10 replies to this topic

[Rigiroth]

Current System specs:

ATI 7850
AMD FX 4100
8 GB ram
Win 7 (64x)

Current performance:
~25 fps most of the time, ~15-~20 (some times down to single digits) in hectic fire fights and intense battles with lots of mechs on lowest possible settings.. Particularly bad on large maps and Terra Therma. I've found out from a friend that it has to do with ping and number of mechs being loaded by the processor, so I'm thinking about upgrading.

MWO is the only game that I run to issues running. My rig can handle all other games on high or medium, but I was planning on upgrading for MWO and future games (Titanfall, anyone?)

I'm considering upgrading to an FX 8150 (Maybe better?), but I wanted to ask here before I made a big purchase since I heard that MWO can't use all eight cores. I was wondering if the FX 8150 would bring my FPS up considerably (~40+ FPS constant atleast) or would a six core be better for the price where the 8150 is limited.

Thanks for your help.

[Dragoon20005]

mind telling us what res you are using?

if possible try to tone down the detail to 720p med and try running the game in windowed mode

and do always update your GPU drivers

currently the latest driver is 13.8 beta drivers from AMD, you can try that and see if it help

don't do any CPU upgrade until you done the above

[sag]

old system:
CPU i5 650
4gb 1333mhz ram
h6950 2gb GPU

i had an i5 650 and the lowest i got on high settings was 23 fps

new system:
i5 4670k stock speeds
4gb 1333 ram (will change it before september the thrid for rome II )
h6950 2gb GPU

now i have an i5 4670k and the lowest frames i get are 53 on the worse case scenario.

the new proccesor is only 4 cores BTW.

hope this helps in some way so you can compare.

[Dragoon20005]

4 core should have no reason to bottleneck the game

usually its the GPU that affects the frame rate but your HD7850 should have enough power to run the game on med settings

so try my suggestion and see if it improves framerate

[Narcissistic Martyr]

You will never get great FPS with an fx8150, it just doesn't work well with mwo for some reason. An FX8350 will hold 40-50 fps average on the big maps with dips into mid 20s if you shake your mechs head really fast. To get the best performance from your fx8350 in mwo as of 12v12 you need to disable half the cores and overclock it as far as possible.

However, before upgrading I'd take logs to see whether you're CPU bound or GPU bound and upgrade the appropriate part.

Edited by Narcissistic Martyr, 20 August 2013 - 07:48 PM.

[Dragoon20005]

try downloading this to measure the temp you get for the GPU

http://www.guru3d.co...a_download.html

followed by this

http://www.cpuid.com.../hwmonitor.html

use it to get a rough measurement of the CPU temps

run the game at mechlab and then in testing grounds and watch the temps and task manager to see the load on the RAM,CPU

if possible do post the screenshots of the temps for us to see

[Shamous13]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 20 August 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

You will never get great FPS with an fx8150, it just doesn't work well with mwo for some reason. An FX8350 will hold 40-50 fps average on the big maps with dips into mid 20s if you shake your mechs head really fast. To get the best performance from your fx8350 in mwo as of 12v12 you need to disable half the cores and overclock it as far as possible.

However, before upgrading I'd take logs to see whether you're CPU bound or GPU bound and upgrade the appropriate part.

I'm running an fx8350 with a 7870 video card, with cool and quiet turned off and no overclocking or cores disabled I get a solid 58-60 fps, no major dips at all.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Shamous13, on 21 August 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

I'm running an fx8350 with a 7870 video card, with cool and quiet turned off and no overclocking or cores disabled I get a solid 58-60 fps, no major dips at all.

Ok... then what the hell is going on with my machine...

1 step forard, 2 steps back...

Oh well at least it'll give me something to do

[Shamous13]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 21 August 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Ok... then what the hell is going on with my machine...

1 step forard, 2 steps back...

Oh well at least it'll give me something to do

Have you played around in the catalyst controls? I had setup a MWO profile a while back, I'll check my settings tonight and post them up. I'm also using a custom user config from this post. I'm using the high end cfg,

Please note these cfg settings are the work of Colonel Pada Vinson, Hes the expert not me

Spoiler

;Field of View inside Cockpit (Default:75)
cl_fov = 85
r_ColorGrading = 0
r_DepthOfField = 0
r_GlowAnamorphicFlares = 1
r_HDRBloomMul = 0.6
r_HDRBlueShift = 0
r_HDRBrightLevel = 0.75
r_HDRBrightOffset = 5
r_HDRBrightThreshold = 6
r_HDREyeAdaptionCache = 0
r_HDRGrainAmount = 0
r_HDRLevel = 3
r_HDROffset = 10
r_HDRRendering = 1
r_MotionBlur = 0
r_MotionBlurMaxViewDist = 100
r_PostProcessHUD3DCache = 0
r_RainMaxViewDist_Deferred = 100
r_Sunshafts = 1
q_Renderer = 4
q_ShaderFX = 4
q_ShaderGeneral = 4
q_ShaderGlass = 4
q_ShaderHDR = 4
q_ShaderIce = 4
q_ShaderMetal = 4
q_ShaderPostProcess = 4
q_ShaderShadow = 4
q_ShaderSky = 4
q_ShaderTerrain = 4
q_ShaderVegetation = 4
e_Shadows = 1
e_GsmCache = 0
e_GsmLodsNum = 5
e_GsmRange = 3
e_ParticlesShadows = 1
e_ShadowsCastViewDistRatio = 1
e_ShadowsMaxTexRes = 1024
e_ShadowsOnAlphaBlend = 0
e_ShadowsResScale = 4.0
r_ShadowBlur = 2
r_ShadowJittering = 2.5
r_ShadowsPCFiltering = 1
r_ShadowsUseClipVolume = 1
r_FogShadows = 1
s_MPEGDecoders = 32
s_Obstruction = 1
s_ObstructionAccuracy = 1
s_ObstructionUpdate = 0.1
s_SoundMoodsDSP = 1
s_VariationLimiter = 1
e_WaterOceanFFT = 1
e_WaterTessellationAmount = 10
e_WaterTessellationAmountX = 85
e_WaterTessellationAmountY = 85
e_WaterTessellationSwathWidth = 10
r_WaterCaustics = 1
r_WaterReflections = 1
r_WaterReflectionsQuality = 5
r_WaterReflectionsMinVisiblePixelsUpdate = 0.05
r_WaterTessellationHW = 1
r_WaterUpdateDistance = 0.2
r_WaterUpdateFactor = 0.05
e_DynamicLightsMaxEntityLights = 32
e_GI = 1
e_GIAmount = 0.6
e_GINumCascades = 1
e_GIMaxDistance = 100
e_SkyType = 1
e_SkyUpdateRate = 1
e_TerrainAo = 1
e_TerrainNormalMap = 1
e_VegetationUseTerrainColor = 1
r_DetailDistance = 8
r_DetailTextures = 1
r_ssdo = 1
r_SSDOAmount = 0.8
r_SSDOAmbientAmount = 1.1
r_SSAO = 0
r_SSAOQuality = 3
r_SSAODownscale = 0
r_refraction = 1
r_SSReflections = 3
r_Beams = 3
r_BeamsDistFactor = 0.01
r_BeamsMaxSlices = 300
e_Clouds = 1
r_CloudsUpdateAlways = 1
r_Reflections = 1
e_GsmRangeStep = 4
sys_spec_Quality=4
e_GsmCastFromTerrain = 1
i_lighteffects = 1
g_ragdollMinTime = 15
g_ragdollUnseenTime = 3
g_ragdollDistance = 40
e_ObjQuality = 4
e_DecalsAllowGameDecals = 1
e_DecalsLifeTimeScale = 2
e_DecalsOverlapping = 1
e_Dissolve = 2
e_LodRatio = 40
e_Lods = 1
e_LodMin = 0
e_MaxViewDistSpecLerp = 1
e_OcclusionCullingViewDistRatio = 1
e_ProcVegetation = 1
e_streamCgf = 0
e_VegetationBending = 1
e_VegetationMinSize = 0
e_VegetationSpritesDistanceCustomRatioMin = 1
e_VegetationSpritesDistanceRatio = 1.5
e_ViewDistMin = 10
e_ViewDistRatio = 100
e_ViewDistRatioCustom = 100
e_ViewDistRatioDetail = 100
e_ViewDistRatioLights = 100
e_ViewDistRatioVegetation = 100
e_TerrainDetailMaterialsViewDistXY = 2048
e_TerrainDetailMaterialsViewDistZ = 128
e_TerrainOcclusionCullingMaxDist = 200
ca_AttachmentCullingRation = 300
ca_DrawFaceAttachments = 1
ca_useDecals = 1
es_DebrisLifetimeScale = 1
i_rejecteffects = 1
e_Tessellation = 1
e_DecalsForceDeferred = 1
r_DrawNearZRange = 0.08
e_ParticlesQuality = 4
e_ParticlesLights = 1
e_ParticlesMaxScreenFill = 160
e_ParticlesMinDrawPixels = 1
e_ParticlesMotionBlur = 1
e_ParticlesObjectCollisions = 2
r_UseParticlesHalfRes = 0
r_UseSoftParticles = 2
g_breakage_particles_limit = 160
g_joint_breaking = 1
g_tree_cut_reuse_dist = 0
e_CullVegActivation = 50
e_FoliageWindActivationDist = 25
e_PhysFoliage = 2
e_PhysOceanCell = 0.5
p_gravity_z = -36.3
p_joint_damage_accum = 2
p_joint_damage_accum_threshold = 0.2
p_max_MC_iters = 6000
p_max_object_splashes = 3
p_max_substeps_large_group = 5
p_num_bodies_large_group = 100
p_splash_dist0 = 7
p_splash_dist1 = 30
p_splash_force0 = 10
p_splash_force1 = 100
p_splash_vel0 = 4.5
p_splash_vel1 = 10
v_vehicle_quality = 4
es_MaxPhysDist = 200
es_MaxPhysDistInvisible = 25
r_DynTexAtlasCloudsMaxSize = 128
r_DynTexAtlasSpritesMaxSize = 128
r_DynTexMaxSize = 80
r_EnvCMResolution = 2
r_EnvTexResolution = 3
r_EnvTexUpdateInterval = 0.001
r_ImposterRatio = 1
r_TexSkyResolution = 0
r_TexAtlasSize = 2048
r_TexMinAnisotropy = 8
r_TexBumpResolution = 0
r_TexResolution = 0
r_TexturesStreaming = 0
r_VegetationSpritesTexRes = 256

Edited by Shamous13, 21 August 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[BigBadVlad]

I was asking myself the same a couple weeks ago and was educated to the fact that the current implementation of MWO in DirectX 9 is taxing on your processor more so than a GPU. I'm guessing DX9 offloads a lot of work for particles, physics and whatever else onto the CPU. I believe the upcoming move to DX11 will then move some of these things to using the GPU and lighten the load on a CPU. Seeing as the "upgrade" to DX11 for MWO is moving to public testing then you may want to hold off on making a decision whether to upgrade your CPU or GPU. Upgrading both is ideal of course but if you can only do one then it might be worth waiting a couple weeks and then deciding.

[MercJ]

I've run MWO on a similar system to OP (FX4100 @ 4.2 GHz w/ 7850@1GHz or 7950@1GHz) when I was comparing different architectures (also have a 2500K system, FX8320, and A10-5800K). Your 7850 should be okay at med/high settings, possibly some very high settings depending on screen resolution.

Of course, every system is different and you should monitor your hardware usage to be sure, but I experienced the same "bottleneck" when using my FX-4100. Even my Phenom II B55@ 3.8GHz performed better in MWO, I think it just had to do with the Bulldozer architecture and its modular cores (Battlefield 3 multiplayer didn't show much of a difference between the FX4100 and FX8320 for me...). In my experience, I'd highly recommend a true quad core to avoid bottlenecks in MWO (although the A10-5800K wasn't bad, similar to the Phenom II really).

tl;dr - If your motherboard supports it and you want to stay on the same platform/upgrade and are using your machine primarily for gaming, I'd recommend an FX-6300. Sure, move up to an 8320/50 if you want, but the 6300 overclocked will probably give you the best experience for the price.

EDIT: Ninja'd by BigBadVlad, who brings up a really good point - that's been my experience with DX11 as well, it tends to shift the load to the GPU instead of the CPU. No way to know if that'll be the case here, but I'd wait at least for the public DX11 test tomorrow - try to get in during the testing times and see if there's a change! You may find enough of an improvement to hold off on an upgrade.

Edited by MercJ, 21 August 2013 - 11:33 AM.