295 replies to this topic

[Goose]

Reinstall FRAPS? I just had to add it, yesterday, as HWiNFO was not reading fps from Afterburner, like it was before my wipe.

[Bill Lumbar]

Catamount, on 22 December 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

and you get Abysmal framerates rife with low averages and stutter. I'd say that validates Goose well enough.

Just because you accept sub-par performance and have adapted to dealing with it doesn't make it not sub-par, and you have an overclocked system. To get performance that isn't sub par would additionally require messing around with the game a lot more than you do (dropping particles might not hurt either, though that's appearing to be OS dependent).

Looking at all three of your replies it becomes very clear... You claim I am putting words in your mouths but yet you bounce back the very same and do the very same, (XwiredX this is in regards to your response.) You have shown numbers...if that is what we are going to base all this off of, that dip into the low to mid 30's. Yet you have the "death machine" and when I hear and see the tears cried because a rig with those specs, I just sit back and smile when seeing them after claims and statements some have said.

I also love Catamount's response also, claiming my machine is rife with dips and stutters just because of a synthetic bench mark in a game that the engine is known for not being optimized, and is notorious for taxing any rig that has played it because of the lack of optimization.

This isn't about lowering my standards to some low below par expectations when it comes to what I see or don't see with any of my gaming rigs. I find it laughable that DV brings up the refresh 2 core haswell chip at 1080P at medium settings getting better frame rates, like it means anything at all when I am gaming at mostly High to very high settings, none on medium, and gaming at 1920 x 1200 with no real issues at all with stutter that in reality is related to my FX-8350 or my ATI XFX 7970 gb card.

You guys all have your opinions, and some truth in those opinions are present, However, I do not have low standards when it comes to my gaming rigs and the quality of the gaming experience I get from playing. You can play chase the highest fps all you want, but just because you have fps pushing into the 177 range, doesn't mean your experience will be filled with more quality then a player that has an average fps above 40. Sorry guys claim what you will, I have been around building gaming rigs for 9 years now, and I have been able to play with to many of Intel's high end offerings as well as Amd. My replies never intended to claim, mine is faster or better then yours, it simply was to counter the BS claim that Goose made regarding "ALL" Amd rigs. You guys enjoy the rest of your Intel Juice drinking session, and that magical chase for the highest fps is the "best" belief.

I find it laughable, just 6 years or so ago, when crysis was first released, PC players where happy to get 40 frames avg in the game, and it was considered very playable, and extremely good for a system to obtain that. Many that got better then 30 fps avg did not suffer in the least with game play experience. The human eye really has a hard time noticing the difference on anything past a certain number of fps. You guys must have super human eyes that can pick up on anything past that amount.

I will leave it with this Idea, blind taste test, several rigs setup with out any of you having a clue to the specs, the hardware that is contained with in them and no Fraps in the corner showing you fps. Play this game on those rigs, with various hardware from all companies, and then give your honest answer as to which brand you are playing on. I am sure the results from such a test would be very interesting at the least, and extremely laughable once you gave your answers and opinions of the rigs you have just played on. Good luck Gentlemen, carry on with selling the Juice.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 22 December 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

I'm sure if I turned down particles to medium I could keep my head above 60 at all times. I'm not sure I'm willing to sacrifice eye candy, though. I'll test it for a couple matches. I don't have a ton of time on my hands at the moment, but I think it might be worthwhile to test each setting individually by turning it down and seeing how much of a boost I get. Admittedly, I will stick with all very high because it is very rare that I see anything below 60. The majority of my fps, like 95% or more, is above 60.

Of course, testing will have to be with the 32-bit client since the 64-bit one crashes or won't run at all when I fire up FRAPS. I have had zero success running them at the same time.

I have my particles set to high or very high and haven't even thought about turning them down to medium. In fact, I haven't thought about turning any of the settings down, even in CW drops. Not because my standards are low.... but more to the point my rig handles the game as smoothly as can be expected with the known issues the engine and game have with not being optimized very well at all.

Funny, my system handles the 64-bit client well, doesn't crash with fraps, and I have seen improvements in the IU speeds, (saving load outs big time, and in game with how smooth the game plays, and fps) Is your version the paid or the free one?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Bill Lumbar, on 22 December 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

This isn't about lowering my standards to some low below par expectations when it comes to what I see or don't see with any of my gaming rigs. I find it laughable that DV brings up the refresh 2 core haswell chip at 1080P at medium settings getting better frame rates, like it means anything at all when I am gaming at mostly High to very high settings, none on medium, and gaming at 1920 x 1200 with no real issues at all with stutter that in reality is related to my FX-8350 or my ATI XFX 7970 gb card.

I think you missed my point entirely

[xWiredx]

-My mins are statistical outliers and those values are not repeated in any of the tests, they pop up once and disappear
-Paid version of FRAPS, and the latest version released, it appears dxgi.dll is the cause every time, yet I've taken care to make sure it is not missing and is up-to-date
-lowering settings is for testing purposes. I didn't make this post to brag, I made it to show others what kind of performance they can expect on the Haswell architecture

Please, troll harder, Bill. Troll harder than you have ever trolled before.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 22 December 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

-My mins are statistical outliers and those values are not repeated in any of the tests, they pop up once and disappear
-Paid version of FRAPS, and the latest version released, it appears dxgi.dll is the cause every time, yet I've taken care to make sure it is not missing and is up-to-date
-lowering settings is for testing purposes. I didn't make this post to brag, I made it to show others what kind of performance they can expect on the Haswell architecture

Please, troll harder, Bill. Troll harder than you have ever trolled before.

I am not trolling here Wired.... nor am I trying to make this into a Amd vs. Intel issue.

You say that your mins are statistical outliers, and the values are not repeated in any of the test. Please explain this if you don't mind. Are you saying that you didn't notice any real stutters or effects from the drop to a min of 34? was it? in your test's and the "feel" of the game play, smoothness of it?

How many more test have you ran so far, I have posted about 20 matches I think vs. the five or 6 you posted?

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 22 December 2014 - 03:44 PM.

[xWiredx]

It isn't a feel. It's the fact that any stutter is only 1 second or less in length. My eyes notice it but its so short that it doesn't bother me too much. What I mean by outlier is this: I do a fraps run for 180 seconds, so there are 180 values in my spreadsheet for fps, one per second. An outlier would be anything that is significantly different at the top or bottom from the values immediately next to it. 2 examples: you see a 35, but the values immediately above and below it are 68 and 72 respectively. Either in one second a ton of crap happened and then disappeared, or it's an anomaly. 99% of the time, even in MWO, it's an anomaly. I did the leg work to remove outliers from the top end and bottom end equally (turns out, one on the bottom and 3 on the top) for one of my original results. The conclusion: the average didn't really change. As I said, the vast majority of my playtime is spent well above 60fps. Also, there are 20 tests in my original post. How do you only count 5 or 6?

Also, tested one match each for a few different settings... conclusions I'm going to make but don't have enough data to confirm. Other people can test this more. Looks like particles have the biggest effect on your overall fps (it hit my maxes and average the hardest). Shadows seem to hit your mins pretty hard, but don't have as drastic of an effect as particles. Environment seems to be kind of a wash. It actually seems like the performance on -every- map is area-dependent. PGI's map creators not paying attention to things like this bothers me.



The grey line is the test with the low-whatever, while the bottom white is the results from my original tests for comparison. The one other thing besides the setting that is different is I have turned off postaa and set AA in the nvidia control panel. I think that might actually be a better option for those who have more graphics horsepower.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 22 December 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

It isn't a feel. It's the fact that any stutter is only 1 second or less in length. My eyes notice it but its so short that it doesn't bother me too much. What I mean by outlier is this: I do a fraps run for 180 seconds, so there are 180 values in my spreadsheet for fps, one per second. An outlier would be anything that is significantly different at the top or bottom from the values immediately next to it. 2 examples: you see a 35, but the values immediately above and below it are 68 and 72 respectively. Either in one second a ton of crap happened and then disappeared, or it's an anomaly. 99% of the time, even in MWO, it's an anomaly. I did the leg work to remove outliers from the top end and bottom end equally (turns out, one on the bottom and 3 on the top) for one of my original results. The conclusion: the average didn't really change. As I said, the vast majority of my playtime is spent well above 60fps. Also, there are 20 tests in my original post. How do you only count 5 or 6?

Also, tested one match each for a few different settings... conclusions I'm going to make but don't have enough data to confirm. Other people can test this more. Looks like particles have the biggest effect on your overall fps (it hit my maxes and average the hardest). Shadows seem to hit your mins pretty hard, but don't have as drastic of an effect as particles. Environment seems to be kind of a wash. It actually seems like the performance on -every- map is area-dependent. PGI's map creators not paying attention to things like this bothers me.



The grey line is the test with the low-whatever, while the bottom white is the results from my original tests for comparison. The one other thing besides the setting that is different is I have turned off postaa and set AA in the nvidia control panel. I think that might actually be a better option for those who have more graphics horsepower.

Thank you for going into detail on your test methods. Any information that can be had regarding these issues across a wide selection of different rigs, different settings I think will help shed light on what is going on in game.

I have no Idea how I got 5 or 6 test from you original OP, that's is why I put a question mark behind the sentence. Kinda bouncing back and forth in a couple threads, as we all are, and trying to mud and tape drywall in the downstairs bedroom.

I didn't go into the depth you did at looking at each value above and below, so I have no clue as to if some of the lows or highs are an anomaly. I am not sure about the dips in my runs, because to be honest, I rarely see dips below the 25 mark even in CW. When I watch the fps in a game, I am not seeing any slow down that would cause me to keep a serious eye on the counter. When I do happen to watch the counter, I am seeing well into the 45's-80 fps for most of a given match in public cue, and around 40-75 in CW. I am picky about how my rig performs and I really haven't ever felt like I am having serious issues with my rig, other then the normal BS that we all tend to see in this game.

Here are my settings once again.... and I have never felt the need to turn them down. I want eye candy, and never felt that my settings are effecting what I am seeing in fps or more to the point, smoothness of the game in a negative way. If they do, I will be looking to upgrade my main system and have yet another media/backup gaming rig around.

[Catamount]

Bill Lumbar, on 22 December 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

Looking at all three of your replies it becomes very clear... You claim I am putting words in your mouths but yet you bounce back the very same and do the very same, (XwiredX this is in regards to your response.) You have shown numbers...if that is what we are going to base all this off of, that dip into the low to mid 30's. Yet you have the "death machine" and when I hear and see the tears cried because a rig with those specs, I just sit back and smile when seeing them after claims and statements some have said.

I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in having no clue what you're talking about, but drops into the 30s would be no less than 50% better than your drops into the 20s.

Quote

I also love Catamount's response also, claiming my machine is rife with dips and stutters just because of a synthetic bench mark in a game that the engine is known for not being optimized

You clearly have no idea what a synthetic benchmark is. A synthetic benchmark is an emulation of real-world software, such as the benchmarking suites from Futuremark and Unigine.

Recording framerates in a game is a real-world software test, not a synthetic benchmark. Please don't throw around terms that you don't know the meaning of.

We know the engine isn't optimized. What's clear from your abysmal framerate numbers is that you're running this unoptimized title on a woefully underpowered machine.

I play that same unoptimized title; I just get way better performance than you do.


I'm glad that you can lower your standards enough that 20fps stutters are okay. I, and others here, do not, because for the same price concurrent Intel hardware was available that didn't require that.

[Lusankya]

Catamount, on 22 December 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Windows TP doesn't have the particle problem, just saying

I'll have to test FRAPS/64-bit myself here later

Any clue why that is Catamount?

[Bill Lumbar]

Catamount, on 22 December 2014 - 06:54 PM, said:

I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in having no clue what you're talking about, but drops into the 30s would be no less than 50% better than your drops into the 20s.



You clearly have no idea what a synthetic benchmark is. A synthetic benchmark is an emulation of real-world software, such as the benchmarking suites from Futuremark and Unigine.

Recording framerates in a game is a real-world software test, not a synthetic benchmark. Please don't throw around terms that you don't know the meaning of.

We know the engine isn't optimized. What's clear from your abysmal framerate numbers is that you're running this unoptimized title on a woefully underpowered machine.

I play that same unoptimized title; I just get way better performance than you do.


I'm glad that you can lower your standards enough that 20fps stutters are okay. I, and others here, do not, because for the same price concurrent Intel hardware was available that didn't require that.

Yeah... I know, my rig is totally under performing

I am throwing around terms I don't understand you say? Right.... I understand them all to well, but as I have stated before, unless I am seeing a hit on my performance in game with real stutters that I can see with my own eyes, slow downs that I can really see, not just imaginary ones that my fraps bench is picking up... those numbers mean diddly squat to me. I have been around doing this long enough, that I know a sales pitch when I see one. Now show me a real world test that I can edit or compress a video with one CPU against another and it shaves 3-20 mins off my time, and I am all for those kinda tests. If my game play is smooth I could really give a crap less if I am pushing 60+ fps all time.

I remember a very long time ago I started playing DOW, and tried it with a Amd 6400X2 B.E. and a Nvidia 8500 GT. It was almost unplayable with the Nvidia 8500 GT, and lag city in combat even in the lowest game settings. I ordered a Nvidia 8800 GTX and all my problems went away and ran on maxed out settings. I know all bout what is playable with all the eye candy cranked, and what is not playable.

I find it laughable your standards are so high that you claim I am really seeing stutters with my system in game play, other then the normal BS that we all are seeing in this game.

I also find your last claim even more laughable and sad... really, some of the Intel crowd are having to lower their standards...well not their standards, but more to the point, their settings off Very High and High down to medium. Just wow man!

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 22 December 2014 - 07:22 PM.

[Catamount]

Lusankya, on 22 December 2014 - 07:10 PM, said:

Any clue why that is Catamount?

This is a good question. I was asked to look at it and that was my result running 7 and TP side-by-side. I have no idea why TP behaves so much better with particles.

Testing was done for the beginning minute or so of matches, strictly on HPG drops after friendly mechs had moved off to avoid other CPU-affecting factors. Firing and overheating dragged down 7 when lots of smoke appeared but not 10/TP. *shrug*

Several months of playing has subjectively backed this result. I used to complain bitterly about the fact that every time lasers dug into the ground in front of me or other high-particle events would happy I would get nastly fps drops, and now it just doesn't happen.

Edited by Catamount, 22 December 2014 - 07:47 PM.

[Catamount]

Bill Lumbar, on 22 December 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

Yeah... I know, my rig is totally under performing

I am throwing around terms I don't understand you say? Right.... I understand them all to well, but as I have stated before, unless I am seeing a hit on my performance in game with real stutters that I can see with my own eyes, slow downs that I can really see, not just imaginary ones that my fraps bench is picking up... those numbers mean diddly squat to me. I have been around doing this long enough, that I know a sales pitch when I see one. Now show me a real world test that I can edit or compress a video with one CPU against another and it shaves 3-20 mins off my time, and I am all for those kinda tests. If my game play is smooth I could really give a crap less if I am pushing 60+ fps all time.

I remember a very long time ago I started playing DOW, and tried it with a Amd 6400X2 B.E. and a Nvidia 8500 GT. It was almost unplayable with the Nvidia 8500 GT, and lag city in combat even in the lowest game settings. I ordered a Nvidia 8800 GTX and all my problems went away and ran on maxed out settings. I know all bout what is playable with all the eye candy cranked, and what is not playable.

I find it laughable your standards are so high that you claim I am really seeing stutters with my system in game play, other then the normal BS that we all are seeing in this game.

I also find your last claim even more laughable and sad... really, some of the Intel crowd are having to lower their standards...well not their standards, but more to the point, their settings off Very High and High down to medium. Just wow man!

You should write a book about how to write numerous paragraphs without making a point.

To reiterate, I'm glad you can set your standards so low that 20fps stutters are okay. I don't think they're okay, especially when I can get a better Intel build for the same price as an AMD build and not have them. But hey, just keep telling yourself that FRAPS is imagining up your stuttering. It's imagining them up for you and only you, because you're just that special.

Now I will wait for our ten paragraphs of red herrings in response. Just don't misuse the term "synthetic benchmark" this time.

[Kell Morgan]

I really don't see what this long dong contest is about... I have an 8350, GTX 760 and 16 GB of ram set at 2133MHz. I don't see my FPS go below 45-50. The only time I get stutters is in CW now. Even then they aren't bad 35-36 is about the lowest I see. Still very playable.

Fraps backs me up for the most part on my assessment. (uninstalled it after the first few weeks of testing so I wont be posting screen shots... sorry.)

I prefer AMD over intel because to get the same performance processor for alot less. Intel may hold an edge over all but its just not worth the price difference to me.

[Bill Lumbar]

Catamount, on 22 December 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

You should write a book about how to write numerous paragraphs without making a point.

To reiterate, I'm glad you can set your standards so low that 20fps stutters are okay. I don't think they're okay, especially when I can get a better Intel build for the same price as an AMD build and not have them. But hey, just keep telling yourself that FRAPS is imagining up your stuttering. It's imagining them up for you and only you, because you're just that special.

Now I will wait for our ten paragraphs of red herrings in response. Just don't misuse the term "synthetic benchmark" this time.

Your counter point totally explains why Intel builds that are having the very same or similar stutters. I see your point, and it all makes sense now. But hey, enjoy your extra performance on your gaming rig, that is what is important after all. I will do the same with my under performing FX-8350 gaming rig.

[Catamount]

Bill Lumbar, on 22 December 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

Your counter point totally explains why Intel builds that are having the very same or similar stutters.

One can't explain what isn't there. Intel builds aren't having these problems. Yes, anecdotally, if you look around enough you can find someone who's Intel build is not functioning properly and isn't giving normal performance, but the singular of data is not anecdote. Ponder the meaning of that statement for a bit before you reply; it might help.

Edited by Catamount, 22 December 2014 - 08:41 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Kell Morgan, on 22 December 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

I really don't see what this long dong contest is about... I have an 8350, GTX 760 and 16 GB of ram set at 2133MHz. I don't see my FPS go below 45-50. The only time I get stutters is in CW now. Even then they aren't bad 35-36 is about the lowest I see. Still very playable.

Fraps backs me up for the most part on my assessment. (uninstalled it after the first few weeks of testing so I wont be posting screen shots... sorry.)

I prefer AMD over intel because to get the same performance processor for alot less. Intel may hold an edge over all but its just not worth the price difference to me.

This isn't a dong contest... this is the Intelpeen contest, either you have it inside you or you just don't have a gaming rig that is super duper bad a$$. Anything else is just a X-box, and if you can't provide fraps numbers, just go back to playing your under performing rig dude!


I choose to support Amd with my money when they put out a decent product for one very simple reason, we need them around to continue to put out decent options to go with besides just Intel. Same with ATI. I could care less if a product puts out the most numbers, as long as the product I bought puts out a enjoyable gaming experience that will not gimp my game play at a fair price, that is what really matters to me. That is the point, and I buy Intel as well as Amd, but I have learned a few years ago that a few extra fps really means nothing to me if what I bought puts out stable, smooth game play. If my dips to 20-30 frames per second caused slow downs, stutter, I would not be playing on this rig and would upgrade tonight if need be.

You guys do make a very strong argument though.... the Intel is strong with in you.... I almost am buying the "hype" and looking on the egg it is hard to control my mouse hand from hitting check out. This is a temping combo just to see if the juice is as wonderful as you claim it is.....

COMBO #1 Intel Core i5-4690K Devil's Canyon Quad-Core 3.5GHz LGA 1150 Desktop Processor BX80646I54690K

$409.98

• Instant: -$20.00
  
• Combo: -$43.00

COMBO #1 GIGABYTE GA-Z97X-UD3H-BK LGA 1150 Intel Z97 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard


Subtotal: $346.98

Then I go back into the lab, click on a match and drop.... and after playing a very nice round with all setting cranked up to high/very high and no real stutters, or slow downs, I just have to do this....


This is from 2013 but I find it interesting the test results with Cyrsis 3.


https://www.youtube....e&v=rIVGwj1_Qno

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my first game played tonight after busting a$$ all day on working on drywall. It was on the moon, a conquest match and it was an Lrm fest right at the start. I have my FX-8350 at 4.9 ghz and mild over clock on the 7970. BTW, I hit the F11 key right as I powered up as you recommended Wired. Ran for 180 seconds, and we was confronted within the first 2 mins by 7 mechs and the Lrms rained. I would of thought that this would of been a low min fps run, but as it turned out, a very respectable min and avg.

2014-12-23 00:44:06 - MWOClient
Frames: 12743 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 70.794 - Min: 46 - Max: 122

I also ran the repair tool for the first time since I downloaded this game in over a year. It said 5 issues needed to be repaired. Don't know if this helped but these are solid numbers for what some of you have claimed to be an under performing rig. Once again I took top match score on my gimped Amd rig, 121 1 kill 8 assist and around 700 damage in my BJ-1X.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here are two runs from Frozen City I just came off of. Had to use thermal vision. We lost this match, came out with the second high score, ended up with a team kill on a Jager by accident, sorry Killercrow . I think I head shot him with 8 small pulse lasers as he came running past a building, and there was a red box right behind him over laid on his mech. Match was close, ended 12-9

This game was really messed up, for the first 3-4 minutes of the match, it was lagging and lots of stutter? Several players came across in chat and asked if we all was lagging and skipping/warping around, and sure enough most said they was. I didn't ask what kind of rig they was running or specs... but this seemed like a very low frame rate issue or what I would consider poor hardware that isn't up to specs for the game. But the thing was is everyone was experiencing the very same problem at the same time. I wonder, is this fps issue more to do with the games lack of optimization, or just gimped Amd processors?

I Hit the F11 key right as I powered up, let the 3 minute bench go, then hit it again right after. I benched through the stutters we all experienced and these are the results I got from those benches. I lasted around 8 minutes into this match until my right leg exploded from team mates that walked into my BJ over and over. A Victor and a Dire whale.

2014-12-23 01:22:13 - MWOClient
Frames: 9981 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 55.450 - Min: 34 - Max: 108

2014-12-23 01:27:11 - MWOClient
Frames: 10505 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 58.361 - Min: 34 - Max: 87

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 22 December 2014 - 11:04 PM.

[Catamount]

Am I alone at this point in having no idea what position Bill is even trying to argue? It certainly has nothing to do with any topic or statement made on these forums.

Edited by Catamount, 23 December 2014 - 06:42 AM.

[xWiredx]

Catamount, on 23 December 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Am I alone at this point in having no idea what position Bill is even trying to argue? It certainly has nothing to do with any topic or statement made on these forums.

He's trying to make himself feel better about his Piledriver purchase even though AMD has basically already said "nope, fk that noise, we're out."

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Catamount, on 23 December 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Am I alone at this point in having no idea what position Bill is even trying to argue? It certainly has nothing to do with any topic or statement made on these forums.

No, but he's apparently blind if he thinks he doesn't have any slow down or stutter when his FPS crashes down to those minimum numbers and then goes back up.