68 replies to this topic

[BARBAR0SSA]

I have my i5...pretty friggin lackluster

And then Tek Syndicate ran a test where they did streaming while gaming and the FX8350 beat a few of the intel chips soundly when you didn't have the absolute best GPU at the time.

https://teksyndicate...oth-overclocked

http://www.pcgamesha...chmark-1056578/


Also when the resolutions and details are higher there is MUCH less of a performance delta between systems. The 800x600 test is stupid.


Side note: Tomshardware is GARBAGE and not worth using.

[Goose]

"Streaming" being the key phrase, here: CryEngine will get by on a nicely overclocked quad-core, but but once you add on OBS, you really need a hexa-core to distribute the load.

http://www.tomshardw...ing,3451-8.html

Don Woligroski of Tom's Hardware said:

Our benchmark sequence does have that taxing bottleneck at the end of the run. But no matter how you process the data, processor performance is going to be an important consideration in Crysis 3. We can't recommend anything less than a Core i5 to gamers building a PC capable of handling this game, and serious enthusiasts will want a Core i7. Crysis 3 appears to be one of those rare games optimized for multi-core processors, as evidenced by the six-core Sandy Bridge-E's strong result compared to quad-core Ivy Bridge.

Having said that, AMD's FX-8350 provides serviceable Crysis 3 game play. Despite the frame rate valley we experienced in our benchmark run, this CPU achieves smoother performance on average. Perhaps this is something Crytek will be able to address through a future update.

[xWiredx]

Nick Rarang, on 14 May 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

things... stuff...

So did you try to game on a Power6/Power7 system running Red Hat and WINE during the PS3/X360 era?

The Tom's Hardware link from Goose shows exactly what I was talking about - the minute those AMD chips have to do a lot of other work, their lack of perf/clock becomes more apparent. A chip with a 500-700MhZ deficit and 4 less cores has a 30% better minimum FPS. It's an absolutely terrible design. Again, from an earlier post, even AMD knows this and is designing a new architecture completely astray from the modular arch bulldozer/piledriver/steamroller they've been selling. The new design takes cues from AMD's Thuban and Intel's Sandy Bridge.

As a side note: Yeah, Tom's Hardware is mostly garbage. It's too bad HardOCP doesn't get new chips from AMD to test with, or we'd get a more straight-up answer as to how big of a difference there is and in what scenarios it matters. Either way, pretty much any review you look at will tell you CryEngine3-based games need an i5 or better combined with all the GPU power you can possibly throw at it. The difference between DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2400 is a good few FPS, too.

[DarphBobo]

Your bickering is completely useless. Not a single post from the last 2 pages has helped a single bit in figuring WHY IN THE NAME OF MARY AND JOSEPH will this inanely "optimized" game will run at 16 FPS on a R9 290X.

Why in the name of all that's holy can't a bunch of devs figure out how to use a GPU in the year of our Lord 2014. After what has seemed like 2 years of pre-alpha.

[Goose]

Which part of "CPU bound" did you not understand?

[Golrar]

Because they hate us, and they realize if we argue amongst ourselves, maybe we will forget about them.

[DarphBobo]

The part that makes zaroo sense. Meaning Crysis 2 gives me 100+FPS at medium settings and well over 60 at ultra high with everything on (same Cryengine 3 btw) on the same fracking rig.

BF4 runs at 50-60 with everything maxxed out, with the occasional 30 and under in cutscenes. COD: Ghosts has a similar FPS at highest settings with all the bells and whistles.

Every game I have can be played at well over acceptable FPS with this rig in 1080p resolution with everything maxxed out ghaphics-wise.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm angry at myself for sinking so much cash and time in this trainwreck of a game. If it wasn't for the wonderful people I play with I would have quit it a long time ago.

[Grimmrog]

Golrar, on 13 May 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

stuff about future games and AMD doing it better

but you paly game X now.
and in future you may also have replaced your CPU, Since "future" games may easily be 2-3 years before they come out.
So whats the sense of a relying on a possible used feature?

You are trying to tell people they should not buy the sportscar and buy an SUV because in future streets may be so damaged that you can't drive on them at full sports cars speed anymore. But in real now and here streets are fine, and the future is unknown.

[Goose]

DarphBobo, on 16 May 2014 - 01:15 AM, said:

The part that makes zaroo sense. Meaning Crysis 2 gives me 100+FPS at medium settings and well over 60 at ultra high with everything on (same Cryengine 3 btw) on the same fracking rig.

Did you not get the memo on how this is a battalion-scale game using a squad-/pedestrian-scale engine? Nomad and Psycho are not Quickdraw sized, you know.

[Goose]

Krinkov, on 14 May 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

Confirmation from Karl Berg about a performance drop when using 8 core AMD processors. The question was about getting better performance by turning off the odd cores on my 8120 because of their inability to handle floating point operations.

So, yeah; About that: If you add

ca_thread0Affinity = 0
ca_thread1Affinity = 0
r_WaterUpdateThread = 0
sys_main_CPU = 0
sys_physics_CPU = 0
sys_streaming_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread0_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread1_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread2_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread3_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread4_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread5_CPU = 0

to your user.cfg, and stop with the Lasso tweak, what happens?

If you change them zeros to, say, all even numbers, what happens?

(And why it took me so long to ask … )

Edited by Goose, 16 May 2014 - 02:02 PM.

[yamishan]

FOR THE OP im running amd everything too, my mwo settings are 1600x900res dx9 mode, motion blur off, dmg glow on, effects low, object detail very high, particles low, PP low, shading very high, shadows low, texturing very high, environment very high, AA off, and my gpu load sits around 60% while in-match only spiking to 100% at death and continues at 100% while spectating ....something funky there and its def just tossing almost everything at the cpu......and changing the object detail, shading, texturing, and environment settings has ZERO EFFECT on fps and gpu load ....something isnt right with the game somewhere and i think thats mainly the ops problem i would suggest turning down or off the things i have as well to see if that makes any diff as PP and AA seem to kill it and particles and effects do so as well to a lesser degree at least with my pure amd setup and i get generally 40-60fps dropping to 20fps in a furball as people seem to call it these days. hardware is detailed in the lower section
FOR THE REST OF YOU ARGUMENTATIVE SHITHEADS AND VARIOUS OTHERS i find the whole amd vs intel battle a waste of time ...my problem is only with this game and this game only so who gives a **** what your using to play it, im sorry but if i can run any other game including crysis 2 on ultra and crysis 3 on max (which amuzingly is 1 step below ultra settings) and also something that can be more directly compared to mwo which is warface which is a crytek dev'd game that is also online and using cryengine and get 60+fps with a amd fx 4100 clocked up to 3.88 8gb ddr 1600 clocked down to 14**Mhz (forget the exact # but its in the 1400-1490MHz range )for optimal timings and a old ass radeon 7770 GHz edition.... you would think a so called beta online game like this that is using cryengine would run decent as well on even medium settings but yet i bottom out to 20fps in a furball so to speak ...obviously pgi does not know how to deal with cryengine and make a game that uses it regardless of cpu/gpu branding and architecture

[Corvin Reinhardt]

Hey guys, sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you...

My system specifications are as follows:
AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core Processor (3.6ghz)
16GB DDR RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7900 Series Graphics
Win 7 64-bit
Game is installed on a SSD


When I run the game on maximum settings I only get about 20-25 FPS, and when I run the game on the lowest settings I also get around 20-25 FPS so reducing the graphics settings is not helping me.

I can run almost any other game on full settings (BF4, COD, RAGE, Skyrim) and not experience any drop in FPS. What is most sad is that the game was actually running better on my 1st generation i5 laptop

Any advice would be much appreciated!

Edited by Nitzol, 20 May 2014 - 04:50 AM.

[yamishan]

u can try using a config file to tell it to use multiple threads and which ones to use to try to get some improvement i did that and got a 15-20 fps boost across the board from doing that prob cause the game is cpu heavy ... also some minor overclocking will probly help even just a couple hundred Mhz increase in speed can get some decent increases to make it more playable

[Krinkov]

This is what my system.cfg file looks like after some tweaking. This fix is for 8 core processors only. You will need to adjust the core numbers if you have less cores. The "sys_flash_address_space" and below are thanks to SLDF DeathlyEyes. That part is a fix he found to undo a bottle neck created by scaleform. The scaleform fix should work on most systems with a CPU bottleneck. Also, you should only run the game on even cores with a FX 8xxx processor.


Edit:

I also run my game on a 5 gig ramdisk which seems to help too. It removed the pauses caused by looking at new mechs as they came into view.

sys_MaxFPS = xx should be set to somewhere between your max and min frame rate and may take some tweaking to dial in to the right amount. After these changes, I went from 20-30 frames to a steady 40.

r_MultiThreaded = 1
sys_MaxFPS = 40
ca_thread0Affinity = 0
ca_thread1Affinity = 2
r_WaterUpdateThread = 4
sys_main_CPU = 0
sys_physics_CPU = 6
sys_streaming_CPU = 4
sys_TaskThread0_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread1_CPU = 2
sys_TaskThread2_CPU = 4
sys_TaskThread3_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread4_CPU = 2
sys_TaskThread5_CPU = 4

sys_flash_address_space = 536870912
gfx_ampserver = 1
gfx_loadtimethread =1
sys_flash_allow_reset_mesh_cache = 1
ca_KeepModels = 1
r_TexturesStreamingOnlyVideo =1
gfx_loadtimethread = 1
gfx_inputevents_triggerrepeat = .025

Edited by Krinkov, 21 May 2014 - 06:19 PM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Krinkov, on 21 May 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

This is what my system.cfg file looks like after some tweaking. This fix is for 8 core processors only. You will need to adjust the core numbers if you have less cores. The "sys_flash_address_space" and below are thanks to SLDF DeathlyEyes. That part is a fix he found to undo a bottle neck created by scaleform. The scaleform fix should work on most systems with a CPU bottleneck. Also, you should only run the game on even cores with a FX 8xxx processor.


Edit:

I also run my game on a 5 gig ramdisk which seems to help too. It removed the pauses caused by looking at new mechs as they came into view.

sys_MaxFPS = xx should be set to somewhere between your max and min frame rate and may take some tweaking to dial in to the right amount. After these changes, I went from 20-30 frames to a steady 40.

r_MultiThreaded = 1
sys_MaxFPS = 40
ca_thread0Affinity = 0
ca_thread1Affinity = 2
r_WaterUpdateThread = 4
sys_main_CPU = 0
sys_physics_CPU = 6
sys_streaming_CPU = 4
sys_TaskThread0_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread1_CPU = 2
sys_TaskThread2_CPU = 4
sys_TaskThread3_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread4_CPU = 2
sys_TaskThread5_CPU = 4

sys_flash_address_space = 536870912
gfx_ampserver = 1
gfx_loadtimethread =1
sys_flash_allow_reset_mesh_cache = 1
ca_KeepModels = 1
r_TexturesStreamingOnlyVideo =1
gfx_loadtimethread = 1
gfx_inputevents_triggerrepeat = .025

Im going to try this out......lets see if my 8 cores with affinity program core parking off 100% all the time.....90FPS when i take control of mech, 35FPS in the worst of brawls in a LRM storm with lazer light show....... will fare better after this "cfg"

[Goose]

Real Testing™!

How did you pick them thread placements? AFAICT, it's ca_thread0Affinity is the busy one, and and not sys_physics_CPU, thus it's ca_thread0 that needs to have a core all to itself.

I also remember sousing out how sys_TaskThread2_CPU and sys_TaskThread4_CPU where somehow "special," and needed more attention then the other four, or even more then threads not-named "ca_thread0Affinity" …

The next quistion(s) becomes

p_num_threads = 1
sys_limit_phys_thread_count = 1
;help: Limits p_num_threads to physical CPU count - 1
sys_job_system_max_worker = 8
s_NumLoadingThreadsToUse = 2
r_ShadersAsyncMaxThreads = 1
e_AutoPrecacheCgfMaxTasks = 8

All 'cept "thread_count" can be set to 4 or 8† for a Piledriver, but even if set to 4, will the be on the right cores without Process Lasso (or Bill2's Process Manager) to "guide" them?

Also: sys_budget_soundCPU of 5 or less seems good to have …

†Er: s_NumLoadingThreadsToUse will only go as high as 5, and sys_limit_phys_thread_count needs to be 0 for p_num_threads to be in play.

[Krinkov]

Goose, on 21 May 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

[color=#959595]How did you pick them thread placements? AFAICT, it's ca_thread0Affinity is the busy one, and and not sys_physics_CPU, thus it's ca_thread0 that needs to have a core all to itself.[/color]

I set the cores based on just monitoring cpu usage. The core with physics on it was running the highest so I left it on it's own core. I will try messing with the affinity threads more. Did you try the scaleform bottleneck fix?

[Goose]

I've seen it, but it came up while something else was going on with my system that I've still not nailed down (Teh 03MAY copy of Flash-64 Beta? Ghostery on Waterfox 28 + pushes from some obnoxious pages?) I just can't form an opinion on it just now …

But how did you figure that was the Physics thread you were looking at? Using a lot of inconsistent results, I'd descided Teh Devs had locked down the threads not-named "Task" to their default assignments, thus the always busy core, the last one on both the more-then-dual-cores I've tested, was ca_thread0Affinity.

Here are the defaults:

;ca_thread0Affinity =  5
;ca_thread1Affinity = 3
;r_WaterUpdateThread = 5
;sys_main_CPU = 0
;sys_physics_CPU = 1
;sys_streaming_CPU = 1
;sys_TaskThread0_CPU = 3
;sys_TaskThread1_CPU = 5
;sys_TaskThread2_CPU = 4
;sys_TaskThread3_CPU = 3
;sys_TaskThread4_CPU = 2
;sys_TaskThread5_CPU = 1

[Krinkov]

I spent more time than I would like to admit setting one thread to have it's own processor while everything else was running on just two cores. Core 0 was always running at 80% until I shifted the physics thread to it's own core, then that core lit up. The guy that came up with the scaleform fix also had a boost when using my thread settings so we just called it good. If the game defaults one of the most intense threads to core 5 that would explain why turning off the odd cores was such a boost in performance.

I'm not going to be much help other than just relaying what I have found works for me. This really isn't my area of expertise. I've just been combing forums and cryteks commands trying to find anything that might help, pretty much throwing everything at it and seeing what sticks.

[Goose]

… It's not an "even/ odd" issue, it's that only half a Piledriver Module can do floating-point math at a time, so you could achieve the same thing by selecting 0, 3, 4, 7 (no module has two loads.)

Thanks for reporting anything atoll, man: It was insightful …