171 replies to this topic

[Lordred]

12/26/14 Data

An Overclocked run, and a full stock run on the same map, using my Shadowhawk-2D

Stock Run: Avg FPS 52.74, MIN 26


Overclocked run: AVG FPS 59.43, MIN 38




12/25/14 Data

AMD FX-8350
FSB: 200
CPU: 4500mhz, HT: 2600mhz, NB: 2200mhz
DRAM: 1866mhz 9-10-9
GPU: GTX 980 (Default)

Display Resolution: 1920x1080
Video Settings: Very High















12/23/14 Data

AMD FX-8350
FSB: 210
CPU: 4200mhz, HT: 2730mhz, NB: 2310mhz
DRAM: 1950mhz 9-10-9
GPU: GTX 980 (Default)

Display Resolution: 1920x1080
Video Settings: Very High


Community Warfare 64-bit
Snow Map


Snow Map with HUD disabled.





10/3/14 Data

Spoiler

Current data using new test method.

Testing Conditions:
Video Settings.
Resolution: 1920x1080
Quality: Very High
Motion Blur: Off
Damage Glow: On
AA Mode: PostAA
Vsync: Off
Framerate Limit: 70fps

user.cfg contents.
sys_maxfps=70
cl_fov=80
gp_option_ShowCockpitGlass=0
r_HDRGrainAmount=0.0
r_DepthOfField=0


Equipment:
CPU: AMD FX-8350 (4000mhz/2200NB)
GPU: Nvidia GTX 980 (reference)
Dram: DDR3-1866 9-10-9 1.5v
SSD(s): Crucial M4 256gb (x2)


Results @ Stock Clock Speed:


Results @ Overclock (4700mhz/2400NB ~ Dram 2133 10-11-10)
Caustic Valley:

Eight Cores Active

Spoiler

Forest Colony Snow:

Eight Cores Active

Spoiler

HPG Manifold:

Eight Cores Active

Spoiler

River City:

Eight Cores Active

Spoiler

River City Night:

One Core per Module

Eight Cores Active

Spoiler

Tourmaline Desert
One Core per Module

Spoiler

Eight Cores Active

Spoiler

4k Resolution

Caustic Valley

One Core Per Module

Eight Cores Active:

Spoiler

.......................................................................

Orginial Post below.

Spoiler

TL:DR

Spoiler

Buy an Intel.

Tests were performed during normal game play

Test bed:
CPU: FX-8350
Mainboard: ASRock 990FX Professional
GPU: Nvidia eVGA GTX 680 4GB Classified
Dram: 2x4GB 1866 9-10-9 1.5v
Drive: Crucial M4 256gb SSD (480mb/Read, 370mb/Write)
OS: Windows 8.1Pro 64bit
Test Settings:
Resolution: 1920x1080
Settings: Very High preset
Damage Glow: On
AA Mode: Post AA

At default clock speeds, the FX-8350 cannot maintain 60fps with this setup. You spend most of your time hovering around 35fps, you get occasional dips into the high 20's when combat is at its most intense, and frame rates quickly rise once a few mechs are removed from combat.

We know that MW:O can access and assign up to six (6) threads, the FX-8350 has 8 threads, but each paired thread shares resources (0/1, 2/3, 4/5, 6/7) due to the architecture the FX is essentially a true quad core, with an extra four cores thrown on using the first fours resources.


So with the CPU resting at its default speed, monitoring the core usage and GPU usage, lets see what happens.



Core utilization is pretty poor, but we can see that MW:O is activly assigning tasks to four of the CPU's eight cores, and it has chosen to split the load to individual modules, still game performance was rather poor, the GPU spent most of its time only seeing 50% of its potential used.


So, can overclocking fix this? lets give it a shot.

For the next two tests we bring the CPU core speed up 700mhz to 4700mhz, disable the power saving features, and give the CPU north bridge a small bump in speed to 2400mhz. (Up from 2200mhz)

for inside the game, the frame rates held a much more steady 50-80fps most of the time, with the most extreme dips bringing us down to the low 40's overall a significant improvement. Lets take a look at the graph.



Core utilization went up on all assigned threads, and the GPU utilization went up to 60%.




So whats the short version of this mean for AMD users?
OC the **** out of it, or get an Intel.

Edited by Lordred, 27 December 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[Goose]

Have you heard the thing about using Processor Lasso (or Bill2's Process Manager) to restrict the game to only one integer core per module? 'Cause the Twelve Named Threads all want full math-co access?

If you set a framerate limit equal to the Hz of your screens, how bad are the dips?

Thanks for the graphs …

[MercJ]

What OS was this tested on?

(EDIT: Thank you for adding it to the OP! And for answering Always curious to see if the improved scheduler actually helps the FX CPUs at all in Win8)

Edited by MercJ, 22 September 2014 - 09:49 AM.

[Lordred]

Windows 8.1 64bit

Edited by Lordred, 22 September 2014 - 09:39 AM.

[MercJ]

Next step: see if we can isolate a graphic setting that is the source of the AMD/FX bottleneck

(Incidentally, I'd be willing to try and reproduce this and help answer the above - what did you use to capture core utilization?)

[Goose]

Object Detail, Shadows, and Environment all load the CPU, 'cording to Mr. Berg.

Particles! How can I forget!

Edited by Goose, 22 September 2014 - 10:01 AM.

[MercJ]

Goose, on 22 September 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

Object Detail, Shadows, and Environment all load the CPU, 'cording to Mr. Berg.

Thanks for finding this! That thread is awesome, by the way...

Lordred, feel up to setting these three to med/low and testing again (stock CPU speeds probably)?

[Goose]

Having a bad time finding the post, but it's around here, somewhere.

[Lordred]

No problem,I did those tests on a whim lastnight.

I am willing to do the following when I get home if people are intrested.

1: test various settings
2: 2 mod 4 core
3: 3 mod 6 core
4: 1 core per mod

[Odins Fist]

Lordred, on 21 September 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

TL:DR

Spoiler

Buy an Intel.

Tests were performed during normal game play

Test bed:
CPU: FX-8350
Mainboard: ASRock 990FX Professional
GPU: Nvidia eVGA GTX 680 4GB Classified
Dram: 2x4GB 1866 9-10-9 1.5v
Drive: Crucial M4 256gb SSD (480mb/Read, 370mb/Write)
OS: Windows 8.1Pro 64bit
Test Settings:
Resolution: 1920x1080
Settings: Very High preset
Damage Glow: On
AA Mode: Post AA

At default clock speeds, the FX-8350 cannot maintain 60fps with this setup.



So whats the short version of this mean for AMD users?
OC the **** out of it, or get an Intel.

There are MANY of US (meaning ME specifically) that have been saying this since the FX- series came out and were tested against the older Phenom II x6 thubans OC'd and later the Intell 2011 and 1150 socket CPUs.

Don't even get me started on just how badly the FX-series get curbstomped by Intel CPUs that aren't clocked anywhere near an OC'd FX CPU.

FYI, I was an AMD fan for over 10 years, NOT ANY LONGER..!!

EDIT: When AMD's Flagship CPU couldn't manage to compete with a middle of the road Intel CPU, then it was obvious FX was a fail on the part of AMD.

They have been developing a replacement for the FX series CPUs with a major redesign to the architecture.

I completely skipped the FX-series CPUs, and I have (2) Asus 990FX Mobos, the Sabertooth (rev 1) and Crosshair V (rev 1).... After seeing how much NOT of an upgrade the FX series was over the Phenom II thubans I decided to just clock the Thubans a tiny bit higher...

I'm so glad I didn't WASTE my money on an FX series CPU..

DOUBLE EDIT: I guess I shouldn't be soooo harsh, but it never made sense to upgrade until I decided to go Intel. (After seeing my good friend's Intel rig perform).

Edited by Odins Fist, 22 September 2014 - 10:59 AM.

[JigSaw73]

First of all,

I didn't realize this is an issue. I have the following specs and I get between 35 fps (on the dip in intense combat) and 45 fps consistently. If it spikes, it goes up to the 60-70 fps range but I don't think I've seen it drop below 45 since I built this machine. Which, actually, I built this on the cheap from a DIY kit on NewEgg just so I could play MWO without any lag at the end of 2013 (still had an Intel Dual Core CPU at the time).

AMD FX 6300 Six Core 3.5Ghz
8.0 GB RAM
Win 7 Home Premium (64-bit OS)
Nvidia GeForce GTX 660
Dual HP x20LED (20") Monitors
ASUS Xonar DG Audio Device (5.1 Surround Sound Card)

I run MWO at:
Very High Preset
1600 x 900 (my Desktop Resolution)
Windwo Mode = Full Window
Direct X Version = DX11
Motion Blur = High
V-Sync = ON
Damage Glow = ON
Brightness = 0
Gamma = 0
AA Mode = PostAA

..sometimes I stream but I never have any lag...

Recently some micro-stuttering at the beginning and end of ever match, but that was introduced about 2 or 3 patches ago and never went away. Oh well, it wasn't there before. :-/

Secondly,

I like the screenshot thread in your forum signature...very cool! Thanks for the link!! :-)

Edited by JigSaw73, 22 September 2014 - 10:52 AM.

[ninjitsu]

1600 x 900 is a pretty mild resolution. The FX CPU's struggle more with the bigger resolutions. Just for a comparison, my i5 4670k holds 50-60 pretty rock solid and my video card is fairly weaker than yours.

[Flapdrol]

Resolution only stresses the gpu, completely cpu independant.

[Summon3r]

JigSaw73, on 22 September 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

First of all,

I didn't realize this is an issue. I have the following specs and I get between 35 fps (on the dip in intense combat) and 45 fps consistently. If it spikes, it goes up to the 60-70 fps range but I don't think I've seen it drop below 45 since I built this machine. Which, actually, I built this on the cheap from a DIY kit on NewEgg just so I could play MWO without any lag at the end of 2013 (still had an Intel Dual Core CPU at the time).

AMD FX 6300 Six Core 3.5Ghz
8.0 GB RAM
Win 7 Home Premium (64-bit OS)
Nvidia GeForce GTX 660
Dual HP x20LED (20") Monitors
ASUS Xonar DG Audio Device (5.1 Surround Sound Card)

I run MWO at:
Very High Preset
1600 x 900 (my Desktop Resolution)
Windwo Mode = Full Window
Direct X Version = DX11
Motion Blur = High
V-Sync = ON
Damage Glow = ON
Brightness = 0
Gamma = 0
AA Mode = PostAA

..sometimes I stream but I never have any lag...

Recently some micro-stuttering at the beginning and end of ever match, but that was introduced about 2 or 3 patches ago and never went away. Oh well, it wasn't there before. :-/

Secondly,

I like the screenshot thread in your forum signature...very cool! Thanks for the link!! :-)

res 1600x900, exactly for me personally (and i suspect most others) anything less then 1080 is unacceptable these days. plus dipping fps at that res ouch.

but at least you can play and if that is good for u then perfect. the more players we have the better... fyi fx-6300 overclocks very very well give it a shot you should be able to hit 4.2+ ghz np and increase your settings across the board

[Goose]

MercJ, on 22 September 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

Thanks for finding this! That thread is awesome, by the way …

I derp'd: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3217828

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

yeah that sounds about right, with my older phenom 2 i even have this problem. Of course since I have an unlocked 555 and it was not optimized for quad core operation, even after power optimizations in the bios I still run at around 155 watts. Overclocks tend to get me over the safe limit because my cooler was not designed for the fires of hell and phenom 2's cannot operate over 55-60c.

of course this is the only game that will shut my computer down when I overclock, even if its a simple 4-600hz bump that needs almost no voltage increase. Crysis and amd do not mix because the crytek engine is a ****** mess and only intel has that kind of spare horsepower lying around.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 22 September 2014 - 09:14 PM.

[Lordred]

repairing my client, I derped it up.

Continuing tests with 1 Core per Module.

[Dark DeLaurel]

Lordred, on 22 September 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

repairing my client, I derped it up.

Continuing tests with 1 Core per Module.

So how are you restricting it to specific cores? Just through task manager?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

There used to be people on these forums that defended FX chips (looks at catamount :-p)

[Lordred]

Dark DeLaurel, on 22 September 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

So how are you restricting it to specific cores? Just through task manager?

Reason I chose the 990FX Professional from AS Rock was due to the crazy amount of features it had, one of them being 1CpM




Anyways, game is all fixed and resuming tests, I will get out the default clock and OC graphs for 1080p while running on 1 core per module.