26 replies to this topic

[cSand]

Domenoth, on 08 March 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

Just a heads up, cSand suggested an R7 260. I just bought one and am slightly disappointed in its MWO performance.

I replaced an HD 4870. Back in closed-beta the game ran great with my current processor and the 4870. I ended up getting a laptop that plays MWO quite well so I stopped using my AMD rig.

At some point between open-beta and now, I think the game got too intensive or something. My R7 260 is bordering on playable but it has frequent dips into sub-20 fps. To back up my assertion, I'll mention that to keep my 4870 from roasting itself, I had to downclock it and I still had 30-40 fps. Now I can't even get consistently playable frames at full clock on my R7 260.

PHI might just have a lot of optimising it needs to do before we can see any improvement.

... posted on my phone so my sincerest apologies for whatever auto correct did that i didn't notice.

Hmm I think you should be getting more than that TBH. Also I was thinking the 260X not the 260, as it is a slightly better card.
I was getting to 35 at the least fps on my old 5850m with am i5 on medium settings, so you should be able to do better I would think?
But for $150 it is still a decent card

Edited by cSand, 08 March 2014 - 08:25 PM.

[Kazma]

MWO also doesn't like FX Processors, so even if you get a good GPU you will probably still have 40-60 frames or less
I'm running two GTX 660 and an AMD FX-8350 and ~40-60 frames is all I get on the lowest possible settings

[Deraxio]

I7 3770k 16gb ram AMD R290 oc dx9 very high shadows:low 85-156 fps lol

[Exarch Levin]

Kazma, on 09 March 2014 - 12:54 AM, said:

MWO also doesn't like FX Processors, so even if you get a good GPU you will probably still have 40-60 frames or less
I'm running two GTX 660 and an AMD FX-8350 and ~40-60 frames is all I get on the lowest possible settings

Too true. I only see about half the cores used on my 8350 and the cores that are used have never gone above 70% usage in actual MWO gameplay. Most of the time during the game the CPU usage is reported as a mere 26%.

I'm tempted to believe that CryEngine just has it out for the FX processor line as there is clearly untapped potential in each FX core.

Since MWO only appears to really use 4 cores, and it isn't "smart" enough to take advantage of the resource-sharing-between-cores setup in the FX modules (AFAIK no software is, tragically), I wonder if there'd be an improvement if we could assign each MWO thread to its own module on 8-core FX processors?

[Domenoth]

cSand, on 08 March 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

Hmm I think you should be getting more than that TBH.

Agreed. I'm planning on trying other games to see if it really is an MWO issue or my slightly older processor/other components.

cSand, on 08 March 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

Also I was thinking the 260X not the 260, as it is a slightly better card.

Sorry for the miscommunication. I do have a 260X.

cSand, on 08 March 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

I was getting to 35 at the least fps on my old 5850m with am i5 on medium settings, so you should be able to do better I would think?
But for $150 it is still a decent card

Definitely a decent card for the price. I'm loving it's power consumption/heat generation compared to my 4870.

FYI, I edited my earlier post and added some additional information/findings and also clarified that I have a 260X.

[Monkeystador]

RAM speed id say. Make run some RAM Benchmarks. I get 7.5gbyte/s on my q8400 system. That not enough to feed my new gtx 750 ti gtx ( at max 60% load) and the CPU . Both are running not on full load.
Besides that your GPU seems to be awfully weak.

[smokefield]

i5 8gb ram integrated hd4000 graphics - 25 frames on medium after the last patch. before that i was on medium wth a couple on high. using the modified config was even better. In my opinion MWO is much more CPU addicted that GPU. I mean..if i am able to play with the integrated card..then not your GPU is the problem.