7 replies to this topic

[CrazySan]

So I've tried to get back into MWO since it came out on steam. I noticed right off that my FPS seems kinda low and nothing I do seems to make it better. Is it my hardware or something else? Doesn't seem to matter if I set it on Low, Medium, or High, I still get between 20 to 30 FPS while In Game. I've posted my PC's specs below. Any help is appreciated.

Operating System: Windows 10 Home 64-bit
CPU: AMD FX-8320
RAM 12.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 716MHz (9-10-10-26)
Motherboard: MSI 970A-G46 (MS-7693)
Graphics: BBY LCD (1360x768@60Hz)
4096MB ATI AMD Radeon R9 270X (MSI)

[Bite the pillow im going in dry]

Yea, your FPS really should be higher than that.

try lowering Shadows option.
if there are any new drivers available for your GFX card, please update them.

[Ink Sikes]

Definitely should be higher. Are you running dual monitors?

[jss78]

Try fiddling individually with each of the graphics settings. Go to testing grounds, and run some constant route while changing one setting at a time, and see whether there's a significant change.

Some of the settings may have a big effect on FPS, while other can be put on a higher settings with little effect on FPS. In general, Particles, Shadows and Environment are particularly bad FPS hogs, as is anti-aliasing.

By contrast, I find I can put some settings such as Textures above Low with little effect on FPS, while it makes the game a lot nicer to look at.

(More info at https://www.reddit.c...ngs_effect_fps/)

Also, try switching cockpit glass off. At least on my system it's an incredibly bad FPS hog: I gain several FPS by switching it off.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

CrazySan, on 31 December 2015 - 12:57 PM, said:

CPU: AMD FX-8320

This here is your problem. CryEngine is highly optimised for Intel chips. Not so much for AMD. I think a lot of other folks have also had problems with low performance if they use AMD.

It's also important to note that MWO is actually CPU intensive more than GPU intensive, and RAM intensive too. I'm getting much higher performance with an i7-4790 clocked at stock, 8GB 2133MHz RAM and a GTX780Ti than a friend who has an i5-4460, 16GB 1600MHz RAM and a GTX980. It makes a difference of almost 10 FPS on maps that are particle-heavy or fog-heavy. Difference only gets bigger when you put on thermal or NV filters.

[jss78]

ArcturusWolf, on 31 December 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

It's also important to note that MWO is actually CPU intensive more than GPU intensive, and RAM intensive too. I'm getting much higher performance with an i7-4790 clocked at stock, 8GB 2133MHz RAM and a GTX780Ti than a friend who has an i5-4460, 16GB 1600MHz RAM and a GTX980. It makes a difference of almost 10 FPS on maps that are particle-heavy or fog-heavy. Difference only gets bigger when you put on thermal or NV filters.

I have a question about this. Just how RAM intensive is MWO?

I'm playing on a ThinkPad laptop, quite powerful CPU (Core i7 quad-core) but weakish GPU (Geforce GT740M). I'm getting pretty decent FPS at 1280x720 (40-70 depending on map), but wouldn't mind more.

I have 8 GB RAM, but could quite cheaply upgrade to 16 GB. Is there any chance this'd help MWO?

[CrazySan]

Ink Sikes, on 31 December 2015 - 06:09 PM, said:

Definitely should be higher. Are you running dual monitors?

No, only one monitor

ArcturusWolf, on 31 December 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

This here is your problem. CryEngine is highly optimised for Intel chips. Not so much for AMD. I think a lot of other folks have also had problems with low performance if they use AMD.

It's also important to note that MWO is actually CPU intensive more than GPU intensive, and RAM intensive too. I'm getting much higher performance with an i7-4790 clocked at stock, 8GB 2133MHz RAM and a GTX780Ti than a friend who has an i5-4460, 16GB 1600MHz RAM and a GTX980. It makes a difference of almost 10 FPS on maps that are particle-heavy or fog-heavy. Difference only gets bigger when you put on thermal or NV filters.

If this is the case then that kinda sucks. Almost made the switch to Intel last time I upgraded my machine, but always used AMD in the past and there was a really good deal on the graphics card. And I probably won't be able to upgrade again for quite some time.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

jss78, on 31 December 2015 - 06:34 PM, said:

I have a question about this. Just how RAM intensive is MWO?

I'm playing on a ThinkPad laptop, quite powerful CPU (Core i7 quad-core) but weakish GPU (Geforce GT740M). I'm getting pretty decent FPS at 1280x720 (40-70 depending on map), but wouldn't mind more.

I have 8 GB RAM, but could quite cheaply upgrade to 16 GB. Is there any chance this'd help MWO?

RAM clock speed matters more than volume, at this stage. I've run a few resource monitor logs while running MWO, and it seems that MWO never uses more than about 2-3GB of RAM at worst. If your machine still has available physical memory (bring up task manager and look at the Performance tab; there should be Physical Memory availability on the left bottom) in the order of 1-2GB while playing MWO, then your volume is good enough.

I do have access to several 2133, 1866 and 1600MHz RAM modules though. When I get time, I'll test MWO on each of these and see what performance difference it makes. I do think though that MWO is CPU bound more than memory bound.