52 replies to this topic

[sneeking]

I wouldn't hesitate to point the finger at the flash overlay as the main source of a majority of peoples problems.
There is a flash based rpg game i play and it sends my i7 surface tab into overdrive, runs hot kills battery like nothing els.

[AZA311]

Go back to 32 bit for all you AMD Phenoms

[TamCoan]

nehebkau, on 13 December 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

There are MWO AMD CPU problems (meaning something about the engine and game-design/build are not working with AMD CPUs) and I have been trying to get support to deal with it for a while. They have me trying new graphics drivers -- but that won't solve the underlying issue -- the game only appears to use 2 of my 8 cores for almost all of its processing. That causes some pretty substantial bottle necking. I sit at around 60 fps on the lowest settings and every increase in visual beauty will give me a 20 fps drop.

This is my MWO potato:

Processor: AMD FX9590 8 core @ 5Ghz (Overclocked and liquid cooled)
Graphics: 2 AMD R9290x 4Gb ram @ ~2Ghz. (Liquid cooled overclocked)
RAM: 64 Gb (so much -- for work related reasons)
HDs: Stripe set of intel SSDs.

edit:
I have gone so far as to run the game on an entirely separate SSD array with just the game and teamspeak on it (nothing else but the OS/drivers installed). It's frustrating and making me consider a new mainboard and CPU/water block for Christmas.

That's odd, I have a similar setup to you and am able to run ultra-high and get about 50FPS. I have to drop to medium settings when I run eyefinity for triple monitors but a single monitor runs very well. I don't have my CPU overclocked as high, I am at a comfortable 4.6/4.7 GHZ with watercooling and low core temps. I have dual, overclocked R9270s. I also have 16GB overclocked RAM. What motherboard are you running? I have a Crosshair V Formula-Z.

[TamCoan]

cSand, on 13 December 2015 - 08:48 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, are you guys with AMDs and performance issues running Windows 7 by any chance?

Windows 10 here.

[TamCoan]

Peter2k, on 14 December 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

They did some performance passes
Still
The HUD takes quite some fps away, flash based CPU hoand the fact that mechs are kind of made like Lego's so you can blow them up big by bit is causing a good amount of draw calls (haven't the link to the comment from Karl Berg on this on hand now)

Add to this that AMD was betting on multi tasking instead of single thread performance combined with the fact that DX 9 and 11 can't multi thread that well


AMD support = DX12 or Vulcan support
Should make quite a difference in MWO

Bother Russ some more on Twitter about it
Wanted to have a talk with CryTech about it after steam release

I do hope they add support for DX12 to MWO. I've seen some of the early specs/test results and it would do wonders for the AMD chips.

[sycocys]

I've been eyeballing dual and quad socket boards for the next time I build a rig. Something about 4 8-core chips and 128 gigs of rams just sounds like a good level of overkill to hold me over for the next 10 years.

[mariomanz28]

I have to add my system to the wonky AMD support for MWO. I have had issues with performance since they introduced 12v12 and I have had several upgrades to my system over the years of playing.

As it stands right now, I run a mixture of very high/high/medium settings with a resolution of 1920x1200, the FPS tends to be all over the place, I can start a match after the initial mech power up and have 100+ FPS and sometimes dip down below 30 FPS, it gets even worse in CW for some reason with dips as low as 15. Most of the time it is playable but there's some situations where it just shouldn't be that bad with my system. I've seen FPS dips during combat and I've seen dips just when looking certain directions on certain maps before even meeting the enemy. Also all the new, reworked maps, Caustic, Forest Colony, River City have about an average 20 FPS lower than the other maps.

I can play pretty much any other game maxed out or nearly maxed out at 60+ FPS with my rig with no issues. I've done numerous tests with performance, temperature, and graphics settings. Over the years I've found out there is hardly any difference in performance on average between all settings on Low and all settings on Very High. The only difference is the maximum and minimum FPS is higher or lower, the average is within 10 FPS of each other. Another thing is the game pretty much doesn't use more than 65% of my CPU or GPU at any point.

System:
AMD FX-8370 8 core 4.3Ghz (just got a water cooling system for it, going to mess with overclocking it some after the new thermal compound sets)
16GB Mushkin 2133Mhz DDR3 SDRAM with 9-10-10-28 timings
ASUS M5A97 EVO AM3+ Motherboard
EVGA GTX 770 Superclocked ACX 2GB
and the game and OS are on a Samsung 840 EVO 120GB SATA III SSD
Windows 10 Pro

Edited by mariomanz28, 14 December 2015 - 07:10 AM.

[sycocys]

My friend tried the game with this FX series too and it was sketchy, but he said it's been hit or miss on a lot of games because of the dedicated cores for graphics.

[mariomanz28]

sycocys, on 14 December 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

My friend tried the game with this FX series too and it was sketchy, but he said it's been hit or miss on a lot of games because of the dedicated cores for graphics.

I think you mean the APU, the FX is a stand alone CPU with no integrated graphics. the A10, A8, etc are the ones that have the built in video card.

[sycocys]

mariomanz28, on 14 December 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

I think you mean the APU, the FX is a stand alone CPU with no integrated graphics. the A10, A8, etc are the ones that have the built in video card.

You are probably right, it was probably the FX he was steering me towards because I don't have onboard graphics.

[Moldur]

Win 10 on a spare computer made from spare parts years ago.

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 645 3.10GHz
GPU: Radeon HD 5750
RAM: 4 gigs
64 bit

Runs at 30-50 fps on lowest settings. Pretty remarkable it even runs that well lol.

[sycocys]

Moldur, on 14 December 2015 - 07:36 AM, said:

Win 10 on a spare computer made from spare parts years ago.

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 645 3.10GHz
GPU: Radeon HD 5750
RAM: 4 gigs
64 bit

Runs at 30-50 fps on lowest settings. Pretty remarkable it even runs that well lol.

Remarkable it runs at all with that video card. XD

[Lugh]

Guyz I still can't run this on my emachine. Pleeeze Fix.

*sigh*

There is very little PGI can do to fix your third world computer. You need to ante up to get beyond minimum hardware for your suffering to end.

By the way, thanks for making me wait the additional 90 seconds while your PoC computer loads in to matches! I love waiting.

[Peter2k]

Lugh, on 14 December 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

Guyz I still can't run this on my emachine. Pleeeze Fix.

*sigh*

There is very little PGI can do to fix your third world computer. You need to ante up to get beyond minimum hardware for your suffering to end.

By the way, thanks for making me wait the additional 90 seconds while your PoC computer loads in to matches! I love waiting.

MWO is like THE most CPU bound game on the market

I can run FarCry 4 with everything on max including hair works and TXAA and get the same fps then in MWO (~70fps in CW maps, more on normal maps) with only medium (except textures; very high) settings and no AA


MWO is a free to play game
The gamers they want to reach don't want to upgrade to i5's n i7's just to play one game that has more problems than just fps

DX 12 could bring a lot of good to this game

[mogs01gt]

Lugh, on 14 December 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

Guyz I still can't run this on my emachine. Pleeeze Fix.
*sigh*
There is very little PGI can do to fix your third world computer. You need to ante up to get beyond minimum hardware for your suffering to end.

Did you bother reading this thread or are you here to just troll?? The majority of posters in this thread have killer machines and arent any where close to the "minimum hardware" requirements for MWO.

I experience the same drops in FPS with my FX-8320 clock at 4.1ghz. It's only an issue on new maps really.
Rig:
CPU:FX-8320 @ 4.1ghz
Mem: 8gb Viper Patriot DDR3
GPU: Dual 7750s
HDD: Game loaded to WD Raptor OS on Samsung EVO SSD.

[Ghogiel]

i used to run MWO on an X4 955, ran like ****, it was like max 40-45 and when combat got thick it would 28fps with dips to 18-20. most of the settings on low. Overclocking that by .2 held the min fps up by a noticable amount. I am surprised abou an 8 core piledriver at 5 on water has much of an issue holding 50-60 constant though. My 6350 keeps me 30-40 in combat. Though that heatvision still makes a bit of stutter and drops some fps off on frozen.

[Peter2k]

nehebkau, on 13 December 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

There are MWO AMD CPU problems (meaning something about the engine and game-design/build are not working with AMD CPUs) and I have been trying to get support to deal with it for a while. They have me trying new graphics drivers -- but that won't solve the underlying issue -- the game only appears to use 2 of my 8 cores for almost all of its processing. That causes some pretty substantial bottle necking. I sit at around 60 fps on the lowest settings and every increase in visual beauty will give me a 20 fps drop.

This is my MWO potato:

Processor: AMD FX9590 8 core @ 5Ghz (Overclocked and liquid cooled)
Graphics: 2 AMD R9290x 4Gb ram @ ~2Ghz. (Liquid cooled overclocked)
RAM: 64 Gb (so much -- for work related reasons)
HDs: Stripe set of intel SSDs.

edit:
I have gone so far as to run the game on an entirely separate SSD array with just the game and teamspeak on it (nothing else but the OS/drivers installed). It's frustrating and making me consider a new mainboard and CPU/water block for Christmas.

Search for core parking on the forums here

TamCoan, on 14 December 2015 - 06:35 AM, said:

That's odd, I have a similar setup to you and am able to run ultra-high and get about 50FPS. I have to drop to medium settings when I run eyefinity for triple monitors but a single monitor runs very well. I don't have my CPU overclocked as high, I am at a comfortable 4.6/4.7 GHZ with watercooling and low core temps. I have dual, overclocked R9270s. I also have 16GB overclocked RAM. What motherboard are you running? I have a Crosshair V Formula-Z.

Could be caused by core parking or power saving settings
Some help threads get resolved with that

MWO is a fickle thing
It never runs the same on comparable systems it seems

Though there's quite some things that I can think of that could hinder performance
Overlays, capture tools, flash installed or not, hell by upgrading to Windows 10 MWO feels snappier than it did under 7, though that's only a subjective thing in the first place

[o0Marduk0o]

IamJeist, on 13 December 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

got an amd processor phenom x4 945 can and gtx 970 can play witcher 3, fallout 4, warthunder

Why you put a GTX970 together with such an outdated CPU?

Edited by o0Marduk0o, 14 December 2015 - 08:53 AM.

[TamCoan]

o0Marduk0o, on 14 December 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

Why you put a GTX970 together with such an outdated CPU?

Probably because it was cheaper for him to upgrade the video card over the cpu/motherboard/ram. :-)

[Peter2k]

o0Marduk0o, on 14 December 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

Why you put a GTX970 together with such an outdated CPU?

Best guess
In most games the GPU is the more important part fps wise
Even if you can't reach high fps if the CPU is you're bottleneck you can still enable AA n some other features that are not as CPU dependent


If you have the cash for only one thing, then the GPU might be a better choice