10 replies to this topic

[williamseattle]

Question i have a GTX 1070 and AMD FX 8320 8 core cpu with 256 ssd HD and 16 gig2X8 gigs with windows 10 pro 64 bit and play the game on dx11 or dx9 on Highest settings and get 40-59 fps ? while playing with Full screen or Windowed Full screen ? Is there a Benchmark or Videocard Guide line or CPU Guide to play this game Liquidly Smooth ? Any help or tips great thanks !!!

[Tier5 Kerensky]

With your computer, the game runs completely limited by CPU. If you are getting mostly 40 FPS then that already is pretty good.

[williamseattle]

Teer Kerensky, on 19 August 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

With your computer, the game runs completely limited by CPU. If you are getting mostly 40 FPS then that already is pretty good.

OK I was going to get a Intel Build going but it Might be Bad Coding on the Games end where you can have a Decent Intel I-7 Rig with a gtx 1080 with 50-100 Fps depending on where you play on what map ? Any Ideas or Peoples Rigs with FPS rates?

[Chaosity]

As mentioned MWO FPS is bound much more strongly to CPU power and not GPU power. I have a 4 year old i7-4820K running at 3.7 GHz (I have OC'd it to 4.5 with stability with water cooling, but I have no need.... 3.7 works fine for everything I do). Regarding the GPU I was running a GForce 770 for my first 3 years in MWO, then upgraded a year ago to a 970. The 770 was adequate, but I was also upgrading my primary monitor from 1920x1080 to 3440x1440 and wanted some additional horsepower.

In both cases (770 @ 1920x1080 and 970 @ 3440x1440) I have used a 3rd party product called "NVIDIA Inspector" to manipulate the GPU's internal registers to limit my FPS to 60. In doing so it drops my GPU temperature 20-25 degrees F. Heat is the solid state assassin and i find 60 FPS is very adequate. I mention this because if my i7-4820K can drive it over 60 FPS @ 3.7 GHz then your CPU should too.

BTW are you sure you have an 8 core CPU and not 4 dual cores which show as 8 on most CPU inspection programs? Get CPU-Z, it will show you the true number of cores. My i7 has 4 cores but shows as 8 on most programs, but CPU-Z identifies it properly as 4 cores with 8 threads.

Edited by Chaosity, 19 August 2017 - 04:18 PM.

[Dax68]

DOES MORE MEMORY ON THE VIDEO CARD HELP?......

I've been playing MWO for about four years on my Intel i7-4771 cpu with Nvidea GTX 770 (2gb memory on GPU) At moderately high MWO detail settings, it can maintain 60ish FPS. Sometimes in the heat of battle , it can get pretty choppy. Would everybody agree that my video card is holding back my CPU? If so, any ideas on what card would pair well with my CPU? I'm thinking the GTX 1060. and one thing I like about the 1060 is that it has 6gb of memory. My card only has 2gb it gets maxed out.

[Thorqemada]

The FPS will vary a big time depending on Map and Mechs and effects...like from 35 to 150 FPS.
At highest Settings you will scratch the 40 FPS most often and less...as it is already said - MWO is CPU-Bound pretty much and does not perform well with many cores or a better GPU.

You should not buy a Graphic Card with less then 4GB and many games start to take Advantage of more Memory and in some cases the Graphic Cards with more Memory be faster for better timiings etc. it all depends on the individual GPU.
My RX480 i.e. offers 8GB of Ram and is faster than the 4GB Version.

As the Game-Servers run on pretty low Settings and the Internet does what the Internet does...

Imho noone can play this game liquidly smooth all the time!

Edited by Thorqemada, 19 August 2017 - 09:31 PM.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

I have i5-3470, nominally 3.2 GHz but with turbo it runs about 3.3 -3.4.

Ive been playing FP now and the FPS is between 25-50. In the more intensive phases like lots of LRMs in the air the average is about 27 and in more calm phase about 40. This was also siege defence so there was lots of other markers like turrets too.

I got DX11, everything high except object detail and textruring very high. And AA is on FXAA. Damage glow on, motion blur low, kill counter and cockpit glass off. I usually have the browser on because I can't bother to stare all the loading screens.

Look for GPU utilization with like GPU-Z or MSI Afterburner, if GPU is not a lot loaded then the game you are playing is more CPU limited.

GPU is R9 270, and I can see GPU usage is about 40-60% so it's completely CPU limited with me as well.

[Tarl Cabot]

williamseattle, on 19 August 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

OK I was going to get a Intel Build going but it Might be Bad Coding on the Games end where you can have a Decent Intel I-7 Rig with a gtx 1080 with 50-100 Fps depending on where you play on what map ? Any Ideas or Peoples Rigs with FPS rates?

I have running i5-3570K OC 4.5ghz, 16gigs ram 1800 and SAPPHIRE NITRO Radeon R9 Fury. User.cfg with max FPS set to 70. Without max FPS set, depending on map and location on map can range max 170fps then drop to 45fps during heat of battle/.brawling with tons of including missiles/etc. That wild fluctuation gives me a headache. Settings around medium with AA turned off and 1920×1080 resolution.

This is my first rig in over 15years. My last two systems were Pentium 3.0 desktop and Pentium 3.4 Extreme (Dell XPS -gen 1- laptop w/ATI 9800m) 1core w/Hyperthread .

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 20 August 2017 - 09:10 PM.

[NARC BAIT]

its not merely CPU bound, core parts of code, like the way the map is done, are always going to bring the game down to a crappy level ... the map is 'updated' more often than the crosshair (giant WTF!) and is desynced from how often it gets 'drawn' onto the screen ... the system that controls the HUD might be updated more than 600 times in a second ... to only generate 30 or 60 'frames' worth of data ... I showed a bit of code to a dude who optimizes code, and he dropped dead, on the spot, something about a coronary implosion, not doing that again ...

other parts can tend to not scale at all ... for instance, you might be getting 160fps, but the particle system is gimped @ 48 fps, and you can see that its not in sync with everything else ...

I can see my GPU memory climb to nearly 5gb in QP if I crank all the details right up, its my current belief that the game is a bit too quick to throw away textures that haven't been seen in the last few seconds, forcing them to be re-fetched when you re-see that decal ...

and then theres the particle system ... which can bring its own slow downs ... in an overloaded state, it brings me down to 48 FPS ... but wont max out any thread ... I could probably set a 48 FPS limit and enjoy the consistency, but it seems pointless to gimp usage to 30% ... the resolution doesn't seem to have much impact on it ... same behaviour at 1080p as 4K ...

if you look around at crisis 2/3 overclocking performance reviews, you'll see that generally overclocking doesn't help lift the minimum figure much ...

and the only real hope is that these guys make less code mistakes in the future ... but don't hold your breath, I'm sick of picking up dead bodies ...

so really, to sum up, I'm not sure if what you ask for is actually possible, for any amount of money ... well maybe .... buy PGI, fire a bunch of people, hire someone who isn't 'learning' on the job ... rewrite all core systems, maybe kidnap one of the original crytek devs, lock him in a cupboard and feed him methamphetamine for a few years ....

anyway ...

[JediPanther]

From what I've seen it is cpu over gpu. I still run the old gtx 660 on a 8151 fx cpu. My frames are in the 30-45s.

[NARC BAIT]

its been a fair while since I've done any of these, think I gave up depressed about it not looking much better on my FX compared to my prior 1090T ... anyway .... apparently I needed to refresh my spreadshoot skills anyway, but once I got it sorted properly the spreadsheet is mostly drag and drop, and I just need to add in the vague 'whats happening' information, in comparison to the video ...

I was fairly happy during this game, FPS wise, team was a bit random, and I lone wolfed most of the time ... CPU usage was fairly consistent, OBS reported skipping 26/32472 frames due to encoding lag (0.1%) while recording 60 fps @ 1080p, over a gigabyte of browser windows (because of bad initial spreadsheets), oh and I'm uploading to youtube at about 32 Mbps ... while playing the audio from video files ... so the overall load on the hex core is fairly reasonable, but no thread gets over 80% ... the minimum frame rate occurs for the second or two after being released from the dropship ...

it would be completely possible for them to do a benchmark ... but I don't think they have any real interest in it ... it would lead to more questions than answers ...