111 replies to this topic

[Therrinian]

I cannot confirm this, I have played about with the settings and shaddows didnt seem to be a noticable difference for me (I'm CPU limited ofc).

But the take away message is that you need to fiddle around with the settings, all low is not necessary with a GTX 970.
only CPU intensive processes need to be cut, and particles murder that for sure.

[Demon Horde]

Not sure what's wrong with your system seems you should be fine , one guy suggested it's because you are runing maxed in DX11. I'm not compeletely convinced that is the issue. I run every thing maxed in dx 11 with FXAA (not MSAA) even particles and I get 35-45 fps on my rig . my specs :

CPU AMD FX 8350 8 cores @4.ghz
16 Gig (4x4) ddr 3 PC 1866 (runs natively at 1600 i'm not manually setting it to 1866 )
Powercolor radeon 7870 MYST edition (uses the Tahiti core found on 7900's not the standard 7870 core) Its about 10% slower than a 7950

That said your video the GF 970 runs circles around my video card so not sure what the deal is. I don't think particles on V. High should be affecting you that much as the one guy suggested. alternately you could try updating the Bios on your main board but i'd not do that until you tried every thing else because if you botch a bios update you could damage your main board badly. Real head scratcher of a problem you got there.

[Therrinian]

average fps vs dips

it would generally be fine, but particle effects give you occasional very deep dips. (30% of normal)
this happens for example when you run hot (steam) and are hit by missiles (smoke)

this is usually the lowest dip you will encounter.

depends on the player but to me a dip is much more noticable than lower average.

[xWiredx]

A few things:

CPU performance -is- affected by the shadows setting.
Particles really are a heavy hitter on performance, anybody doubting that is... well, stuck in a time before we had well-established data showing so. I hope that PGI can find a way of scaling them down a bit.
The HUD also needs a performance pass, and that should also help a decent amount.

[Flapdrol]

What about damage glow?

[xWiredx]

Never tested it myself, so I'll default to the "PGI said at one time that damage glow on can cause performance to drop". It's definitely worth turning it off just to see at the very least. Unfortunately, my game time is back down to 2-4 matches/night (or 1-2 CW matches/night) now that the holiday is over so I won't be the likely candidate to test that.

[Eisenkladv2]

hmm this is troubling... i wanna get a gtx 970 either msi or palit, i'm currently running an asus gtx560ti at factory oc and its max usage roughly peaks around 90+% while maintaining relative cool
my cpu is a 3570K oc'ed to 4.2GHz on a CM gemini 2 M4 (most stable so far, could go to 4.4Ghz)

while trying out a test stream to twitch @ 720p, my frames dip to 20 in med firefights...(i'm no brawler... just a support role player )

settings in mwo is 900p = 1600 by 900 res... (i need a new display )
all details maxed out
cpu loads at 90%
at first, i wasn't so much worried coz i wont be streaming, its just a test...
but this thread caught my attention... now i'm worried

Edit, without stream ...dips to 30s but cpu load is 30% lower

Edited by Eisenkladv2, 06 January 2015 - 11:01 AM.

[Tom Sawyer]

Just noticed this thread. I just upgraded my rig to a GTX 970 to replace an emergency 550ti I had been using. My rig is a custom water cooled i7 sandybridge overclocked to 5ghz with 12gb of DDR3. I use a SSD 120g as my boot drive for win 7 64 bit premium and run a few games directly from that SSD also. Monitor is a 23 inch WS acer. Need to check the resolution as I am not home at the moment.

Been using the 64 bit MWO option and even with all settings maxed out my FPS tends to stick to 60. Once in a while if I get into a murderball with alot of mechs shooting all over it will dip to the low 50's.

[MechWarrior4172571]

Therrinian, on 06 January 2015 - 12:45 AM, said:

I cannot confirm this, I have played about with the settings and shaddows didnt seem to be a noticable difference for me (I'm CPU limited ofc).

But the take away message is that you need to fiddle around with the settings, all low is not necessary with a GTX 970.
only CPU intensive processes need to be cut, and particles murder that for sure.

All low is for testing purposes. When set at all low for GTX 970 and all low for my old GTX 465, the GTX 465 gave me a consistent 50sh fps level of play while the new GTX 970 (at the same graphical settings) did not and would drop to 20s. There is now at least 2 people here in MWO who confirmed sudden fps drops once they isntalled GTX 970. I am biringing this issue to the light of day because it's not normal and because the more people chime in with the same experience the more solid the problem end up being and related to something that is yet to be discovered. Perhaps it's the new Maxwell architecture, perhaps the nVidia Drivers, perhaps something else. Perhaps it is something that PGI can fix if they care to look into this issue if it becomes widespread and prevalent with new hardware incoming.

Tom Sawyer, on 06 January 2015 - 11:07 AM, said:

Just noticed this thread. I just upgraded my rig to a GTX 970 to replace an emergency 550ti I had been using. My rig is a custom water cooled i7 sandybridge overclocked to 5ghz with 12gb of DDR3. I use a SSD 120g as my boot drive for win 7 64 bit premium and run a few games directly from that SSD also. Monitor is a 23 inch WS acer. Need to check the resolution as I am not home at the moment.

Been using the 64 bit MWO option and even with all settings maxed out my FPS tends to stick to 60. Once in a while if I get into a murderball with alot of mechs shooting all over it will dip to the low 50's.

Perhaps the problem is not AS visible on superior CPU hardware platform but even you shouldn't be getting dips into 50s fps--that is not normal at all. If anybody sees this problem and have a different video card to test it out with another video card (older or AMD vs. nVidia) then that would be a nice troubleshooting indeed.

[MechWarrior4172571]

Eisenkladv2, on 06 January 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

hmm this is troubling... i wanna get a gtx 970 either msi or palit, i'm currently running an asus gtx560ti at factory oc and its max usage roughly peaks around 90+% while maintaining relative cool
my cpu is a 3570K oc'ed to 4.2GHz on a CM gemini 2 M4 (most stable so far, could go to 4.4Ghz)

while trying out a test stream to twitch @ 720p, my frames dip to 20 in med firefights...(i'm no brawler... just a support role player )

settings in mwo is 900p = 1600 by 900 res... (i need a new display )
all details maxed out
cpu loads at 90%
at first, i wasn't so much worried coz i wont be streaming, its just a test...
but this thread caught my attention... now i'm worried

Edit, without stream ...dips to 30s but cpu load is 30% lower

I have an MSI gaming here. Trust me, you don't want to go with MSI unless they update their BIOS. They set the maximum thermal limit to 110% while, from what I've read, EVGA set theirs to 120%. This limitation severely limits the core overlocking potential. I get to 1500/8000MHz on mine with a custom fan curve, but, I'll tell you, the core can go alot ALOT higher than that if it weren't for all the limiters in the BIOS/drivers. Kind of disappointed at MSI for cheaping out and going so low on the power limit even though they know that the chip is super capable. EVGA was smart about this move this time around, although their heatsinks are not as good (they just slapped an older heatsink from an older product, adapted, on this new architecture to save money.)

Flapdrol, on 06 January 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

What about damage glow?

I tried it either way and didn't notice any difference on my system.

Perhaps an older video card would be affected by it, because it is graphical in nature.

xWiredx, on 06 January 2015 - 05:39 AM, said:

A few things:

CPU performance -is- affected by the shadows setting.
Particles really are a heavy hitter on performance, anybody doubting that is... well, stuck in a time before we had well-established data showing so. I hope that PGI can find a way of scaling them down a bit.
The HUD also needs a performance pass, and that should also help a decent amount.

I am concerned at turning off shadows because mech shadows is often the first thing you see, even before you see the actual enemy mech. Shadows play an important part in the game mechanics.

[xWiredx]

shadows and particles set on low should still render them, just in half-res maps and a couple other fidelity changes. You shouldn't need to turn them off.

Also, 2 people coincidentally installing a 970 and getting performance issues isn't a trend, especially when more than one person that did the same thing also chime in and say they don't have performance issues.

Let's have a run-down of everything you've currently got in front of you, as it appears there have been changes and I don't want to have looked over something obvious.

[Vermonster]

I don't really disagree with the statement that Phenom II chips are not great for this game, but I certainly think people are overreacting. I run MWO with a stock 955 on air and an OC 280X. All settings are on very high, except particles and shadows on medium, v-sync and motion blur off, at 1680x1050. I am normally up around 70fps with dips into the 50s when being smashed by clan AC or more than one LRM barrage.

[Demon Horde]

xWiredx
"shadows and particles set on low should still render them, just in half-res maps and a couple other fidelity changes. You shouldn't need to turn them off."

the half res thing only applies to shadows should specify that for people that don't know render tech. particles aren't a "res" change, but changing it's quality level sets how many particles a particle emitting object will spit out. The reason why particles are so intensive is that each new particle usually consist of 2 triangles (particles are just small flat plane objects with a texture, that are spit out by a particle projector object but you only see the textures), some particle systems emit single tri particles though. the extra polys from high partcles is what drags performance (GPU side) as well as the calculation of physics on the particles (CPU side). So really particles rely on both cpu and gpu I know because I have done extensive work in 3ds max (which until 2013 used just cpu to render particles) I have also worked with various game engines in modding and school (I majored in game art design).

all that said the particles in this game are not that heavy compared to other games (using Crytek engine 3) I've seen (the smoke does get heavy though). But the added "weight" of being online game does mean their effect of performance can be more noticeable. Doing some experimenting , it seems to me that particles set to medium is about half the amount of particles, "ejected" on the Very High setting. The other values seem to small for a noticeable a difference between them. That being there is little to no visual difference between low and medium and little to no difference between High an Very High.

but back to my original point the particle settings don't actually make change to the texture maps of the particles. The settings control how many particles are produced by particle emmiter objects. (though you are right about the shadows , that is a change in map quality).

[xWiredx]

Um... what? From the cryengine 3 documentation:
r_ParticlesHalfRes
[indent]

Enables (1) or forces (2) rendering of particles in a half-resolution buffer.
Usage: r_ParticlesHalfRes [0/1/2]
[/indent]
r_ParticlesHalfResAmount
[indent]

Sets particle half-res buffer to half (0) or quarter (1) screen size.
Usage: r_ParticlesHalfResForce [0/1]
[/indent]
r_ParticlesHalfResBlendMode
[indent]

Specifies which particles can be rendered in half resolution.
Usage: r_ParticlesHalfResBlendMode [0=alpha / 1=additive]
[/indent]

Cryengine actually uses squares or octagons for 2D particles, and allows for 3D geometry particles as well. It seems like MWO uses 2D squares no matter what, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. MWO isn't a scale model, after all, everything is really built to-size as far as models go, which means more particles are required to give the same visual effects. In that case, we'd probably want octagons instead since they reduce pixel cost:

Octagonal Shape: (flag) Render sprite as an octagon rather than a quad, reducing pixel costs.

At any rate, we're getting way off-topic. Changing cvars is an every man for himself venture.

[Smokeyjedi]

xWiredx, on 08 January 2015 - 05:56 AM, said:

Um... what? From the cryengine 3 documentation:
r_ParticlesHalfRes
[indent]

Enables (1) or forces (2) rendering of particles in a half-resolution buffer.
Usage: r_ParticlesHalfRes [0/1/2]
[/indent]
r_ParticlesHalfResAmount
[indent]

Sets particle half-res buffer to half (0) or quarter (1) screen size.
Usage: r_ParticlesHalfResForce [0/1]
[/indent]
r_ParticlesHalfResBlendMode
[indent]

Specifies which particles can be rendered in half resolution.
Usage: r_ParticlesHalfResBlendMode [0=alpha / 1=additive]
[/indent]

Cryengine actually uses squares or octagons for 2D particles, and allows for 3D geometry particles as well. It seems like MWO uses 2D squares no matter what, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. MWO isn't a scale model, after all, everything is really built to-size as far as models go, which means more particles are required to give the same visual effects. In that case, we'd probably want octagons instead since they reduce pixel cost:

Octagonal Shape: (flag) Render sprite as an octagon rather than a quad, reducing pixel costs.

At any rate, we're getting way off-topic. Changing cvars is an every man for himself venture.

I agree, for the most part, If you want to share something you have discovered while spending time in the rabbit hole(CVARS) than feel free, but Im sure I would be less inclined to be requested to go down the rabbit hole, than feel the urge to dive in myself............

[Demon Horde]

@ xWiredx oh I see, that is referring to model resolution. (again particles are a flat plane poly usually consisting of 2 tris). Model resolution meaning the number of polys a given 3d model has. "Model Resolution" a term not used by common gamers , it's usually only used in dev circles and it's still a completely different thing from texture resolution or screen resolution. Likely this change is turning the plane polys from 2 tris to single tris. The give away that it is about the model resolution and not texture resolution; is that bit of documentation is talking about "rendering" at half res. No one talks about "rendering" textures unless you are talking about shader maps (which until 2013 only showed up in game or from actually rendering your scene in 3ds max/maya), rendering usually refers to the 3d models directly.

Edited by Demon Horde, 15 January 2015 - 02:44 AM.

[Golrar]

And back to the 970 performance, I will share my recent story. Some of you may have followed my trials and tribulations in other HW threads. The latest is I have had to back off my OC from 4.6 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz for the time being. I was getting odd instability in Windows 7 after 3 months of solid performance. May not be CPU related at all, but haven't had time to figure it out yet.

That being said, I have noticed since backing off that my performance with the 970 has decreased the closer I get to the stock 4.0 Ghz. And I don't mean max fps, but dips and frequency of the dips.

My MWO settings at 4.6 Ghz:
DX11
1920x1080
All settings at Very High except particles to high and shadows to high
I was seeing 60fps (v-synced) with a few small dips in the 35 fps range. These usually occured on the Mining Collective and River City maps.

My MWO settings at 4.2 Ghz:

DX11
1920x1080
All settings at Very High except particles and shadows at low.
Now I still get the 60fps, but dips are a little more frequent and they go even lower. I have noticed dips into the red territory ever so infrequently (less than 30 fps). It scared me. I thought something was terribly wrong.

One thing I must mention, I too have the MSI 4G Gaming version and the first thing I did was set a custom fan profile in Afterburner because I do not like when things go above 50 C. Just my personal paranoia.

My user.cfg is rather slim, just the DOF and grain/cockpit glass stuff. I plan on using some of Smokeys settings to get a bit more out of my CPU (see sig). I also use Process Lasso on boot up to control my cores, and my CPU temp as reported by HWinfo never gets above 34 C in any game, and I keep my H100i pump and fans on quiet mode, so heat is not an issue that I can see.

Because of the noticeable changes to performance with my OC, I am almost positive that there is more room for frames on this 970 that my CPU just cannot deliver at the current OC. I don't think the 970 is where the problem is.

I think you also might want to take into account that the 970 probably does interact more intesively with the CPU than the 465 or any lesser GPU, hence the bigger hit in MWO, which as we have all stated is not optimized at all.

As a comparison - Farcry 4 is absolutely beautiful and buttery smooth.

[Bellum Dominum]

If no one mentioned this I'd be surprised but other than CPU the biggest thing I noticed is you said Vista... Vista doesn't do well with any cryengine game from what I've read.

[MechWarrior4172571]

Golrar, on 15 January 2015 - 09:38 PM, said:

I think you also might want to take into account that the 970 probably does interact more intesively with the CPU than the 465 or any lesser GPU, hence the bigger hit in MWO, which as we have all stated is not optimized at all.

As a comparison - Farcry 4 is absolutely beautiful and buttery smooth.

That is a fresh perspective. Thank you.

Certainly something to think about.

Death Drow, on 15 January 2015 - 09:45 PM, said:

If no one mentioned this I'd be surprised but other than CPU the biggest thing I noticed is you said Vista... Vista doesn't do well with any cryengine game from what I've read.

Vista or Win 7--I tried them both, same results but I think Golrar might have hit the nail on the head. I believe that perhaps Maxwell was made to interact with the CPU more than then previous versions of GPUs, hence the unusual problems with dips and spikes, as the CPU's slowdowns would affect GPU more in this way.. quite possible.

[Golrar]

I am not familiar with the GT 465, but is the bus width less? Is it a 128bit card whereas the GTX970 I know is a 256 bit. I would be interested in anybody with e 384bit or 512bit experimenting with this combination.

We all think that the wider bus should net better performance, but in (excuse the slight) older CPUs, perhaps this isn't the case with the more powerful GPU populating the bus?

I know I went from a 128bit GTX650Ti to the GTX970 and saw more activity in Afterbuner in my cores, but I attributed that to me jacking the settings in MWO. It could also possibly explain my dips without the more agressive OC. If anyone with more knowledge can chime in here, cuz I am just grasping at straws through twisted logic.