11 replies to this topic

[Colby Boucher]

I just got a new computer. I'm running an FX-6300 @ 4.3 Ghz with a r9 270 and have framerate drops to 30 fps at 1080p on low settings. Does that seem normal?

[Catamount]

Yes. Graphical settings won't help you. You should easily be able to play on at least medium, if not high, and get the same framerate. 30fps is simply the best that FX6300 can do in some situations. If you built the computer, overclock the processor. If not, 30fps is still a very playable minimum, and most games will do better. MWO is fpu-heavy, which makes it especially bad for Bulldozer and Piledriver, where each module (each two "cores") share an FPU,so you only have 3 total, whereas a traditional quad core like a Core i5 or Phenom II would have 4. Don't fret. Most games will play better and MWO will still be good enough for you to be competitive.

[BitGlitch]

Well, since we are talking hardware, I'll post my specs as I can run MWO on the Max settings for all but the particle detail (Damn smoke):

Intel i7-3770K
8GB RAM
Asus Sabertooth Motherboard (version with all the main parts covered with an anti-dust plastic covering.)
Nvidia GTX760 4GB
Toshiba 2TB HDD

And for what is bottle necking your PC, I would have to agree with Catamount and say it is the processor. Generally, you would want a full 4-core processor to run this game.

Edited by ACE558, 16 June 2014 - 08:57 AM.

[ninjitsu]

I just get upgraded off of an FX 6300. Ran mine at 4ghz. Wasn't very impressive. The way AMD cores are designed leaves a lot to be desired.

Edited by ninjitsu, 16 June 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[Colby Boucher]

Thanks for the replies. I also found a thread which explained that disabling the virtual cores can actually increase performance with these processors, and it seemed to work well enough.

[Summon3r]

as said above MWO does not play nice with AMD cpu's at all, not much can be done even with a heavy OC. i would think u can up your settings a bit tho but keep environment, object detail and particles on a lower setting

[Colby Boucher]

Apparently, I can actually play on high with pretty much the same framerate as low settings. Go figure.

[Catamount]

Colby Boucher, on 16 June 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

Thanks for the replies. I also found a thread which explained that disabling the virtual cores can actually increase performance with these processors, and it seemed to work well enough.

I think you could do the same by setting core affinity in the task manager, assuming MWO allows that. Piledriver chips don't have virtual cores. They are physical hardware. But they're what I like to call pseudocores, because each is half a core, and then shares the other half with its neighbor. Now, if MWO picks thread 1/2/3/4 to load up, 1/2 and 3/4 will both share an FPU, so you're down to two, and that just sucks.

It should be noted that if you ever want to, you can buy an FX8350 and it may do better, proper affinity set. I'll leave it up to you as to whether that's worthwhile.

Colby Boucher, on 16 June 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Apparently, I can actually play on high with pretty much the same framerate as low settings. Go figure.

Yes, as I predicted. Your GPU is good. It's basically a 7850. Don't think your CPU sucks, either. It's just set up in a way that it poorly meets MWO's needs in particular.

ninjitsu, on 16 June 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

I just get upgraded off of an FX 6300. Ran mine at 4ghz. Wasn't very impressive. The way AMD cores are designed leaves a lot to be desired.

My understanding is that AMD is continuing the FX brand, but that they'll be transitioning away from Bulldozer/Piledriver to a new architecture that's more like the Core or Phenom II architectures.

Edited by Catamount, 16 June 2014 - 02:25 PM.

[Lordred]

Catamount, on 16 June 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

My understanding is that AMD is continuing the FX brand, but that they'll be transitioning away from Bulldozer/Piledriver to a new architecture that's more like the Core or Phenom II architectures.

Phenom II was 'Stars' it was a long evolution along the K8's that really started to perform well when they got to the 45nm K10's especially the E0 stepping (Thubans)

The Bulldozer arc has problems, mostly with the fact that every pair of integers shares resources with another. When the workloads are scheduled correctly, or working in native FMA3/4 or AVX environments, they actually are powerhouses. However, and especially in this case, MWO is 32bit and using Intels X86 instruction sets.

If you want to go though the motions of overclocking, the best performance gains on the Dozer/Drivers come from getting the CPU-NB up to 2300-2400mhz, making sure your Hypertransport is running at 2600mhz, and aiming for about 4300-4600mhz.

Those three things combined will shift the bulk of the load back over to your GPU.

Edited by Lordred, 16 June 2014 - 06:47 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Odins Fist, on 17 June 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

Even with my dated Phenom II x6 1100t clocked to 4.2ghz I don't have the problems I see people with AMD FX-series CPUs, even in the range of the FX-8350 clocked to 4.8ghz.

The amount of money i'm throwing at my new intel build (has been a year in the making), is a little bit high for my liking, but I have seen Intel literally just take a huge steaming dump on AMD in terms of what kinds of RTS titles I run, and other applications.

I managed to skip the AMD FX-series CPUs, with the exception of an older FX-8120, even clocking the snot out of that FX-8120, it didn't give me anywhere near the performance boost it should have over a Phenom II x6 1100t..

MWO is tough on the FX-series CPUs, it just doesn't like them, and neither do RTS titles compared to the newer Intel CPUs.

I'm not saying the FX-series are complete trash at all, but it just doesn't make sense for me to buy an AMD FX-series CPU as an upgrade for what I do.

EDIT: The FX-8120 I have was gifted to me by someone that was going to toss it into the bin..

[ninjitsu]

As of current AMD CPU's, they really aren't that great for gaming. There are some applications that they handle very well, like video encoding but games don't address the cores in a manner that the AMD CPU's are efficient. I've got a Phenom II 1055t that I love and will never get rid of, but the Bulldozer/Piledriver chips take such a radically different approach to processing that most software doesn't work well with them.

[Smokeyjedi]

ninjitsu, on 17 June 2014 - 10:11 PM, said:

As of current AMD CPU's, they really aren't that great for gaming. There are some applications that they handle very well, like video encoding but games don't address the cores in a manner that the AMD CPU's are efficient. I've got a Phenom II 1055t that I love and will never get rid of, but the Bulldozer/Piledriver chips take such a radically different approach to processing that most software doesn't work well with them.

Indeed they do have their place in compute power,But I am going to keep my Liquid cooled 8350 @ 4.8ghz as secondary rig, all my multimedia and Encoding and media business along with backups and storage will be handled with this rig with my old GTX460 1GB +8gb ddr1333CL7 ad 2 TB of WD black for storage.

I will be building A Z97 gigabyte setup probably with I5 devils cayon if I dont wait to see other offerings first; I7 isnt out of the question but not necessary.