50 replies to this topic

[Therrinian]

**EDIT: FIXED**

I've just spent a ton on a new rig including a super-superclocked GTX 970 and a core i7 2600K, and I am running the game on 1440p with settings on high or very high.

Bypassing all the comments about the quality of optimization, I'd like to figure out what is causing my fps drops.

With V-sync disabled, I get up to 120 FPS at time, generally running around 60, however at time the game seems to hang, especially around particle effects. 4Gb of video ram and 8GB of system ram should be more than enough to handle this on one of the best GPUs out there.

the core i7 2600K is running at stock 3.2 GHz at the moment, which I could clock higher, but the load hovers around the 25% mark, so CPU does not seem to be the bottleneck.

Is there anything I could do to stabilize the framerate?

**FIXED**

Particles on medium, postAA, shaders on high, shadows on high. With an overclock to 4.4GHz, and I'm steady at 50-60 fps on 1440p in brawls

Edited by Therrinian, 08 November 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[Zypher]

The game is CPU bound, if you have dual monitors by chance run task manager in the other window and monitor the performance tab.

What you will notice is the game hits one core harder than the rest, which is pretty typical for games. While the other cores do take some of the load the engine isn't optimized for multi-core / multi threaded setup, at least very well despite what others might tell you.

So when you get into parts of the game where there are a ton of particles and a ton of mechs core 0 will usually peg out at 100% in small intervals. It might be for milliseconds at a time, but it's enough to notice the frame rate drop.

At this point the only thing that will help is a faster CPU, so if you can go higher I would.

[nitra]

I would not be using this game as a bench mark for your new system

i would start with skyrim civ5 borderlands grand theft auto sleeping dogs or any other game that has benchmarked throughly. to see if ykur system is up to snuff.

while the processor is a lil older than i wouldl like it is more than capable in handling this game (i have the same processor) but what the main differnce is the resolution your running at. you need to drop down to 1080p. blasmethy i know, but give it a try and see how much a boost you receive.

if its to lil i would check and make sure that the geforce experince has not optimized the game with excessive aa anstropic filtering. also ensure the nvida drivers profile is not using these either.

once you get your desired fps solidly start adding the eyecandy back on

but dont start blaming your system untill you see unsatisfactory performance in other games.

[Nemesis Duck]

CHA-CHING!

Faster RAM with tighter timings will help CPU bound processes.

[DarthPeanut]

What are your settings? Post processing, AA, particles, textures, etc?

I would drop down particles and play with others to help your FPS. See what performance increase you see with the changes.

Edited by DarthPeanut, 06 November 2014 - 11:28 AM.

[Livewyr]

*whew* Read the title and about had a heart attack...

My computer is being shipped in a few days.
GTX 970
5820K
8GB DDR4 2400
SSung 840 Pro

[Therrinian]

Zypher, on 06 November 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

The game is CPU bound, if you have dual monitors by chance run task manager in the other window and monitor the performance tab.

What you will notice is the game hits one core harder than the rest, which is pretty typical for games. While the other cores do take some of the load the engine isn't optimized for multi-core / multi threaded setup, at least very well despite what others might tell you.

So when you get into parts of the game where there are a ton of particles and a ton of mechs core 0 will usually peg out at 100% in small intervals. It might be for milliseconds at a time, but it's enough to notice the frame rate drop.

At this point the only thing that will help is a faster CPU, so if you can go higher I would.

I shall monitor the CPU more carefully in the heat of battle, generally it runs around 25% on 4 cores, leaving hyperthreaded cores free, hence I've disabled hyperthreading, unfortunatly to no avail.
I am currently looking into overclocking. the 2600K should go up to 4.2 or 4.5 GHz easily, I'm cooling it with a mugen scyth 4 (6 pipes)

nitra, on 06 November 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

I would not be using this game as a bench mark for your new system

i would start with skyrim civ5 borderlands grand theft auto sleeping dogs or any other game that has benchmarked throughly. to see if ykur system is up to snuff.

while the processor is a lil older than i wouldl like it is more than capable in handling this game (i have the same processor) but what the main differnce is the resolution your running at. you need to drop down to 1080p. blasmethy i know, but give it a try and see how much a boost you receive.

if its to lil i would check and make sure that the geforce experince has not optimized the game with excessive aa anstropic filtering. also ensure the nvida drivers profile is not using these either.

once you get your desired fps solidly start adding the eyecandy back on

but dont start blaming your system untill you see unsatisfactory performance in other games.

The whole reson i got this rig is so I could run at the native 1440, I know its not a good benchmark, but this is the game I love to play. On a side note it seemed to handle CoD:AW juist fine.
I will see if its the Nvidia driver issue, but turning AA off all the way didnt seem to help.

Assmodeus, on 06 November 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

CHA-CHING!

Faster RAM with tighter timings will help CPU bound processes.

I'm running 1860 GhZ RAM, I could clock it faster but timings are set.

should be more than enough dont you think?

[nitra]

i would try the 3.44.11 or. 16s for the drivers.

as far as memory goes 9 9 9 9 is usally the desired timings the 1860 is a lil odd in my book i would check and see if your actually running at that mem speed, the default is 1333 you should be 1600 and if your higher that they would usually entail some custom settings in the bios either manually or via some tweaking program from the mobo manufacturer.

[Ghogiel]

Try DX9 if not already. Be sure to delete shader cache folder after changing that setting and trying to do a test.

[DarthPeanut]

nitra, on 06 November 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

i would try the 3.44.11 or. 16s for the drivers.

as far as memory goes 9 9 9 9 is usally the desired timings the 1860 is a lil odd in my book i would check and see if your actually running at that mem speed, the default is 1333 you should be 1600 and if your higher that they would usually entail some custom settings in the bios either manually or via some tweaking program from the mobo manufacturer.

Why not the newer 344.48 or 344.60? I been on 344.48 and been alright. 344.60 just came out and I will be trying it tonight.

For reference I run a Gigabyte gaming g1 gtx 970 with a i5 2500k @ 4.2 or 4.4 ghz right now. Only running in 1080p though but I see good FPS with Post AA off, particles low, object detail high, textures high, etc. That is usually with a Twitch stream open, Team Speak, etc on the 2nd monitor.

Just tinkered with the settings until I found a good balance.

ETA: DX9 as well. DX11 seems to give me odd visual problems in mechlab and no real improvement in FPS in game.

Edited by DarthPeanut, 06 November 2014 - 11:48 AM.

[Therrinian]

Zypher, on 06 November 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

The game is CPU bound, if you have dual monitors by chance run task manager in the other window and monitor the performance tab.

What you will notice is the game hits one core harder than the rest, which is pretty typical for games. While the other cores do take some of the load the engine isn't optimized for multi-core / multi threaded setup, at least very well despite what others might tell you.

So when you get into parts of the game where there are a ton of particles and a ton of mechs core 0 will usually peg out at 100% in small intervals. It might be for milliseconds at a time, but it's enough to notice the frame rate drop.

At this point the only thing that will help is a faster CPU, so if you can go higher I would.

I have indeed noticed one core (core 7 lol) runs at 70 ish % load, got into 90% for just an instant

[Therrinian]

nitra, on 06 November 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

i would try the 3.44.11 or. 16s for the drivers.

as far as memory goes 9 9 9 9 is usally the desired timings the 1860 is a lil odd in my book i would check and see if your actually running at that mem speed, the default is 1333 you should be 1600 and if your higher that they would usually entail some custom settings in the bios either manually or via some tweaking program from the mobo manufacturer.

I'm running http://www.kingston....erx/memory/fury but in CPU-Z its shown as 888 MHz!!! :S strange, very

DarthPeanut, on 06 November 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

ETA: DX9 as well. DX11 seems to give me odd visual problems in mechlab and no real improvement in FPS in game.

DX9 gave me green smoke in thermal optics

[Xarian]

DX11 will cause jumping/hanging. Solution: don't use DX11

[Clit Beastwood]

Therrinian, on 06 November 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

I've just spent a ton on a new rig including a super-superclocked GTX 970 and a core i7 2600K, and I am running the game on 1440p with settings on high or very high.

Bypassing all the comments about the quality of optimization, I'd like to figure out what is causing my fps drops.

With V-sync disabled, I get up to 120 FPS at time, generally running around 60, however at time the game seems to hang, especially around particle effects. 4Gb of video ram and 8GB of system ram should be more than enough to handle this on one of the best GPUs out there.

the core i7 2600K is running at stock 3.2 GHz at the moment, which I could clock higher, but the load hovers around the 25% mark, so CPU does not seem to be the bottleneck.

Is there anything I could do to stabilize the framerate?

you might get more responses if you put this in the hardware forums

[Nemesis Duck]

1866 sounds low for Intel, and it looks like you RAM might do 2400 @1.65v. That's worth a try, but you'll probably have to loosen the timings.

From the CPU-Z reading, it sounds like your RAM is set to AUTO. If you try 2400 @ 1.65v, then AUTO is an OK starting point, but never optimal. If you leave it at stock, then see if you can load an XMP profile for your RAM. The profile sets all the timings to the factory optimal state.

[nitra]

DarthPeanut, on 06 November 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Why not the newer 344.48 or 344.60? I been on 344.48 and been alright. 344.60 just came out and I will be trying it tonight.

For reference I run a Gigabyte gaming g1 gtx 970 with a i5 2500k @ 4.2 or 4.4 ghz right now. Only running in 1080p though but I see good FPS with Post AA off, particles low, object detail high, textures high, etc. That is usually with a Twitch stream open, Team Speak, etc on the 2nd monitor.

Just tinkered with the settings until I found a good balance.

ETA: DX9 as well. DX11 seems to give me odd visual problems in mechlab and no real improvement in FPS in game.

i chose the older ones because, well there was not a whole lot choose from , figuring the older one would be more likey of a change than the newer released ones. .

[Therrinian]

Assmodeus, on 06 November 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

1866 sounds low for Intel, and it looks like you RAM might do 2400 @1.65v. That's worth a try, but you'll probably have to loosen the timings.

From the CPU-Z reading, it sounds like your RAM is set to AUTO. If you try 2400 @ 1.65v, then AUTO is an OK starting point, but never optimal. If you leave it at stock, then see if you can load an XMP profile for your RAM. The profile sets all the timings to the factory optimal state.

the card shipped with a stock of 1866 i thought, you sure it can handle 2400?

[nitra]

Therrinian, on 06 November 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

I'm running http://www.kingston....erx/memory/fury but in CPU-Z its shown as 888 MHz!!! :S strange, very



DX9 gave me green smoke in thermal optics

thats how cpuz reports things there some math involved in that so i would not fret. i think its the game personaly you could try warface its a cry engine free to play and if you get similar results then you know its the engine .

if it works great then it may be indeed time to drop back dx9 and shader cache wipe / or rebuild for mwo and await for further optimizations from pgi.

Edited by nitra, 06 November 2014 - 12:20 PM.

[Nemesis Duck]

Therrinian, on 06 November 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

the card shipped with a stock of 1866 i thought, you sure it can handle 2400?

On that page you linked, there's this blurb in the right side of the page:

"We didn't even need to add more voltage at 2400MHz after 1.65V increase which is a normal memory voltage on that speed. We've pretty much breezed through overclocking on the memory and as well as the ..."

So yes, it's worth a try. You cannot hurt your hardware clocking too high, it will either work or it will crash. But you can hurt your hardware by applying too much voltage, to any component. Heat is the great driver of change.

[Durant Carlyle]

Overclocking your RAM will only get you an extra 1-2% in performance in real-world applications. 1600 or 1866 (with lower timing being better) is the sweet spot for Intel CPUs.

CPU and GPU overclocking, on the other hand, can easily gain you 10-20% extra performance, depending on the game. They will especially help those times when your FPS plummets. MW:O really likes pure clock speed.

Also, OP ... every single person who plays this game has FPS drops. There is no getting away from that. I have a 4690K and a GTX 980 and I get drops. All you can do is try to keep the drops from bogging the game down. Overclocking the CPU and GPU will help that. No need to do the RAM.