Jump to content

Mwo On Ryzen


78 replies to this topic

#41 fuzzydice555

    Rookie

  • Knight Errant
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 March 2017 - 04:06 AM

View PostTHE ERASER, on 23 March 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

If you don't mind asking fuzzydice555, what graphics card are you using in your Ryzen Build? Thanks!


I'm using a GTX 1060 6GB at 1440p. I had to lower antialiasing to the lowest/fastest setting to get good framerates.

Edited by fuzzydice555, 23 March 2017 - 04:06 AM.


#42 Lizardman from Hollywood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 135 posts

Posted 23 March 2017 - 05:26 AM

Just built a new ryzen unit. 1700, asus rog hero mb, ssds, 1080 ftw2, hard wired into 200/40 internet.

Guess what? Triple the avg FPS of my old rig but MWO still hiccups at exactly the same places as my old pc. Logged into my sons acct ran them side by side(with my old pc) and got the dips in the same exact locations.

Just don't try and base your system perfornance on MWO. It's a buggy laggy half broke but fun pile of unoptimized junk. Just have fun and don't worry about the frames.

#43 MercJ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 184 posts

Posted 24 March 2017 - 04:25 PM

Okay, a couple more frame time captures. I've started using the Academy for a more controllable environment (a Timberwolf takes almost exactly 2min to complete the Gauntlet challenge, and the results seem to be comparable to live matches). Also, a surprise 390X appears...(I seem to get better/smoother results with Nvidia cards, supposedly because their drivers have less CPU overhead - not confirmed, but it makes sense in a game like MWO that is already CPU bound...)

I compared the (HPET off for all tests, btw) SMT disabled results with a run on a single CCX w/o SMT:
Posted Image
Posted Image

w/ GTX970 single CCX:
Posted Image

And a bit more testing just to be sure. Might have been the patch or something else, but I seem to be experiencing far smoother frametimes than before. Either way, this seems to be a consistent result.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Edited by MercJ, 25 March 2017 - 11:02 AM.


#44 MercJ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 184 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 11:13 AM

Updated the OP with latest information.

#45 MercJ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 184 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 12:07 PM

Hmm - a new result, courtesy of NARC BAIT in this thread.

So, here's a run with sys_job_system_max_worker = 8 (will probably try 16 as well, not sure if it'll matter).
Posted Image

They might be on to something with this...this was one of the best runs I've had yet. No other tinkering other than setting the power profile to High (like all the others) and HPET off. Almost indistinguishable with my Skylake system. In fact...(this run only mind you, but...)...it's BETTER.

Posted Image

More testing is required obviously...but AMD users (even FX) might want to give this a shot.

EDIT: too good to be true for Ryzen at least (FX users should still try it) - I got better results in the Academy with this tweak, but in live matches I got a strange "surging" behavior - almost like consistent lag every couple seconds, with some rubberbanding to match. Happens with it set to 8 and 16. Trying with the "sys_job_system_enable 0" setting.

Edited by MercJ, 25 March 2017 - 01:39 PM.


#46 CwStrife

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 247 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 March 2017 - 10:41 PM

Here is the system I just built. $3300

Ryzen 1700x
Asus Crosshair VI Hero
32GB Trident Z RGB
500 GB Samsung 960 EVO M.2
500 GB x2 Samsung 860 (or something) SSD
MSI Geforce GTX 1070 EK X Waterblock
A buttload of watercooling

In total I can say the performance is better than my once FX-8350 but it's still not what I expected of this game. Also I found out a long time ago PGI didn't even own an AMD graphics card or CPU to even test on... probably still don't. Guess they ignore half the population runs AMD rigs or something.

Anyways, what can I possibly do to speed things up with this game? No reason the FPS should be dog ****...


Posted Image

#47 THE ERASER

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 79 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 26 March 2017 - 02:41 AM

I have those settings right now on my Old I7 3770K @ 4.2ghz and a GeForce 1080:
Posted Image

Enabling more details or higher Quality seems doesn't make any visual difference. On the Nvidia Driver side I have set V-Sync option to Adaptive and set the texture filtering on High Quality, in Game V-Sync its Off like on the Pic.

My Ryzen Build should be ready around Easter. I'm Waiting for the Ryzen 5 1600X, I don't really need 8 Cores and 16 Threads only just for Gaming.

#48 NARC BAIT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 518 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 26 March 2017 - 07:00 AM

View PostTHE ERASER, on 26 March 2017 - 02:41 AM, said:

Enabling more details or higher Quality seems doesn't make any visual difference. On the Nvidia Driver side I have set V-Sync option to Adaptive and set the texture filtering on High Quality, in Game V-Sync its Off like on the Pic.


if your happy to tinker a bit, I've just posted my user config on another thread https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5672906 some of the stuff in it is about increasing detail beyond 'normals' ...

#49 Rashkae

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 192 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:55 PM

I'm on a Ryzen 1800X on an MSI Titanium. GPU is still the old 290X (waiting for Vega).

If you want to improve speeds, DO NOT POPULATE ALL 4 RAM SLOTS. Until the new Agesa BIOS updates are out, you are slowing down your max RAM speeds this way. Ryzen *loves* faster RAM speeds (unlike Intel which caps out after 2666). With just 2 banks filled you should be able to hit 2933 Mhz for the RAM, while with all 4 you might be limited to 2133. This results in a direct improvement in MWO framerates.

#50 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 04:46 AM

View PostRashkae, on 30 March 2017 - 10:55 PM, said:

I'm on a Ryzen 1800X on an MSI Titanium. GPU is still the old 290X (waiting for Vega).

If you want to improve speeds, DO NOT POPULATE ALL 4 RAM SLOTS. Until the new Agesa BIOS updates are out, you are slowing down your max RAM speeds this way. Ryzen *loves* faster RAM speeds (unlike Intel which caps out after 2666). With just 2 banks filled you should be able to hit 2933 Mhz for the RAM, while with all 4 you might be limited to 2133. This results in a direct improvement in MWO framerates.

Definitely good advice. Right now, a dual single-rank DIMM setup is ideal. You can definitely get DDR4-3200 to work, just not DDR4-3000. Ryzen has been demonstrated at DDR4-3600, too, though currently it doesn't look like the motherboard support is there (UEFI/BIOS issues). After DDR4-3200, we don't know how much of a performance difference there is. From 2133 to 3200, there is about a 16% increase in performance, though. Due to latency concerns with the chip itself, my idea would be to run higher-quality sticks at 3200 and start to lower memory latencies wherever possible.

Intel doesn't "cap out" at 2666, nowhere near. Their memory controller is good, so there is less of a gain I suppose, but there are definitely gains up until at least 3200. They just start to diminish beyond 2800. 2666 is considered the minimum speed you should be running.

#51 Mechteric

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 7,308 posts
  • LocationRTP, NC

Posted 31 March 2017 - 05:45 AM

View PostCwStrife, on 25 March 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

Anyways, what can I possibly do to speed things up with this game? No reason the FPS should be dog ****...


That's pretty much CryEngine's fault. Particles/effects and the UI seem to me to be the biggest reasons for the performance issues. Since you can't turn off the UI if you expect to play the game well, I think the best thing to do is to reduce particles/effects quality to make sure your FPS doesn't dive too much when in the middle of combat.

#52 Smokeyjedi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 1,040 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 01 April 2017 - 03:30 PM

View PostThrudvangar, on 22 March 2017 - 01:01 AM, said:



Hmmm i'm running my fx8320 at 4.8 or even at 4.5 ghz with just a little ram tuning and got 60fps (vsynch on) almost a whole match...

almost this whole match was above way above 60fps. but those dips......damn those dips killed that system. I5 3550 @ 4172mhz smoked that AMD rig in everything except video rendering/muliti thread apps. smoother gaming feel aswell

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 01 April 2017 - 03:30 PM.


#53 Lizardman from Hollywood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 135 posts

Posted 01 April 2017 - 04:38 PM

Well my 1700 @ 4.0 out benches an OC 6700 ON CPUZ. Getting 50 to 70 avg but a few spot dip my dps down into the 20s. Pulled up the maser tools and my cpu isnt even heating up playing at 1080 windowed. And the fans arent even kicking on on my 1080 ftw. It doesnt bother me anymore tho. I know the game optimizes crappy and hvebmade my peace with it.

#54 gaIaxor

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 05:43 AM

In this review with a GTX 1080 the 1800X is on par with the 7700K in MWO(at least in avg fps). Both have almost 100 fps:
https://thetechaltar...-performance/4/

Some games get a massive performance boost(~20
%) with new BIOS updates:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX_WEvEzR64&t=188

May be MWO, too. :)

Edited by gaIaxor, 03 April 2017 - 05:52 AM.


#55 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 08:00 AM

The problem is everybody just focuses on average fps. If you have a maximum of 120 and an average of 60 but a lot of dips down to between 0 and 20 fps, is that experience better than a maximum of 100, an average of 55, but no dips between 0 and 20 fps? No, definitely not. The second example is going to be smoother and better for overall play. Focusing only on the average fps does not work well for measuring how good of an experience you're going to have. That's why we look at things like dips and frame times. In that regard, Ryzen still looks good as long as you make sure to tune the system properly.

There probably won't be any actual major performance increases for Ryzen without optimized game code, though. They've shown that you can make significant gains when you do optimize the code with AMD's assistance, but that isn't likely to be something every company does for games that are already out and some may not adopt that as a strategy at all. Will PGI do it for MWO? I wouldn't hold your breath.

#56 gaIaxor

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 09:26 AM

It would already be a huge step forward if PGI would at least enable thier vintage engine to make use of 4 cores instead of only 2. :/

#57 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 03 April 2017 - 09:27 AM

View PostgaIaxor, on 03 April 2017 - 09:26 AM, said:

It would already be a huge step forward if PGI would at least enable thier vintage engine to make use of 4 cores instead of only 2. :/

This kind of dangerous talk is why the hardware subforum has been moved to the archive.

#58 NARC BAIT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 518 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 05 April 2017 - 01:10 AM

I really struggle to deal with terms like CPU bound, saying that the game is CPU bound implies that by simply having more CPU power, the problem would go away, and as anyone who might bother to read this knows, that not the case ...

the game is code bound, and since day one has always been hindered by 'bad code' ... and before anyone bothers to jump up and down about how wrong I am, I point you in the direction of the testing grounds, where most people will get double the performance that they would in a match .... and theres been plenty of theory and conjecture about why that happens, but the simple fact is, that the bits of bad code, are lying within the systems that are not used on the testing grounds ...

that's not to say that the other bits of code are perfect, we all know that turning off the HUD gives a performance boost, and the reason for that is multi tiered and obfuscated, have you ever noticed that turning the HUD off in a live game and on the testing grounds gives varying degrees of performance increase, like if it was just a straight +10ms to frame time across both, you would say the implication to me is that its only a partial indicator of underlying problems ...

if the game was truly 'CPU bound' then a thread/core would hit 100% ... but I've only ever seen that when I set the affinity to be a single core ...

this game, is code bound ... too many bits of code, try to execute in the main threads ... and I seriously hope that pgi can avoid making more of the same messy crap code in the newer crisis engine ... hopefully it will just scale better, hopefully they wont decide to add a few thousand cvars, just to keep track of the quirks, hopefully they stop being bandwidth tightasses and increase the amount of packets that the servers send out, and lets sincerely hope that they grow a brain about some of the way things work ... like, did you know that the game counter isn't a timer on your system, the server tells your client to play the next flash file in the time sequence .... that is, that every second, it tells your client that a new second has gone past, play the next file .... or when your client receives a text chat message, that message has be pumped out to 6 flash contexts, because, knowing which one you actually have open ... is too hard ...

this game always needed optimization, and its never going to happen on an engine the (crisis) devs stopped working on YEARS AGO, all we can do is hope that they make less mistakes than they did last (this) time ...

#59 Dragoon20005

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationSingapore

Posted 05 April 2017 - 10:37 PM

View PostNARC BAIT, on 05 April 2017 - 01:10 AM, said:

snip




I agree with you 100% on this

it has always been sh*tty programing part of the game engine by PGI

I have friends with powerful rigs struggling when the fps drops below 30 fps in huge fire fights and yet when they play games like Crysis 3 and Ryse: Son of Rome all in 4K full ultra glory on GTX980Tis and GTX1070/1080 rigs with i7 4790k/6700K and i7 7700K which should be plenty for all games with ZERO ISSUES.

yet you see huge FPS drops in MW:O


and going by the direction of PGI

they just choose to milk the series by releasing more mechs

and now they just chuck this sub forum into archive

pretty soon this sub forum will be canned altogether

Edited by Dragoon20005, 05 April 2017 - 11:03 PM.


#60 NARC BAIT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 518 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 10 April 2017 - 10:50 AM

should double post this to /r/mildlyinfuriating ... anyway ...

so .... rather annoyingly ... I've stopped copping the pause of death ... the one that's been the thorn in my side for years over this game ... and of course, it came around, by accident ... after I had given up on it ... I've mostly exhausted a VERY long list of cvars, and managed to rule the majority out of being relative to the problem, the 'pauses' would happen no matter what ... and I tried to exacerbate the problem to expose it, but to no avail ...

did any amongst us have to jump through hoops to get the x64 client to run ... I know I did, but that was years ago ... and the accidental solution to my long standing problem reminded me a lot of those battles ... today, for unrelated reasons, I downloaded the cryengine V SDK, and decided I might like to play around with that for a while ... and before long, it became apparent, that I could launch the 'game', the editor would not launch ... eventually I tracked the problem down to a missing file ... with the implication that it should be within the packages that I know I need to have installed to run this in x64 mode ... so eventually I find https://www.microsof...n.aspx?id=48145, installed it, and then restarted my pc for unrelated reasons ....

on reboot, I prep my normal setup of late ... msi afterburner, OBS for recording, a browser before I want it, a few file explorer windows, MWO, and the sandbox editor, I start watching a video tutorial while searching for a game, attempting to establish the load impact of having the editor open at the same time, played through that game, with no noticeable impact in game from having the second copy ( albeit blank ) copy of crisis running in the background ... played a few more games, while messing with the engine, and all of a sudden I found myself actually quite happy with the frame rates ... and I began to wonder if it was because I was increasing the load on the GPU to be full ...

so I quit the editor, and decided to focus on the game again ... removed adaptive vsync ( that I had been toying with the day before ) and reloaded the game ... on the second game I realised why I was suddenly happy about the frame rates ... the pause at most inconvenient / critical time wasn't happening, and I wasn't getting any increase in frame rates, I was just suffering less stuttering, making the overall amount of frames drawn higher ... so I removed (renamed) my user.cfg and tuning.cfg and went at it for a couple more games .... yep, still no want to punch your screen pauses ... and I'm also noticing less packet 'delay' ... where you jam full acceleration, but don't start moving for at least the latency of your ping time ... my actual latency is the same ....

so I went through and disabled everything that I had done, just to try to force this game to run, like disabling a heap of bios stuff, and forcing the cpu to run at 100% in windows, even the overclock .... all gone ... and so is the primary problem I've had with this thing for years ...

and at this point I should probably eat some of my own words ... because I've pointed the finger, but only been, half right ... I've said, for a long time, that they code badly ... and that's only been half right ... they debug badly ... and that's part of code ... and there are bits that are less than perfect, no doubt, but since the FX's things have always been worse for AMD's ... and it now seems that the problem was at least partially outside of their boundaries and almost certainly outside of their scope, seeing as they have said in the past that they don't test on the AMD's .... which has in effect meant that they don't really test on the x64 version of windows, and the 'best set' of .dll prerequisites is unknown ....
TL DR
(RE!)-download the visual studio redistributable, for a potential 'stuttering' x64 fix

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=48145
I almost feel like I've conquered it, and I can move on to another game (again, but I keep ending up back here, actually I could really go some Kilrathi right about now ) ...





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users