100 replies to this topic

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vassago Rain, on 26 February 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

Some of us have 120hz monitors, and would like to play MWO at 120 FPS, like we can do most other games, that typically look better, anyway.

Which is nice.

But you can't.

[xWiredx]

Claviger, on 26 February 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

You do realize that a 3960X @ 4.7 = 4960X @ 4.5 = 5930K @ 4.3 right? That MWO doesn't use the extra instructions available on Ivy or Haswell....

Basically, upgrading nets zero performance gains if you dont get a chip that clocks well. So even if I got a 5960X that was happy at 4.5 (lucky), it would be at max a 6% increase in performance vs my 3960 in the MWO scenario.

Interestingly though, I wonder what it would take for a CPU to be able to handle MWO at 120fps. 7ghz?

Also: Does no one see this as a significant issue at PGI?!

My 2600K and my 5820K benchmarked almost identically, the 2600K at 5GhZ and the 5820K at 4.5GhZ. Instruction sets don't matter, you're right on that. What does matter is the IPC difference, which between SB and IB was 2-10% (application-dependent) and then between IB and HW another 2-10% (application-dependent). Assuming the middle ground there, it would be a 10% difference. Doing the math based off the clock speeds alone, it'd be about 10%. I'm going to go with 10% here being realistic with MWO, too. You're running at the HW equivalent of about 4.2GhZ, which I've already tested as not quite good enough to maintain 60fps with very high particles (actually, not even with high particles I believe, can't remember if I tested that).

You want double that as your minimum line? Simply isn't going to happen until a lot more optimization is done by PGI. We've been harping on them about performance for at least a year and a half and they've been making tiny improvements. My guess here is that it'll be awhile before they can seriously take on performance issues with all of the new additions they're making right now.

[Goose]

Claviger, on 26 February 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

CPU: 3960X @ 4.7 GHZ
GPU: 2x Asus Matrix GTX 980 @ 1506/2100
RAM: 16GB Mushkin DDR3 @2133
Drive: 2xSSD RAID 0
Mobo: Asus Rampage 4 Black

What timings?

Claviger, on 26 February 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

23000 Firestrike
46000 Catzilla
Farcry 4 @ 100 FPS average ultra settings in 1440p
Watchdogs @ over 100 FPS Average ultra settings in 1440p

Which one of these was supposed to impress us? Any of them CPU limited?

Claviger, on 26 February 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

… all hardware verified working properly .... [sic]

Then when the actual fighting starts, depending on which map it will go down in the 40-100 range and stay there until most of the enemy team is dead. As the frame rate drops so does GPU usage. If I dont lock the cards at boost max speed, the GPU use dips so low the cards actually declock down to 1088mhz making the problem even worse .... [sic]

This last point was supposed to have been you first Idiot Light on the subject.

Claviger, on 26 February 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

Core unparking - 1st tweak after installing drivers.
SLI on vs SLI off = zero difference in framerate
I already said all options at low in game, global settings at fastest possible.

cl_fov = 99
d3d10_TripleBuffering = 1
d3d11_TripleBuffering = 1
d3d9_TripleBuffering = 1
sys_budget_streamingthroughput = 23310899
sys_budget_sysmem = 8192
sys_budget_videomem = 2048
sys_LocalMemoryGeometryStreamingSpeedLimit = 22764
sys_LocalMemoryTextureStreamingSpeedLimit = 22764
sys_MaxFPS = 67
sys_streaming_max_bandwidth = 22764
r_GeomInstancing = 1
r_multiGPU = 0
r_silhouettePOM = 0
r_stereodevice = 0
r_UsePOM = 0
sys_budget_soundCPU = 0
r_WaterUpdateThread = 2
sys_streaming_CPU = 4
sys_TaskThread0_CPU = 0
sys_TaskThread1_CPU = 0
e_GsmCache = 1
q_ShaderWater = 0
r_Beams = 2
r_FogShadows = 0
sys_limit_phys_thread_count = 0
p_num_threads =12
e_AutoPrecacheCgfMaxTasks = 12
p_num_jobs = 12
r_ShadersAsyncMaxThreads = 12
sys_job_system_max_worker = 12

You can figure out what to adjust from here, right?

Claviger, on 26 February 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

… MWO doesn't use the extra instructions available on Ivy or Haswell ....[sic]

Also: Does no one see this as a significant issue at PGI?!

Wat

[Hardin4188]

I would suggest forcing the dynamic vsync which turns off vsync if the framerates go below the refresh rate. If this doesn't help then it may be best to just turn off vsync and add the max fps setting in your user.cfg instead. Unfortunately Mechwarrior Online is notorious for it's poor performance. But can it run Crysis? became a meme, but there was some truth to the original question. Who would use the cryengine to run their game is my question.

[Tarogato]

If you can consistently get more than 30fps, I personally say you have no right to complain about performance. Try joining the rest of us at 20fps. =P

[Goose]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

Try joining the rest of us at 20fps. =P

Read moar of the Hardware section …

Edited by Goose, 26 February 2015 - 11:43 AM.

[Summon3r]

Claviger, on 26 February 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

So basically, screw anyone who owns a top tier system, you get performance of an entry level gaming laptop.

no offence meant here but are you new to MWO? seriously man i dont think there is a system on the planet capable of holding 120fps in MWO, you should easily be able to sit in around 60 fps max settings with your system, BUT you will still get dips thats just life in MWO... honestly dood you cannot compare MWO to anything or any other cry engine game.

so yes entry level gaming laptop performance from a high end system like yours isnt that far off the mark of nomrality here.

[xWiredx]

Actually, my laptop does pretty well with MWO... i7 4710MQ, 16GB DDR3-1600 CL9, GTX 870M 3GB with mixed medium-very high settings. I get a pretty consistent 50-60fps at 1080p, and only dips in very heavy action (but I have seen dips as low as like 32ish). Haven't customized my user.cfg yet, though, or tweaked core parking and hyperthreading (the bios on this laptop actually doesn't have an option to turn it off).

OP something that might benefit you is tweaking the particle stuff in user.cfg. There's lots of documentation around here from myself and others, so I won't bother reposting it.

[Goose]

Er: Lots isn't the phrase I'd use, xWiredx, and in fact, I'd really like to see your copy, as I think it's better/ maor complete then mine …

[Lostdragon]

Turning off film grain and cockpit glass give me better performance and make the game look less crappy.

[Hardin4188]

Lostdragon, on 26 February 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

Turning off film grain and cockpit glass give me better performance and make the game look less crappy.

I actually like the look of the cockpit glass. How much is the improvement in framerates?

[Lostdragon]

Hardin4188, on 26 February 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

I actually like the look of the cockpit glass. How much is the improvement in framerates?

I go from low 40s to low 50s w/ those off. I also turn depth of field off.

[xWiredx]

Goose, on 26 February 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

Er: Lots isn't the phrase I'd use, xWiredx, and in fact, I'd really like to see your copy, as I think it's better/ maor complete then mine …

For particles, I have these fields from the user.cfg I used when I had my 660 Ti and 2600K:

r_UseParticlesRefraction = 1
e_ParticlesQuality = 3
e_ParticlesLights = 1
e_ParticlesMaxScreenFill = 64
e_ParticlesMinDrawPixels = 1.5
e_ParticlesMotionBlur = 0
e_ParticlesObjectCollisions = 1
r_UseParticlesHalfRes = 1
r_UseSoftParticles = 0

That user.cfg tweaking thread from forever ago that had the package of default values for each setting level would be a good reference to learn about these parameters in addition to the Crytek documentation.

[Astennu]

MWO somehow had bad optimalisations compared to Crysis 3.
On a 6 core Phenom II for example you only see about 50% CPU usage. Where Crysis 3 can load 8 cores in some situations.

Overclocking the CPU had huge Impact on performance.
I'm running a 4790K on 4,5GHz with a GTX980 overclocked. But i still lowered some settings like shadows, effects and particles to get good FPS in heavy fights. (Shadows low and the other two on high)

I hope they can somehow implement DX12 to get the CPU overhead down or implement a way to use more Threads.

[Hardin4188]

Lostdragon, on 26 February 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

I go from low 40s to low 50s w/ those off. I also turn depth of field off.

Really? That is a remarkable difference. I might have to do that. I always turn off film grain anyway, because it looks terrible!

[Claviger]

@ Goose - I'll take a look through the ini settings listed. The point was not to impress man, anyone can go look on hwbot or wherever for scores, was simply to clarify that the system performs fine in other cases. 9-11-10-28-1T to answer your question.

Others, no, not new here, but new to having a build that is/should be capable of max settings in any game at high fps, so didn't realize there literally was nothing on the table to be had from MWO by owning any video card newer than a GTX 580 or GTX 670.

Serious question: What was the point of rereleasing DX11 when it does exactly nothing to aleviate the cpu bottleneck.

[Flapdrol]

Claviger, on 26 February 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

Serious question: What was the point of rereleasing DX11 when it does exactly nothing to aleviate the cpu bottleneck.

Glorious antialiasing.

[Lostdragon]

Hardin4188, on 26 February 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:

Really? That is a remarkable difference. I might have to do that. I always turn off film grain anyway, because it looks terrible!

Yeah, the cockpit glass effects are really taxing on my system.

[Vassago Rain]

Claviger, on 26 February 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

Serious question: What was the point of rereleasing DX11 when it does exactly nothing to aleviate the cpu bottleneck.

They couldn't put it off any longer.

[Insects]

I think its all CPU bottlenecks.
Particles are CPU based and it doesn't help that PGI are overusing them (smoke and steam coming from everywhere).

Basically best performance is gained by a big i7 and not GPU, $100 GPU can do as well as top shelf because of CPU bottlenecking.