18 replies to this topic

[lollibast]

Hi,
so i only get around 20-30 fps when playing. I had a look at my resource usage and the GPU gets used at about 30%, memory and harddrive around 60%, CPU about 70% with frequency at 100% quadcore cpu). Not sure what that cpu frequency thing means. I turned down all the settings, sitched to 64bit (win7 64bit) (but I don't notice much of a change. I wonder where the bottleneck is with neither of the components working at maximum.
any ideas warriors?

[LameoveR]

First, what is your spec plz.

[LordSkippy]

I have a similar problem, especially with the 32-bit client. For me, the 64-bit client helped boost the in match framerate and my GPU now hangs around the 60-75% usage instead of the 30-50%. However, your mileage may vary.

The bottleneck is your CPU. I have an 8-core AMD FX-8350 running at 4.1Ghz and an Nvidia 660GTX. However, the game isn't well optimized, especially for AMD processors. Which causes a thread to wait around even when there are spare cores sitting idle. The 64-bit client can apparently can do some of the math faster than the 32-bit client, and my processor was close enough to the red line that the 64-bit client helped it get some boost.

[bar10jim]

LordSkippy, on 13 January 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

I have a similar problem, especially with the 32-bit client. For me, the 64-bit client helped boost the in match framerate and my GPU now hangs around the 60-75% usage instead of the 30-50%. However, your mileage may vary.

The bottleneck is your CPU. I have an 8-core AMD FX-8350 running at 4.1Ghz and an Nvidia 660GTX. However, the game isn't well optimized, especially for AMD processors. Which causes a thread to wait around even when there are spare cores sitting idle. The 64-bit client can apparently can do some of the math faster than the 32-bit client, and my processor was close enough to the red line that the 64-bit client helped it get some boost.

But you only have 4 physical cores. The "other" 4 cores are created with some hyperthreading magic. Since MW:O doesn't seem to be able to take advantage of the hyperthreading, having 4 "spare" cores waiting is an illusion.

I'm not trying to re-start the Intel/AMDFlame War, just an observation that your 8-core chip really only has 4 cores as far as MW:O is concerned.

[Grrzoot]

bar10jim, on 13 January 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

But you only have 4 physical cores. The "other" 4 cores are created with some hyperthreading magic. Since MW:O doesn't seem to be able to take advantage of the hyperthreading, having 4 "spare" cores waiting is an illusion.

I'm not trying to re-start the Intel/AMDFlame War, just an observation that your 8-core chip really only has 4 cores as far as MW:O is concerned.

don't think of it as cores, think of it as threads, where each thread is an individual math function, the chip splits up the function calls not the program, so you really do get 8 threads for 4 cores, if that helps.

[lollibast]

LameoveR, on 13 January 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

First, what is your spec plz.

CPU: intel quad Q9550 @ 2,83Ghz
ram: 4GB
gpu: pcie amd radeon hd 7900 3GB 800mhz corefrequ and 1250mhz memfrequ

[xWiredx]

What in-game settings? We need to know that, too.

2.83GhZ on an old C2Q? Good luck getting a decent framerate with that. OC that chip to hell and back. Also, DDR3 RAM is still cheap, you should strongly consider upgrading to 8GB or more at a decent speed (DDR3-1600 or faster).

[LordSkippy]

lollibast, on 14 January 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

CPU: intel quad Q9550 @ 2,83Ghz
ram: 4GB
gpu: pcie amd radeon hd 7900 3GB 800mhz corefrequ and 1250mhz memfrequ

I think you're CPU bound. You're graphics card is waiting on the CPU to finish some calculations before it can ro more work. This game is very CPU intensive compared to other games. The dev explained that it had to do with calculating shots from all the different weapons at different locations on several mechs, amoung other things.

[lollibast]

xWiredx, on 14 January 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

What in-game settings? We need to know that, too.

2.83GhZ on an old C2Q? Good luck getting a decent framerate with that. OC that chip to hell and back. Also, DDR3 RAM is still cheap, you should strongly consider upgrading to 8GB or more at a decent speed (DDR3-1600 or faster).

res: 1920*1280
blur and AA off
all settings low except environment, which is on very high b/c i read that it increases drawing distance of objects (sniping is not really possible due to invisible textures blocking shots, any suggestions on that?

[WarHorseOne]

What is you in-game ping?

Might be something else to consider, I moved to a new house recently and was fortunate enough to find that the ugly building 400m down the road is actually my ISP's exchange, dropped my in-game ping from around 300ms to 240ms (Australia) and I got and extra 15 to 20fps in-game on the same machine.

[Nick Makiaveli]

One suggestion is to tinker with the settings, I actually got better FPS with somethings set higher (initially went all to low as I have a dual core).

FTR the only time I have problems is in Frozen City when it's snowing and I have 4 or 5 mechs on the screen with missiles flying etc. Very much a case by case basis it seems.

[xWiredx]

lollibast, on 14 January 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

res: 1920*1280
blur and AA off
all settings low except environment, which is on very high b/c i read that it increases drawing distance of objects (sniping is not really possible due to invisible textures blocking shots, any suggestions on that?

Considering AMD's bulldozer is about the same clock-for-clock performance-wise as your Q9550, and those guys need to hit 4GhZ+ to see good performance at high settings, I'd say you're gunning for low and medium settings right now with such a low clock speed on that CPU. If I remember correctly, that chip should be capable of at least 3.4GhZ with decent cooling. You should start reading the stuff in the hardware subforum (where this thread should have been anyway). There might be some user.cfg stuff that is useful to you there, and cheap build ideas that may allow you to get better performance without spending much.

[Flapdrol]

xWiredx, on 14 January 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

What in-game settings? We need to know that, too.

2.83GhZ on an old C2Q? Good luck getting a decent framerate with that. OC that chip to hell and back. Also, DDR3 RAM is still cheap, you should strongly consider upgrading to 8GB or more at a decent speed (DDR3-1600 or faster).

With a core2quad it's most likely ddr2.

[lollibast]

sorry if i put this in the wrong subforum

well, my ping is around 120 and i am basically suing the lowest possible settings (lowering environment to low doesnt result in a better framerate) but I appreciate your suggestions and will OC my CPU and play around with ingame settings to see if i can a better framerate. if to no avail i will auction some MC and pimp my hardware

[xWiredx]

Flapdrol, on 15 January 2015 - 07:43 AM, said:

With a core2quad it's most likely ddr2.

When going to a somewhat more premium CPU like the Q9550, most people went DDR3. It did have a 1333MhZ FSB, after all. Those who used it with a DDR2 board were sacrificing everything else to spend on the CPU or trying to keep an aging system lively. If OP is indeed using a DDR2 board with his, then he needs to get off that platform altogether. A DDR2 platform will limit any OCing, and even at stock was held back by the RAM by a good 5-10%. Wouldn't be worth the trouble trying to boost that.

[Flapdrol]

xWiredx, on 15 January 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

When going to a somewhat more premium CPU like the Q9550, most people went DDR3. It did have a 1333MhZ FSB, after all. Those who used it with a DDR2 board were sacrificing everything else to spend on the CPU or trying to keep an aging system lively. If OP is indeed using a DDR2 board with his, then he needs to get off that platform altogether. A DDR2 platform will limit any OCing, and even at stock was held back by the RAM by a good 5-10%. Wouldn't be worth the trouble trying to boost that.

You sure about that? I've seen a few boards with ddr3, but as there was no performance benefit and ddr3 was very expensive it didn't get popular here. There was no point in running faster than the FSB, which was 333 MHz, and my ddr2 kits did 450 FSB no problem, and those were nothing special.

Ddr3 didn't get cheap until well after the release of the i5-750, which made any core2quad obsolete.

[xWiredx]

Pretty sure. On the same chipset (a P35 I believe), there was a 2-5% increase going from DDR2-1066 to DDR3-1333 despite the slower timings, and moving chipsets to whatever the successor was gave another 2-5% increase in some games (Halo, Far Cry). Other games liked lower latencies, so they favored DDR2 until you started to push the speed. By the time you hit 1450MhZ+ on the early DDR3 sticks, it was leaving the DDR2 behind more and more. If OP is on a DDR3 system, we already know going from 1333 to something like 1866 will still give him a good 2-3%.

Either way, the real bottom line here is OP is pretty limited. OCing, upgrading his current RAM if possible, and user.cfg changes kind of like what Goose and Smokey have are about his only options.

[ApolloKaras]

Could probably OC that q9550 I had one @ 3.5ghz, with some excellent air cooling... Though I upgradedf when Battlefield 3 came out - I was CPU limited with that game. So I could only imagine how limited you are here.

[The Yeti]

I am going to post here, been having problems for so very long. i get only 15-30 fps when i face any mech. other than testing grounds i get a full 60. the problem has been ongoing for so long i sent a support ticket, and thought i would try my luck here.

AMD FX6100
R9 290X 4gb (no help) upgraded from a gtx 560ti
8gb ram
win 7