239 replies to this topic

[Bill Lumbar]

Yesterday I did a little test run with my FX-8350 @ 4.9ghz/ its water cooled with custom loop, 16 gb of ddr3 1866 ram, ATI XFX 7970 3gb. I played a CW match while encoding and compressing a fraps Video that was 49gb at the same time with windows movie maker. Windows movie maker puts my CPU at around 45-70% core usage and on all eight cores all by itself.

I ran Fraps bench mark and low and behold my frame rates stayed above 30, and peeked at around 75 max. Avg was around 35 FPS. This is just a little bit less then I get when not running software that consumes so much CPU power to process and make a movie when playing this game. How can this be? I didn't notice any real slow downs, stutters or issues while doing it, and for the first time ever my FX-8350 broke 40C temps. I was expecting a nose dive in FPS while doing this, but it didn't happen. Seems like the FX-8350 is more then able to handle this game even with the very poor coding in it. All my settings are at High-Very High, AA, Dx11, running the 64-bit client.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 16 January 2015 - 10:24 AM.

[Flapdrol]

Yes, mwo only uses ~30% of an FX8350, which is why it runs awfully on them.

[Bill Lumbar]

Flapdrol, on 17 January 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

Yes, mwo only uses ~30% of an FX8350, which is why it runs awfully on them.

Lol.... "Which is why it runs awfully on them."

I don't base my rigs performance solely on if it pushes the highest FPS, 60+ at all times. I base the performance on smooth game play, no stutters, and my rig meets this goal even at all high-very high settings and with the lack of this game being optimized for any gaming rig, including $3000+ ones.

This crazy push for the most FPS reminds me of when Crysis was first released... everyone was saying the very same things as they are in regards to this game, yet the bar has been raised to, " Must have 60+ fps at all times or it plays like $hit on my rig." The only difference is the bar used to be anything above 35 fps was the goal for what players considered "smooth, good game play" back 5 years ago. Kinda makes me laugh out loud when I hear the same claims I did back when I used to partake on Tomshardware forums so many years ago regarding Amd vs. Intel.

[Vassago Rain]

Bill Lumbar, on 17 January 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

Lol.... "Which is why it runs awfully on them."

I don't base my rigs performance solely on if it pushes the highest FPS, 60+ at all times. I base the performance on smooth game play, no stutters, and my rig meets this goal even at all high-very high settings and with the lack of this game being optimized for any gaming rig, including $3000+ ones.

This crazy push for the most FPS reminds me of when Crysis was first released... everyone was saying the very same things as they are in regards to this game, yet the bar has been raised to, " Must have 60+ fps at all times or it plays like $hit on my rig." The only difference is the bar used to be anything above 35 fps was the goal for what players considered "smooth, good game play" back 5 years ago. Kinda makes me laugh out loud when I hear the same claims I did back when I used to partake on Tomshardware forums so many years ago regarding Amd vs. Intel.

But I can run MWO at a smooth 120 FPS on my i5, to go with my 120hz monitor.

No one has ever used 35 FPS as the bar for good performance ever. Until the xbox 360 forced it, and ubisoft invented 'silky smooth 30 FPS.'

5 years ago, I played at 60 FPS, because I only had a 60hz monitor.

[Smokeyjedi]

Vassago Rain, on 17 January 2015 - 10:42 PM, said:

But I can run MWO at a smooth 120 FPS on my i5, to go with my 120hz monitor.

No one has ever used 35 FPS as the bar for good performance ever. Until the xbox 360 forced it, and ubisoft invented 'silky smooth 30 FPS.'

5 years ago, I played at 60 FPS, because I only had a 60hz monitor.

Indeed you know something is off....when You use Vsync for 144hz monitors but still see framedrops into the mid 30's ROFL

[Goose]

Jesus DIED for me, on 13 January 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

Why don't you clean that up first?

Everybody

sys_MaxFPS = x
; pick something achievable (30 or 42,) or else your monitors refresh, or said refresh - 2
 
d3d10_TripleBuffering = 1
d3d11_TripleBuffering = 1
d3d9_TripleBuffering = 1
 
cl_fov = w
; Default is 75; http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/88281-fov-be-in-the-mech-instead-of-being-a-mech/
 
e_GsmCache = 1
q_ShaderWater = 0
r_FogShadows = 0
r_silhouettePOM = 0
r_UsePOM = 0
sys_budget_soundCPU = 5
 
sys_enable_budgetmonitoring = 1
sys_budget_videomem = y ;your GPU VRAM value in MB
 
sys_budget_sysmem = t
; what have you got, and what can you afford? in MB
 
;****THIS IS SYSTEM throughput TWEAK****
; *open command console as admin from start menu- type "winsat mem" and press enter.
; output is z
 
sys_budget_streamingthroughput = (z * 1024)
sys_LocalMemoryGeometryStreamingSpeedLimit = z
sys_LocalMemoryTextureStreamingSpeedLimit = z
sys_streaming_max_bandwidth = z
 
r_DepthOfField=0 (off/on)
r_HDRGrainAmount=0.0 (film grain amount)
gp_option_ShowCockpitGlass=0 (off/on)

Dual-Core

sys_limit_phys_thread_count = 1
ca_thread = 0
r_MultiThreaded = 2
e_ParticlesThread = 0
 
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

Twin-Module

ca_thread = 1
r_MultiThreaded = 1
e_ParticlesThread = 1
s_NumLoadingThreadsToUse = 4
sys_limit_phys_thread_count = 0
p_num_threads = 4
 
ca_thread0Affinity = 0
ca_thread1Affinity = 1
 
r_WaterUpdateThread = 4
sys_main_CPU = 0
sys_physics_CPU = 1
sys_streaming_CPU = 2
 
sys_TaskThread0_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread1_CPU = 4
sys_TaskThread2_CPU = 3
sys_TaskThread3_CPU = 4
sys_TaskThread4_CPU = 3

Triple-Module

ca_thread = 1
r_MultiThreaded = 1
e_ParticlesThread = 1
sys_limit_phys_thread_count = 0
p_num_threads = 6
s_NumLoadingThreadsToUse = 5
 
ca_thread0Affinity = 0
ca_thread1Affinity = 3
 
r_WaterUpdateThread = 5
sys_main_CPU = 0
sys_streaming_CPU = 1
sys_physics_CPU = 2
 
sys_TaskThread0_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread1_CPU = 4
sys_TaskThread2_CPU = 3
sys_TaskThread3_CPU = 2
sys_TaskThread4_CPU = 4
sys_TaskThread5_CPU = 1
sys_TaskThread6_CPU = 5

Quad-Mod

ca_thread = 1
r_MultiThreaded = 1
e_ParticlesThread = 1
sys_limit_phys_thread_count = 0
p_num_threads = 8
s_NumLoadingThreadsToUse = 5
 
ca_thread0Affinity = 0
ca_thread1Affinity = 4
 
r_WaterUpdateThread = 7
sys_main_CPU = 0
sys_streaming_PU = 0
sys_physics_CPU = 2
 
sys_TaskThread0_CPU = 3
sys_TaskThread1_CPU = 5
sys_TaskThread2_CPU = 5
sys_TaskThread3_CPU = 6
sys_TaskThread4_CPU = 3
sys_TaskThread5_CPU = 6
sys_TaskThread6_CPU = 3
sys_TaskThread7_CPU = 7
sys_TaskThread8_CPU = 6

What's the value of teh full "winsat formal -restart clean" …

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Goose, on 18 January 2015 - 05:51 PM, said:

snip

Only thing i notice is some of these lines have spaces after the = and some do not.

Is this likely to make a difference?

[Smokeyjedi]

I am pretty sure they all need a space before and after the = and value or switch (1/0)

Omicron log file will tell you which one causes errors.

[Gremlich Johns]

I run an AMD-8350 mated to a GTX760 4GB using 16GB 1600 RAM and have never had any issues running either MW:O or Star Citizen (the latter should be your benchmark, BTW). MW:O has NEVER been a drain on my system - consistent 50-60 FPS (which I cannot notice any difference in display from 30 FPS - my ping in-game is usually 39).

You want to waste good money outfitting an Intel system to play MW:O, go ahead. If you want to prepare yourself for something higher level like Star Citizen, go intel - it's your money. Econo-builds are just fine for such a single dimension game like MW:O.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 19 January 2015 - 10:25 AM.

[MechWarrior4172571]

DV McKenna, on 19 January 2015 - 12:21 AM, said:

Only thing i notice is some of these lines have spaces after the = and some do not.

Is this likely to make a difference?

I tend to, personally, treat empty spaces as 'bad' in programming language, but what do I know?.. maybe it doesn't apply so some languages? I guess that old Windows 98 habit still lingers, not wanting to see "%20" or something attributed by Windows for a user input of empty character.

[Flapdrol]

Gremlich Johns, on 19 January 2015 - 09:01 AM, said:

I run an AMD-8350 mated to a GTX760 4GB using 16GB 1600 RAM and have never had any issues running either MW:O or Star Citizen (the latter should be your benchmark, BTW). MW:O has NEVER been a drain on my system - consistent 50-60 FPS (which I cannot notice any difference in display from 30 FPS - my ping in-game is usually 39).

You want to waste good money outfitting an Intel system to play MW:O, go ahead. If you want to prepare yourself for something higher level like Star Citizen, go intel - it's your money. Econo-builds are just fine for such a single dimension game like MW:O.

Star citizen must be quite the system hog if mwo runs well in comparison.

[Bill Lumbar]

Vassago Rain, on 17 January 2015 - 10:42 PM, said:

But I can run MWO at a smooth 120 FPS on my i5, to go with my 120hz monitor.

No one has ever used 35 FPS as the bar for good performance ever. Until the xbox 360 forced it, and ubisoft invented 'silky smooth 30 FPS.'

5 years ago, I played at 60 FPS, because I only had a 60hz monitor.

Well maybe its time for me to do some upgrades Vass..... lol. Last couple years I have been out of chasing the best hardware dream for the goal to build my house, loan free. My Current AMD FX-8350 system runs this game just fine. Hell, my older Intel Q9550 at 3.8 ghz and a 6870 2gb card runs this game just fine also. This game seems to be very poor when it comes to being optimized for ALL systems, and I find it funny the prices that are charged for anything in this game.....granted while things are 50% off on sale its better, but then the other issues, like building a $1800+ gaming rig to run it. Lets not forget about guys like me that like to tinker and build flight sims, and other nice little toys to go with playing this game....and it starts to look like insanity. Just saying.....

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 21 January 2015 - 12:54 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

I was using an FX-4100 coupled with a GTX460 1GB and 8GB 1366 RAM and still got decent performance on High with no OC playing MW:O -between 30-40 FPS (which looks just fine). I built up for Star Citizen and what I have now should suffice for the PU.

[FatYak]

xWiredx, on 10 January 2015 - 07:03 PM, said:

Anybody who is recommending an AMD chip for MWO is nothing more than an AMD fanboy

Really.... unfortunately my friend grabbing an intel chip + MB in other parts of the world has at times, some rather large cost implications.

Why cant people like you just be happy that others have made a decision that works for them

Edited by Verapamil, 22 January 2015 - 09:35 PM.

[FatYak]

I think this is a very reasonable discussion on the topic

[Flapdrol]

Verapamil, on 22 January 2015 - 09:25 PM, said:

Really.... unfortunately my friend grabbing an intel chip + MB in other parts of the world has at times, some rather large cost implications.

Why cant people like you just be happy that others have made a decision that works for them

We do not care what cpu's people have already bought, people come here for advice on what to buy, and in this game intel clearly performs better at every pricepoint. That's why people saying amd works "just fine, blabla intel expensive" are not tolerated.

Verapamil, on 22 January 2015 - 09:47 PM, said:

I think this is a very reasonable discussion on the topic

It is not. It's just some guy saying he doesn't notice the difference, and in some games there is very little difference, also, many games don't care much for the cpu at all because they're more heavy on the gpu. MWO isn't, it's very demanding on the cpu, and doesn't take advantage of many mores, so the (much faster) intel cores win.

[FatYak]

Ho hum, its a reasonable opinion....whatever

Sheesh....you guys need to lighten up a bit

For some people hardware is a compromise. You can talk about the merits of one versus the other but at the end of the day there will be people who are on tight budgest and an intel might not be within their grasp for whatever reason.

I saw a thread on this the other day, abunch of guys ripping into a kid from romania about how crap AMD was. the kid baisically said he had "X" number of dollars to work with and intel was out of his price range. People like xWiredx consider that kid an AMD fanboy

Edited by Verapamil, 23 January 2015 - 03:36 AM.

[Flapdrol]

Verapamil, on 23 January 2015 - 03:23 AM, said:

Ho hum, its a reasonable opinion....whatever

Sheesh....you guys need to lighten up a bit

For some people hardware is a compromise. You can talk about the merits of one versus the other but at the end of the day there will be people who are on tight budgest and an intel might not be within their grasp for whatever reason.

I saw a thread on this the other day, abunch of guys ripping into a kid from romania about how crap AMD was. the kid baisically said he had "X" number of dollars to work with and intel was out of his price range. People like xWiredx consider that kid an AMD fanboy

In this game a pentium G3258 + H81 motherboard will outperform any amd chip. You'd be hard pressed to find anything cheaper. As I said, in this game intel is better at any pricepoint. Amd only has a price/performance advantage in highly mulithreaded workloads, and MWO isn't.

If all you want to play is battlefield 4 amd is an option, but if you also want to play MWO or Arma you're better off with something like an i5-4460 and H81 motherboard, or even the pentium if the i5 is too expensive.

[xWiredx]

Yeah, the i3 Haswell chips and massively overclockable Haswell refresh pentium chips will blow similarly-priced AMD chips out of the water at their respective price points. If you need to go super tiny budget, you're still better off going Intel. The fact of the matter is that right now if you choose to build on an AMD platform, you are not going to be super happy with your performance in this game. People that vehemently try to defend their AMD setups and say they are as good as Intel setups when playing MWO are either fanboys or don't actually know what they're talking about. Both types of people are not the types of people I like, especially when they start spreading their misinformation around the forums while we've already produced the numbers to prove our viewpoints.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 23 January 2015 - 05:44 AM, said:

Yeah, the i3 Haswell chips and massively overclockable Haswell refresh pentium chips will blow similarly-priced AMD chips out of the water at their respective price points. If you need to go super tiny budget, you're still better off going Intel. The fact of the matter is that right now if you choose to build on an AMD platform, you are not going to be super happy with your performance in this game. People that vehemently try to defend their AMD setups and say they are as good as Intel setups when playing MWO are either fanboys or don't actually know what they're talking about. Both types of people are not the types of people I like, especially when they start spreading their misinformation around the forums while we've already produced the numbers to prove our viewpoints.

While I agree with some of what you are saying..... What about Kain? He has a bad ass Intel rig, has spent a butte load of money, and he was still not happy with the "dips" this game produces. No misinformation there, just goes to show that Mid-higher end Amd CPU's are not the weak link in this issue, its this game. That is a fact, and one that many seem to over look and say, "just go Intel dude, its better." Does Intel put out better numbers then Amd.... no doubt about it, in most games yes it does, I have played with both Intel and Amd gaming rigs. Say what you like, I don't have low standards when it comes to my gaming rigs, and my FX-8350 plays this game just fine, like it does ANY other game I have ever played with my rig.

Its very rare to see major advances by leaps in bounds in hardware in the past 6 years or so, and IMO, software development is lagging far behind hardware to date. I got out of the "chasing" the best hardware game several years ago, because unless you have a endless amount of money to throw at it, you will never be happy with your hardware. In 6 months, the next best new shiny hardware will be released, and you will want it, even if it is just a 8% performance boost to your current rig. Its kinda laughable really....