8 replies to this topic

[Burned_Follower]

Hey I finished custom building a PC specifically for MWO November last year. But when I finished building it, I made the decision to use the stock Heat sink that came with my CPU and have only one 7950 GPU because cross fire was not enabled yet(and still isn't as far as I know). I have still have plans on building my own mechpit with a four screen setup(three screens for eyefinity and a 4th screen to monitor hardware temps and TS).

I was going to download the test version of MWO and test out that DX11 to see exactly what I need to work on hardware/software wise but I had RL obligations and wasn't able to do it.

Who here has tested their PCs when DX11 was being tested this week? How well did your hardware/software handle it? If your gaming rig kicked azz, what are your PC's specs, how were your hardware temps, and what was your FPS rate?

Edited by Burned_Follower, 09 November 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[Burned_Follower]

Um, never mind I guess. I just found out this thread and it already answered some of my questions: http://mwomercs.com/...ial-benchmarks/

But if you want to leave your benchmark info here too I won't complain lol.

[Rorvik]

I WAS going to test it out, but they said that 1) it runs worse than DX9, and my system already has issues with MWO as is, and 2) it doesn't actually look any better, so I said, "Why the hell would I bother with it?" In fact, I'm wondering why PGI is bothering with it. Seems like yet another feature that is wasting developer resources.

Meanwhile, UI 2.0 is nowhere to be seen and CW is still languishing in the concept stage...

[ArmageddonKnight]

http://mwomercs.com/...up/page__st__40



DX11 wasnt anything special. Some people say performance was better, some say the same. I didnt test DX9 vs DX11 using the same client. I tested it vs the Live client and from what i experianced Live had higher FPS in testing grounds 110fps vs 75 fps for example, there was consistantly a 35-40 FPS difference between the 2 clients on different testing ground maps, and Live used less VRAm, 1.1gb vs 1.4gb.

That said, i wish i had time to test Dx9 vs Dx11 on the same test client, becouse its possible somthing could have bee n amiss with my settingso n the live client as i had previosly used custom cfg file settings, i did revert them but deleting the custom cfg file, but itsp ossible i may have missed somthing. I also would have liked to get some actuall battles going for tests , but PGI has such a short testing period i only had like 30 minutes to test things by the time i got online.

Visualy nothing had changed.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 09 November 2013 - 04:52 PM.

[Valdemaar]

The biggest thing about DX11 that I noticed is that while it did not perform any better in terms of having higher FPS, the range of the FPS was much tighter and more consistent throughout the entire match. In the current DX9 I I can average 45 frames per second with all medium settings. However, once combat starts my FPS will spaz out and constantly shift in the 19-45 range. With DX11 and the same settings my FPS was consistently between 30 and 40 regardless of what mech I was piloting or how many mechs I was engaging.

Rorvik, on 09 November 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

I WAS going to test it out, but they said that 1) it runs worse than DX9, and my system already has issues with MWO as is, and 2) it doesn't actually look any better, so I said, "Why the hell would I bother with it?" In fact, I'm wondering why PGI is bothering with it. Seems like yet another feature that is wasting developer resources.

Meanwhile, UI 2.0 is nowhere to be seen and CW is still languishing in the concept stage...

DX11 currently isn't any better. They were testing only stability of their DX11 build and not graphical clarity because last year with the launch of open beta there were... issues with the original DX11 release. Black screen, crash to desktop, etc. Once they have a stable build it will then be optimized.

[Rorvik]

Valdemaar, on 09 November 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

DX11 currently isn't any better. They were testing only stability of their DX11 build and not graphical clarity because last year with the launch of open beta there were... issues with the original DX11 release. Black screen, crash to desktop, etc. Once they have a stable build it will then be optimized.

Yes, but the question is "when". It took them a year to get a DX11 build stable enough to put on the Test Server. It's taken then nearly a year to go from "UI 2.0 will be ready next month" to "UI 2.0 will be on the test server next month" (which appears to be YET ANOTHER deadline they've missed). It took them more than half a year to add 8 more players to a match.

Clearly PGI has VERY MINIMAL resources when it comes to development of MWO. I just think it would more prudent to put their efforts where it will have maximal benefit. Going for DX9 to DX11 isn't going to get them more players, nor will it forestall the current players getting bored and leaving.

Edited by Rorvik, 09 November 2013 - 03:25 PM.

[Loc Nar]

Tested it, was really really surprised to see Matthiew Craig talking about moving it into production. It really needs to go back in the oven, and does not seem a simple tuneup away from being playable. My machine is a great baseline to reference from as a mid range gaming rig from that is essentially the tried and true cookie-cutter build other than being stuffed in a shoebox


3570k
Z77e-itx
8GB Vengeance
7850OC
SSD
Win7Pro

I normally pull 55-60+fps on max settings (with postaa) @1080p

I only got in on the last 25min of the morning test and didn't get much time to do anything other than take some quick glances on crimson in the 2 matches I made it in and some time in training ground for that session and it seemed ok minus 5-10fps... the patcher dicked me and I spend most of the test patching my new installation of the client.



Had a chance to play the full 2hrs for the afternoon test, and my observations were that RCN and mordor were almost unplayable fps (teens to 30's), and smoke and mech activity heavily affected fps on them all. It wasn't just me, cause even in that state I was staying alive and doing dmg and everyone was talking about the slideshow.

I tried txaa and msaa on both max and high settings for a few rounds each and it was unplayably bad, maxing at 32-35 and spending lots of time in the teens for both, on max and not much better on high with little difference between tx and msaa. AA off looked rough so postaa was the only playable one for me, and even under the best conditions was jittery/stuttery enough to almost make me sick.

Had a curious thing happening though. My screen would go black at the beginning of some rounds and the monitor displays a no signal msg O_O

...luckily unplugging/replugging my hdmi cable would make it come back on, but that type of sheet makes me really tense.

[Valdemaar]

Rorvik, on 09 November 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Yes, but the question is "when". It took them a year to get a DX11 build stable enough to put on the Test Server. It's taken then nearly a year to go from "UI 2.0 will be ready next month" to "UI 2.0 will be on the test server next month" (which appears to be YET ANOTHER deadline they've missed). It took them more than half a year to add 8 more players to a match.

Clearly PGI has VERY MINIMAL resources when it comes to development of MWO. I just think it would more prudent to put their efforts where it will have maximal benefit. Going for DX9 to DX11 isn't going to get them more players, nor will it forestall the current players getting bored and leaving.

Actually, UI2.0 was on the test server a couple weeks ago. Don't get me wrong though, I am aware of how slow they are in the implementation of things. Hell, I question why they have a test server now yet never really 'tested' anything in the open beta builds (which is exactly why you have open beta in the first place). But I've had a bit of faith restored this past month in that they are actually communicating with us again, they are giving updates, and there is progress being made. Dare I say I'm actually feeling optimistic for the first time in many months.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

I'll reiterate my post in my thread. In short, mwo is still heavily CPU bound and for AMD fx series cores mwo still doesn't effectively use more than 4 cores. As such, I noticed only minor boosts in minimum and average frame rates with a minimal increase in GPU utilization.

I will say that I did not get a chance to test terra therma which has the most particle effects (ember tornadoes, improved lava, smoke, etc) in a live match. I suspect that terra therma will have more GPU dependence than all the other maps but I don't have benchmarks so please take this as mere speculation.