match was on Viridian Bog (1280x720):


Second match was on River City, got two captures but died towards the end of the second one - you can see where the frametimes even out (also at 1280x720):



Finally, a 1920x1080p round on Tourmaline (two captures again:):



The frametimes on the last ones....it hurts a bit. SURPRISINGLY though, FPS averages for both were pretty similar, definitely pointing towards the CPU cores being the bottleneck. That throttle-down-to-3GHz doesn't do the IGP any favors...but it's pretty limited in the first place.

EDIT:
Finally got some 4670k/GTX970 captures. We could probably consider the thread (as far as Intel/AMD is concerned) closed after this:



No contest. Not even CLOSE. Yes, yes, I know, IGP vs GTX970, in this instance (other post has i5+750ti...), but seriously. I'll see if I can add some Kaveri+discrete benchmarks (check my other post for some with a 270X) yet, but....yeah.

Edited by MercJ, 04 February 2015 - 05:54 PM.

[Goose]

I never should'a asked.

Is that really textures above low on every test? What did you set as "card" RAM in the BIOS?

[MercJ]

For the APUs? Textures were set to "High." Not sure if "GPU" RAM is a setting I can change - I'll update with that if I find it.

[mad kat]

I just got a lenovo z50-75 amd laptop with fx7500 and r7 260x card and at first i was really disappointed with the frame rates and seeing as it's a laptop it doesn't like letting you oc which is fair as i don't want to invalidate the warranty. What i have found is disabling turbo core and running it at the standard 2.1ghz results in a fairly steady 52fps in testing grounds on even an unkind map like viridian bog.

Also the amd overdrive clock speeds don't seem to match what cpu-z states. That sais the clock can get to 2.8 with overdrive and turbo not running.

[Goose]

Yeah: Every nine months, or so, we get a story about how derpy Intel laptop CPUs get; Needs to be in a FAQ, somewhere …

[MovinTarget]

Don't laugh me off teh interwebz but am running mwo fairly stable on a Dell precision mx4800 laptop. Has on board gpu and 16gb ram w/ mobile i7 chip...

It's my work laptop (b/c I told my boss I need a "serious" mobile workstation *cough*)

Yes all my setting are set to low but it is stable in the 48-55fps...

Right now trying figure out if I should bother upgrading my wife's stock Asus desktop (shipped w/ fx8350 and radeon(?) 270 gpu)... wondering if just a new high end gpu (and probably new higher wattage psu) would make it playable at low-settings.

I really don't want to plunk down for a whole new computer...