34 replies to this topic

[Jiffy]

So, not too long ago I put together a new rig since my old one was finally starting to show its age. I was pretty deliberate in choosing my parts, and I feel like what I've got should be capable of better FPS than what I'm getting. Specs are as follows:

Intel Xeon E3-1231 (3.4 GHz)
EVGA GTX 970 (4 GB)
16 GB G-skill DDR3-1600
ASrock mini ITX mobo
256 GB Mushkin SSD
2 TB WD Blue 7200 RPM (storage drive)
Silverstone 650W SFX PSU

FPS in MWO on high settings with Vsync enabled maxes around 60 (I'm fine with this-- this is to be expected). However, it often dips down toward 30 FPS or lower, which I'm not fine with. I know many of you will probably just suggest that I turn off Vsync, and yes, I know this will improve FPS. But, I also feel like this computer should be able to do better than this even with Vsync enabled.

Now, also of interest is that I just recently bought a new laptop as well (Asus ROG G752). This computer has specs that aren't far off from my desktop (roughly equal / slightly worse than my desktop in most cases). In spite of this, it doesn't have the same low frame rates that my desktop does. Max FPS (again, with Vsync enabled) is 75, which is obviously due to the higher refresh rate of the display. But the minimum frames are generally around 55. Would Gsync / higher refresh rate really make this much of a difference?

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

what do you expect now?

[Jiffy]

I'm expecting my desktop's minimum frame rate to generally be on par with that of my laptop, because it doesn't make much sense that I'm experiencing worse performance from the more powerful computer of the two.

[Goose]

You … don't have a lot of Hz in your CPU; It's a point of contention as to DDR3-1600 being fast enough for the last two generations of CPU.

I will say you should set your v-sync to adaptive, and add "sys_MaxFPS = 62" to your user.cfg; At your Hz, you may need to drop Details, Shadow, Particles and Environment down to medium, as well as turning off Damage Glow and Motion Blur.

[Jiffy]

I was under the impression that 3.4 GHz was pretty good for this generation of CPU. Granted, I've been out of the PC building loop for a while. Either way, isn't it a bit weird that my laptop is getting better FPS with slower hardware? The reason for choosing DDR3 1600 in this particular setup was that it's the fastest memory speed supported by most LGA 1150 motherboards without overclocking.

So, this kind of brings me back to my monitor. Would a lower refresh rate also be responsible for lower minimum frames when vsync is enabled? Or would it only put a cap on the maximum frame rate?

ETA:

I tried to find my MWO user.cfg file, and couldn't find it anywhere. Is it supposed to be in the same location as the game.cfg file?

Edited by Jiffy, 05 March 2016 - 02:45 PM.

[Goose]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4895629

[xWiredx]

4.5GhZ on a Haswell-generation CPU for high/very high settings. 3.4GhZ just isn't enough to keep it stable in a firefight with 23 other belligerents casting shadows and particles all over the place.

[Vxheous]

You would have been better off getting a i7 4970K as it defaults at 4Ghz and boosts to 4.4 straight out of box without tweaking.

[Jiffy]

xWiredx, on 05 March 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

4.5GhZ on a Haswell-generation CPU for high/very high settings. 3.4GhZ just isn't enough to keep it stable in a firefight with 23 other belligerents casting shadows and particles all over the place.

I'm just not sure I believe that, considering the frame rates I'm getting out of my laptop which has a slower CPU.

[M T]

I am afraid you screwed yourself up with that Xeon.


If you want to get maximum possible performance in MWO or any game for that matter, you should've gone with a Devil's Canyon 4790K or Skylake 6700K (and overclock either one.)

Even older gens like Ivy still cut it with 4.5~GHz clock usually.

Most peeps can just about keep 60fps at all times on low graphics with a recent i7 desktop CPU at 4.3-4.6GHz.
This will also explain your v-sync problem.

Vsync isn't worth the massive input lag it generates, you're better off capping your FPS to a few fps above your refresh rate to minimize tearing. (I limit to 62 fps) on my 60hz screen and the tearing is almost unnoticeable.

Edited by x MT x, 05 March 2016 - 07:44 PM.

[Alardus]

I hope Im not the only one that sees the insanity in all this. We keep blaming the hardware for not being good enough, when the problem is software. Don't buy the hype. What, are we just going to live with FPS drops during large scale fighting and constant screen tearing in all our games, however minimized it may be by each person in the world having to modify the settings so it works "perfectly"?

Consumerism has gone crazy if companies are allowed to keep putting out software that performs so poorly even on the latest hardware. Mine is a 6 year old dinosaur built with parts that were obsolete even back then, and it still "plays" with performance near what you guys are talking about during multiple entity engagement on screen with particles all over.

If it won't play on my machine, I won't buy the product.

Edited by Alardus, 05 March 2016 - 10:00 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Alardus, on 05 March 2016 - 10:00 PM, said:

I hope Im not the only one that sees the insanity in all this. We keep blaming the hardware for not being good enough, when the problem is software. Don't buy the hype. What, are we just going to live with FPS drops during large scale fighting and constant screen tearing in all our games, however minimized it may be by each person in the world having to modify the settings so it works "perfectly"?

Consumerism has gone crazy if companies are allowed to keep putting out software that performs so poorly even on the latest hardware. Mine is a 6 year old dinosaur built with parts that were obsolete even back then, and it still "plays" with performance near what you guys are talking about during multiple entity engagement on screen with particles all over.

If it won't play on my machine, I won't buy the product.

That isn't what people are saying at all, people are just pointing out from the testing done in this very forum why the OP gets the FPS he does. The Xeon is the issue with its low clock rate. Chips have been running 4ghz for years now.

Having said that yes the software is an issue but that's not going to change any time soon

[Flapdrol]

Alardus, on 05 March 2016 - 10:00 PM, said:

I hope Im not the only one that sees the insanity in all this. We keep blaming the hardware for not being good enough, when the problem is software.

Blaming the software won't get you better fps, faster cpu's will.

Setting windows power plan to high performance sometimes helps.

Edited by Flapdrol, 05 March 2016 - 11:50 PM.

[DarkBazerker]

You could always try to overclock your gpu a little bit. Don't listen to the people telling you, your cpu is to slow. With intel cpus there comes a point of diminishing return. Even if you had a 4790k and you overclocked it to 4.5 from 4ghz your looking at mabye 3-4 fps increase. Now its true that xeon cpus aren't the greatest when it comes to gaming, but there ok. Xeon are more for workstation pc.

[Jiffy]

I honestly don't believe the Xeon has anything to do with it. Benchmarks for this particular Xeon aren't far off the mark from similarly priced i7's (or at least weren't at the time of purchase). And yes, price was a consideration. In fact, I did a lot of research when purchasing this CPU-- this is essentially an i7 without the integrated graphics chip that all i-series CPU's have now. In order to get something with meaningfully better performance, I would've had to spend quite a bit more money than I wanted to.

The clock speed argument simply doesn't hold much water, by my measure. As I've pointed out, my laptop's CPU runs at a much lower clock speed than my desktop (2.6 GHz, compared to 3.4 GHz). Running the game at the same settings, the same resolution, everything-- the laptop seems to be edging out the desktop in FPS, and at worst equaling it. Bear in mind, I'm not complaining about the game's performance, as such. I just have another computer to compare mine against, and it doesn't add up that the "lower performance" machine is performing better with the same settings.

[Goose]

Log Files or It Didn't Happen®

Example

[Buzzlight]

What resolution are you gaming?

[Minimalistix]

My friend and I both bought Skylake 6700K's recently and overclocked them to 4.6Ghz. While my machine runs nicely around the 120fps mark, his would struggle around 30fps. After lots of messing around we found that the Intel speed step on his computer wasn't bumping the speed up on MWO when he launched so the cpu was still running at 800mhz.

The solution in his case was to set his machine to high performance mode in the ASUS AI Suite software. Disabling speed step in the bios would also likely work.

[Jiffy]

That is some useful information, actually. I should take a look at what speed my CPU is actually maxing at when playing and see if it even approaches its maximum clock speed.

[Vxheous]

DarkBazerker, on 06 March 2016 - 12:27 AM, said:

You could always try to overclock your gpu a little bit. Don't listen to the people telling you, your cpu is to slow. With intel cpus there comes a point of diminishing return. Even if you had a 4790k and you overclocked it to 4.5 from 4ghz your looking at mabye 3-4 fps increase. Now its true that xeon cpus aren't the greatest when it comes to gaming, but there ok. Xeon are more for workstation pc.

The overclocking from 3.4Ghz to 4.4+Ghz typically increases MINIMUM fps, while only affecting max fps very little. This means less overall dips on framerates giving a much smoother experience. I can't explain why the laptop performs better than your desktop other than perhaps checking drivers, clearing cache, etc. Others have already suggested checking Intel speedstep.