61 replies to this topic

[Rorvik]

DV McKenna, on 22 September 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

You need to stop comparing BF3 to this, they are entirely different engines,

But I DO need to compare, because otherwise, people tend to make comments about what a ****** computer I have and I need to upgrade to some $2000 machine to get barely acceptable framerates in MWO...

DV McKenna, on 22 September 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

We'll see if / when they finally implement DX11 in the game.

DV McKenna, on 22 September 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

So if minimum is for the game to launch then recommended is for what exactly? "Play at no given level of quality" is meaningless. I kindly point out to you that Low and Medium settings play at the SAME framerate.

[T0rmented]

xWiredx, on 22 September 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

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.

My rig has two 660 Ti's (I know the game only uses one) GFE's recommended is every setting at maximum, at least on my rig

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Rorvik, on 23 September 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

But I DO need to compare, because otherwise, people tend to make comments about what a ****** computer I have and I need to upgrade to some $2000 machine to get barely acceptable framerates in MWO...

But it means nothing, it's like comparing RollerCoaster Tycoon and BF3 different engines coded by very different teams on very different budgets, how you play a console friendly game on a PC is irrelevant.
Cry Engine 3 is a very intensive and resource heavy platform.

Quote

So if minimum is for the game to launch then recommended is for what exactly? "Play at no given level of quality" is meaningless. I kindly point out to you that Low and Medium settings play at the SAME framerate.

It is meaningless, 90% of all recommended requirements for games are.
The reason it plays at the same framerate at both quality settings (down scaling), is because it's not your GPU that is the issue, the bottleneck is your CPU quite simple computer 101 really.

[Goose]

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

[lots of stuff]

Why do you have v-sync on when you clearly aren't getting fps anywhere near your monitors refresh? Also: You never mention having triple-buffering on with said v-sync (although that's not something you can just do in the driver for a D3D9 game).

Yes: The "i3-2500" should have been "i5-2500" …

The game(s) you should be comparing to would be Crysis x, Far Cry 3, and whatever else Tom's is calling processor bound this week.

You know where Tom's is, and how in between the lines they seem to think an i5-3350P with a GTX760 should be the bang-for-buck build for the next few months (or if you can do business with MicroCenter) …

Edited by Goose, 24 September 2013 - 03:14 AM.

[Goose]

xWiredx, on 22 September 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

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 …

I know dropping the Environment slider yields results in my testing; I've been reading how dropping Practicals and Shadows down to low is an easy compromise to make in Crysis 3. I've also read how single cards as big as a GTX680 should have no slider as high as Very.

I do think setting a framerate limiter is a good idea: I don't know if you can still do so with user.cfg (sys_MaxFPS = 60), but the one in nVidia Inspector works just fine.

[Rorvik]

DV McKenna, on 24 September 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

But it means nothing, it's like comparing RollerCoaster Tycoon and BF3 different engines coded by very different teams on very different budgets, how you play a console friendly game on a PC is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what you mean by Frostbite 2.5 being "console friendly"...

And it's relevant in that, if any given game engine used in games with great, intensive graphics ran like {Scrap} on my system, then, yes, we could point at my system and say it's not very good.

But if one engine runs like a dream and the other engine runs like garbage while not looking nearly as good, I think it's safe to say, despite what system I'm running, that there is an optimization issue.

Unless the engine is just {Scrap}...

Goose, on 24 September 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Why do you have v-sync on when you clearly aren't getting fps anywhere near your monitors refresh?

Because if I turn it off, two things happen:
1) The framerate STAYS at the 35-40 FPS I've been getting all along.
2) Screen tearing.

I absolutely LOATHE screen tearing, so I turn it on. If I wasn't getting screen tearing and, more importantly, I got an FPS increase out of it, I'd just as soon turn it off. I'm well aware that VSYNC TECHNICALLY only works when your framerate exceeds your refresh rate, but it still happens on my LCD regardless during gameplay, so it stays on.

Goose, on 24 September 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Also: You never mention having triple-buffering on with said v-sync (although that's not something you can just do in the driver for a D3D9 game).

I think it's off. I'll have to check the nVidia control panel...

Goose, on 24 September 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Yes: The "i3-2500" should have been "i5-2500" …

Well, that would clearly make my CPU inferior...

Goose, on 24 September 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

The game(s) you should be comparing to would be Crysis x, Far Cry 3, and whatever else Tom's is calling processor bound this week.

You know where Tom's is, and how in between the lines they seem to think an i5-3350P with a GTX760 should be the bang-for-buck build for the next few months (or if you can do business with MicroCenter) …

Thanks, but I'm going to wait until the next gen consoles come out. I'd rather not have a repeat of 2005 all over again; got my brand new single-core Pentium 4 3.4 GHz PC at the end of 2004 only to find, little more than 4 months later, nearly all the new games for the consoles required a minimum of a dual core processor...

Edited by Rorvik, 24 September 2013 - 04:08 PM.

[Goose]

Rorvik, on 24 September 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

I think it's off. I'll have to check the nVidia control panel...

Goose, on 24 September 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

… although that's not something you can just do in the driver for a D3D9 game…

"d3d9_TripleBuffering = 1" in your user.cfg should do it, or else D3D9Overider, burried here: http://www.guru3d.co.../rivatuner.html

[Rorvik]

Goose, on 25 September 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

"d3d9_TripleBuffering = 1" in your user.cfg should do it, or else D3D9Overider, burried here: http://www.guru3d.co.../rivatuner.html

So setting in the driver doesn't work?

[Truesight]

Rorvik, on 22 September 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

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.

Well, you have proven it yourself, medium settings just put some more load on your GFX card, while high settings also stress your CPU for visual improvement. Since your FPS stays the same on medium and drop on high settings your Computer is:

CPU LIMITED

A faster CPU will grant you higher FPS in almost any situation, i do not know how you could have missed that. Either buy a faster one or wait until they patch the game, either way should work (i am not sure possibility 2 will happen, but i sure hope).

PS: those modern Core i3s dont look that good on paper, but they have a really good single thread performance and the have that turbo mode, both things your CPU does not have which is holding you back for this game.

Edited by Truesight, 26 September 2013 - 02:01 AM.

[Goose]

Rorvik, on 25 September 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

So setting in the driver doesn't work?

That switch is only useful for OpenGL games (Half-Life, Homeworld), and has no effect on DirectX stuff; Ergo: Teh workarounds …

I forget if later DirectX versions - Oh, wait.

I've been told there's no reason not to run triplebuffering anymore, even if is seems obvious it could "help" one run out of VRAM, but the guy at Tweakguides seems to think it's no more a gimme then v-sync, so a certain amount of testing is, as always, in order.

… v-sync is "working" for you at them framerates? What's your refresh? Are you v-sync-half? http://forums.anandt...d.php?t=2258718

[Thunder Lips Express]

yeah i don't care for this program, i purchased my laptop specifically for mwo and it more then exceeds the recomended settings but nvidia experience says i don't meet the minimum requirements however i run the game on very high with 50+ fps

[Rorvik]

Truesight, on 26 September 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

Well, you have proven it yourself, medium settings just put some more load on your GFX card, while high settings also stress your CPU for visual improvement. Since your FPS stays the same on medium and drop on high settings your Computer is:

CPU LIMITED

A faster CPU will grant you higher FPS in almost any situation, i do not know how you could have missed that.

I didn't. Just pointing out that either it's a ) poor engine design by CryTek, or b ) poor optimization by PGI. I'm going to bet heavily that it's b ).

ETA: Also, I forgot to mention this, but why is it that when I PLAY the game, I get 35 FPS, but when I die and SPECTATE, the FPS jumps to 55 FPS? What is it about PLAYING the game, controlling the mechs, that is causing a 20 FPS drop?

Goose, on 26 September 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

That switch is only useful for OpenGL games (Half-Life, Homeworld), and has no effect on DirectX stuff; Ergo: Teh workarounds …

I forget if later DirectX versions - Oh, wait.
...
… v-sync is "working" for you at them framerates? What's your refresh? Are you v-sync-half? http://forums.anandt...d.php?t=2258718

VSync is enabled in-game; the nVidia setting is to use the 3D application's setting.

Goose, on 26 September 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

I've been told there's no reason not to run triplebuffering anymore, even if is seems obvious it could "help" one run out of VRAM, but the guy at Tweakguides seems to think it's no more a gimme then v-sync, so a certain amount of testing is, as always, in order.

Thanks. I'm going to check that out.

It's really quite irritating that we have to jump through so many hoops despite all the tools ALREADY at our disposal...

Edited by Rorvik, 28 September 2013 - 01:10 AM.

[Rorvik]

So I tried out D3DOverrider.

Didn't change anything. Still got 35 FPS average.

So at this point, either PGI optimizes the game or...well, like I already said, I'm not getting a new PC until at least the middle of next year...

[Goose]

I haven't read up as much on how other cryengine games get through multiplayer as I want to, but I do have this pet theory "cryengine's multiplayer is badly threaded, being Siamesed with the main process," but all I have to go on having TaskMan (or the like) open on another monitor while playing.

Now: You'll remember how this shop has guys whom can get elbow deep into code that should have been bullet-proof when it was acquired and un-fsck it, and I've been told they are aware of the issue, but that could mean anything. Maybe it's on the to-do list, waiting fro some man-hours to free up, maybe it in the same package as the DX11 thing, maybe it's directly fixed by DX11.

But anywho: So your on Da Island with me, rummaging about for something to be done short-term to improve the game; And by "improve," I mean "better then setting a framerate limiter to half the refresh rate, and better then setting graphics to craptacular.' I've read a fare about of Crysis 3 tweaking, which can be summed up as "no single-card can have anything set to Very High, and both Shadows and Particles shouldn't be more then Medium." The things I'm observing myself is along the lines of "Teh Environment Slider Hates You, so you might be able to step it up to Medium if you're lucky," but more importantly "Turn the blooming Ambient Occlusion all the way off in your driver!" Seriously: I don't even care what it's supposed to do for me anymore; There was this short stretch of time when I thought I could run AO at High Performance in combination with Environment at Medium without a massive fps loss, but that theory didn't survive contact with Teh Servers (read: only sort'a worked in the training grounds.)

Just kill off AO and run a few tests to see if you can get away with Enviro at Medium.

I'll leave it to you if you want to turn off v-sync for any tests: I find it edjamacational to go back and forth between a framerate limiter set to a number, or off ("sys_MaxFPS = " in the user.cfg still works, but always comes out a few frames high; I like nVidia Inspector better for this), but I'm not nearly as worried about tearing as many others are, so I normally skip v-sync.

In my mind, v-sync is like a keystone in a bridge: Pretty much a last step, and often over-rated.

[ArmageddonKnight]

Its ur CPU.

My last rig was a Intel Core 2 Quad QX6850 with a small factory OC at 3.66ghz. (3ghz stock)
When i built my current rig last year, i reused my 560ti that i had added to my old system half way through its lifespan. So the main difference was the CPU. (I have since changed to a GTX 780 Classified, but i have played MWO with my 560ti before hand)

A QX6850 (extreme edition C2Q) to a intel Sandybridge E i7 3930k... the difference was night and day. And thats before i even OC'ed. The simple truth is the C2Q and C2D CPU's have a MUCH slower architecture than 2nd gen i series and newer CPU's.


One other thing i must explain to those that have mentioned Vsync.
In my own words here so bare with me
Vertical Synchronization: It does what it says on the tin bassicaly. It Synchronizes each frame pumped out by the GPU to the exact refresh rate of the VDU being used. It maters not what the Frames Per Second the GPU is pumping, If they out are NOT synchronized then you WILL get 'screen tearing' becouse the frames are not in sync with the refresh rate and thus are being split amongst more than 1 refresh.
This happens much less often and is less obviose when the GPU is pumping out frames slower than the fresh of the VDU, but it does still happen. If ur sight is sensative enough to see such things and it annoys u, then Vsync: On is a MUST. Modern day Vsync very rarely effects FPS when below the VDU refresh rate, so having it on is ok.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 28 September 2013 - 07:25 AM.

[Rorvik]

ArmageddonKnight, on 28 September 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

Its ur CPU.

My last rig was a Intel Core 2 Quad QX6850 with a small factory OC at 3.66ghz. (3ghz stock)
When i built my current rig last year, i reused my 560ti that i had added to my old system half way through its lifespan. So the main difference was the CPU. (I have since changed to a GTX 780 Classified, but i have played MWO with my 560ti before hand)

A QX6850 (extreme edition C2Q) to a intel Sandybridge E i7 3930k... the difference was night and day. And thats before i even OC'ed. The simple truth is the C2Q and C2D CPU's have a MUCH slower architecture than 2nd gen i series and newer CPU's.

I think we can put this topic to rest now: I believe we've clearly established that my CPU isn't nearly as good as it could be for current gaming. That is not under dispute whatsoever.

However, I feel I need to point out ONCE AGAIN:

Why does the FPS in the game jump from 35 FPS when playing to 55 FPS when spectating?
What is the game engine doing while I'm in control of the Mech that causes the 20 FPS drop?

[Teeboy]

It's not your video card, it's not the game engine...

It's your CPU.

[Goose]

Teeboy, on 29 September 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

It's not your video card, it's not the game engine...

It's your CPU.

'Cause, ya' know, every last gaming box on the planet runs at 5GHz …

[GetinmyBellah]

The settings for MWO have been in GFE for several months now, when GFE was in beta, just as an FYI =]

[darqsyde]

I'm going to be contrary to everyone else here and suggest a RAM upgrade to 8Gb.

If you can beg/borrow/steal some RAM and check it out. It will probably do your system a world of good.

Edited by darqsyde, 29 September 2013 - 09:38 AM.