27 replies to this topic

[Inkarnus]

yeah dusty it was ther *caugh* *caugh* *caugh*
more like dust kingdom

for now i will wait to buy the 770
but mb X rebirth will force me to

dx 11 will make it too a bit faster on native gpus
since it is a bit more refined and in the future they could
optimize it more and let ppl get more fps that way

Edited by Inkarnus, 14 October 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[Catamount]

Black Templar, on 14 October 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

either buy a new CPU that fits your mainboard or as mentioned above, overclock you CPU.

Keep in mind that for the most part, there aren't faster consumer CPUs, not notably faster, anyways.

Quote

edit: DX11 is not going to boost the performance. what it will do is make the game look nicer, without hitting your performance at all. however i hope that the devs enable some of the nice high spec features of DX11, like tessellation. it has basically been 4 or 5 years since the last generation of DX9 GPUs. it is time for PGI to make the transition now

To clarify, DX11 DOES boost performance, because it's a more efficient API. Whether you, the end user, decide to spend that on increased framerate for the same visuals, or the same framerate on better visuals (assuming better visuals come about), is exactly that: up to you.

In Star Trek Online, DX11 was introduced without additional "eye candy", so on any given setting, the net result was a ~40% FPS boost across the board over DX9.

[evilC]

Black Templar, on 14 October 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

edit: DX11 is not going to boost the performance. what it will do is make the game look nicer, without hitting your performance at all. however i hope that the devs enable some of the nice high spec features of DX11, like tessellation. it has basically been 4 or 5 years since the last generation of DX9 GPUs. it is time for PGI to make the transition now

AFAIK, the devs have stated that with DX11, there are more things that can be offloaded from the CPU to the GPU, hence you will see some performance increase.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

It also has to do with poor optimization of the MWO and what once worked great for 8v8 now is eeking out sub-par fps in 12v12. Also minimum ram is about 8gb for any modern rig for anyone else experiencing crashes. Another thing to keep in mind is to restart client about every 10 drops as the residuals from previous matches seem to cause issues with performance, it's a byproduct of Cryengine.

[Goose]

Werewolf486, on 14 October 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

It also has to do with poor optimization of the MWO …

Everybody says that, but no one can define it.

I can set the amps to eleven in the training grounds and get 90+ fps: Too bad this is a multiplayer game …

[Catamount]

Having 8GB definitely helps in some games. It's not what I would call crucial, but 4GB is scraping the bottom for what's needed to not impair performance. I just upgraded from 4GB to 8GB and found MWO played a lot more nicely in situations where the computer was running for awhile before I started the game.
RE: Optimization in 8 mans vs 12 mans vs training grounds

Unfortunately, it's the nature of CE3 that it's a CPU hog in DX9. Crysis 2 behaves the exact same way.

The more mechs there are running around, the worse it gets. Since the engine always seems to behave this way, I don't think any kind of optimization will make enough of a difference. Only DX11 will resolve these issues, and of course, likely only if it's implemented well. We will see.

Edited by Catamount, 14 October 2013 - 11:57 AM.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

Catamount, on 14 October 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

The more mechs there are running around, the worse it gets. Since the engine always seems to behave this way, I don't think any kind of optimization will make enough of a difference. Only DX11 will resolve these issues, and of course, likely only if it's implemented well. We will see.

As found in MWLL on CE2 there are a lot of little things that can make a big difference to improve performance. Also as found in MWLL the more assets you add to the game in general (Each mech, each Variant, number of available assets) the games performance tends to drop. The engine will lag when any new asset is called into the game environment, meaning you call in a HBK-4G you get big lag, call in the HBK-4G(F) you get big lag, call in a second HBK-4G and way less lag, call in a CTF-3D big lag again. The engine just isn't optimized for what MW is and in the end hurts MW ability to fulfill it's intent.

Goose, on 14 October 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Everybody says that, but no one can define it.

I can set the amps to eleven in the training grounds and get 90+ fps: Too bad this is a multiplayer game …

Defined: Everything in the game has an affect on performance, particles, rendering, animation, modeling, LOD, etc. If you tweak a particle effect it can gain you some memory space and reduce the amount of issues it can cause. A poorly designed particle effect for say MG in a test environment can cause you screen to white out with FPS less then 1, yet a well designed effect can look good and have little impact on FPS. PPC sound can cause lag in the game if done improperly, added unnecessary mechanics to a weapon can have a negative affect on performance, badly don animation that is causing clipping into the model can have hilarious yet bad performance issues. The lava on Terra Therma can impact how well your rig handles the load, remove the lava and FPS will go up, change the map to have no eruptions and again FPS goes up. Literally the more you add into a match from the maps, sky box, models, effects, to the sounds impacts performance and if they are not optimized to their absolute best FPS will suffer.

[Inkarnus]

with 4.2 ghz there are some changes seems i need atleast 4.5 or more to make my wish of 60 fps
a target