Jump to content

How Does The Game Run For You?


25 replies to this topic

#1 dario03

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander
  • 3,621 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 09:30 PM

Just wondering if anybody has any system performance graphs for this game. I often have issues in 12v12 modes where the game just doesn't push my system much and I end up with low fps. Sometimes its not bad sometimes it is. Heres an example where it is.

Posted Image

I've heard plenty of others say they have the same kind of issues but I've never seen anybody elses screenshots of things like Afterburner. So posts yours here, good or bad, and system specs.

i7 4770k 4.3ghz
AMD RX470
16GB DDR3 2133
DX11 (tried DX9)
Object detail and enviroment on very high
shading on medium
texturing on high
all others on low
1920x1080

If you don't have a program heres the one I used to get the charts. https://www.msi.com/page/afterburner

Edited by dario03, 19 November 2017 - 03:05 AM.


#2 Humpday

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pharaoh
  • The Pharaoh
  • 1,462 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 10:32 PM

The game runs like butt. I run a high end rig, and you can't even get the GPU up to 100%.

#3 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 11:39 PM

you need to upgrade to a quantum potato

#4 Paigan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 2,789 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 01:41 AM

View Postdario03, on 18 November 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Just wondering if anybody has any system performance graphs for this game. I often have issues in 12v12 modes where the game just doesn't push my system much and I end up with low fps. Sometimes its not bad sometimes it is. Heres an example where it is.

Posted Image

I've heard plenty of others say they have the same kind of issues but I've never seen anybody elses screenshots of things like Afterburner. So posts yours here, good or bad, and system specs.

i7 4770k 4.3ghz
AMD RX470
16GB DDR3 2133
DX11 (tried DX9)
Object detail and enviroment on very high
shading on medium
texturing on high
all others on low
1920x1080

If you have 4 cores and one of them is at 100%, while the other 3 are basically idle, your total cpu usage is around 25%, but the game still can't run any faster. Making a performance-heavy single task (like a rendering loop) truely multithreaded is an incredibly complex task, so it is not done.

That being said, what is "low fps" for you?
I have something like half your performance and I get between 30 and 120 fps at max settings.

edit:
I researched a little closer:
my CPU: i5 2500K 3.30 GHz
my GPU: GTX 1060 (comparison)

So CPU is weaker, GPU seems to be better. Maybe it's the difference between nvidia and AMD, I don't know.

Edited by Paigan, 19 November 2017 - 01:53 AM.


#5 Bucket of Joy

    Member

  • Pip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 15 posts
  • LocationInterests

Posted 19 November 2017 - 02:43 AM

I'm not sure if anyone has been able to look at the MWO code, but it clearly has several areas where it is not well threaded. I read somewhere that the UI is written in ActionScript and is a complete mess. I know that I gain 10+ fps when I disable the UI in game.

Based purely on my own anecdotal experiences, I think that the graphical engine is ok, but the UI and game code is poorly optimized. It's also possible that some features of the game do not parallelize well. There is a lot of 'checking' done by the game, and the decision tree for those checks might be computationally complex and deep. In most FPS games, if the performance bottleneck is graphical, you will notice a big improvement when facing a simple scene (looking up into the skybox, or into a wall near the edge of the map). This effect is very minor in MWO, which to me suggests that the graphics aren't the cause. That being said, the most complex game I've ever programmed was multiplayer Halma in Python, so I can't be too critical.

Simply put, the performance has always been unusually low, and to my knowledge PGI has never been particularly transparent as to why.

Here's my favorite video on why concurrency matters:


#6 dario03

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander
  • 3,621 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 03:03 AM

View PostPaigan, on 19 November 2017 - 01:41 AM, said:

If you have 4 cores and one of them is at 100%, while the other 3 are basically idle, your total cpu usage is around 25%, but the game still can't run any faster. Making a performance-heavy single task (like a rendering loop) truely multithreaded is an incredibly complex task, so it is not done.

That being said, what is "low fps" for you?
I have something like half your performance and I get between 30 and 120 fps at max settings.

edit:
I researched a little closer:
my CPU: i5 2500K 3.30 GHz
my GPU: GTX 1060 (comparison)

So CPU is weaker, GPU seems to be better. Maybe it's the difference between nvidia and AMD, I don't know.


All the cores stay under 70% basically all the time, and thats with recording, lower if not.

And your gpu is a bit more powerful. What kind of gpu usage do you get though? Changing the settings doesn't seem to have much of an effect for me. I get any where from 30 to 200fps with it usually being something like 40-100, typically ~40-70fps in fights.

Have any performance charts? Afterburner is easy if you don't have anything.

#7 ForceUser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 894 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 04:37 AM

So here is an average Rubellite match:

Posted Image

My Framerate was at it's lowest at 64 throughout the entire match (I was in a Dual UAC20 Thanatos so lots of close range fighting) with highs usually around 100 to 110. Average FPS would probably be in the 80s.

`For reference here's my settings I'm running with:
Posted Image

My system Specs:
Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.8 GHZ Stock Cooler (12 threads)
16GB DDR4 @ 3066
GTX 970 overclocked: https://puu.sh/ypepD/c5de1df5de.png
Samsung SSD

#8 Bucket of Joy

    Member

  • Pip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 15 posts
  • LocationInterests

Posted 19 November 2017 - 05:20 AM

View PostForceUser, on 19 November 2017 - 04:37 AM, said:

So here is an average Rubellite match:

Posted Image

My Framerate was at it's lowest at 64 throughout the entire match (I was in a Dual UAC20 Thanatos so lots of close range fighting) with highs usually around 100 to 110. Average FPS would probably be in the 80s.

`For reference here's my settings I'm running with:
Posted Image

My system Specs:
Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.8 GHZ Stock Cooler (12 threads)
16GB DDR4 @ 3066
GTX 970 overclocked: https://puu.sh/ypepD/c5de1df5de.png
Samsung SSD


Lol, compensating.

#9 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 06:53 AM

It's still a poorly optimized game that hates AMD processors (yeah, my computer is old - that's life) and which is heavily dependent upon the CPU. Game stability is still subpar for a game this far along in its life cycle. It's fun, but it's not winning any prizes for performance or how it was coded.

#10 ForceUser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 894 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 07:00 AM

View PostBucket of Joy, on 19 November 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:


Lol, compensating.

Ryzen 5 1600 is a mid range CPU with lower per core performance than intel CPUs. Not my fault it has 12 threads Posted Image

Also the GTX 970 has it's own issues, mostly to do with VRAM, is a full generation behind and wasn't even the top GPU at the time. This is actually a pretty big bottleneck for MWO when running at the highest texture. I believe a current 1060 6GB outperforms it.

But yea, I love my rig (no really, it crushes most games, even MWO)

Edited by ForceUser, 19 November 2017 - 07:04 AM.


#11 MCY Xale

    Member

  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 07:18 AM

Much of the performance drain is actually caused by Mechs moving.

The frame rate difference caused when a mech goes from being static to moving at any speed is significant. (The actual speed appears to have no effect)

Lots of players = lots of moving mechs = heavy CPU pressure. Scouting matches always run well as a result, since there are only 8 mechs in play.

The mechs do not need to be visible; they merely need to exist in the match.

Edited by MCY Xale, 19 November 2017 - 07:19 AM.


#12 Methanoid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 360 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 09:10 AM

best gfx card in the world wont help for an archaic game engine that uses mostly your cpu.

#13 ThreeStooges

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 505 posts
  • Locationamc reruns and youtube

Posted 19 November 2017 - 11:25 AM

Everyone has super computers compared to my 2012 rig but I maintain 35-45fps range and even see a slight 50-75 fps range on the new map.

old amd 8150 cpu
gtx 660
8 gig ram
m5a97 r 2 asus mobo

#14 dario03

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander
  • 3,621 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 02:48 PM

View PostForceUser, on 19 November 2017 - 04:37 AM, said:

So here is an average Rubellite match:

Posted Image

My Framerate was at it's lowest at 64 throughout the entire match (I was in a Dual UAC20 Thanatos so lots of close range fighting) with highs usually around 100 to 110. Average FPS would probably be in the 80s.

`For reference here's my settings I'm running with:
Posted Image

My system Specs:
Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.8 GHZ Stock Cooler (12 threads)
16GB DDR4 @ 3066
GTX 970 overclocked: https://puu.sh/ypepD/c5de1df5de.png
Samsung SSD


Thanks, thats what I was looking for. You seem to be getting decent GPU usage for more of the match there. But did you have anything like shadowplay or obs with nvenc set? That would have it show more usage like my obs does for cpu.

Anybody else have usage graphs?

View PostMethanoid, on 19 November 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

best gfx card in the world wont help for an archaic game engine that uses mostly your cpu.


Yeah but it doesn't use the cpu either. Only half-ish usage of any core if running just the game.

#15 Humpday

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pharaoh
  • The Pharaoh
  • 1,462 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 03:05 PM

The fact that you can't get the game to drive the GPU up to 90-100% alone shows poor optimization.
how is it that frames drop below 30fps, and you're not even using 70% of the GPU?

GPUs are insanely powerful in the GTX1070/1080 TI range, there is absolutely no reason the GPU should be 60% idle on Max settings.

#16 D34DMetal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 134 posts
  • Locationin a Mad Cat duh...

Posted 19 November 2017 - 04:11 PM

Get a 7700K and a 1080 and you're good to go :)

#17 Humpday

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pharaoh
  • The Pharaoh
  • 1,462 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 04:30 PM

View PostDeadMetal89, on 19 November 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

Get a 7700K and a 1080 and you're good to go Posted Image



7700k and a GTX a1070 here and i still get massive frame drops. Which doesn't even happen In witcher 3 or fallout or anything else. TBH

View PostPromessa, on 19 November 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

Gtx 1070ti @2ghz and an i5 4670k @4ghz
it sucks. Gotta run lowest settings so I can average 80 ish fps. Game still likes to hitch for a second or so every now and then, which is enough to get you killed.
On the other hand, Battlefield 1 maxed out runs at 75-100 fps without hitching, so the issue isn't my hardware tffs



I actually found that if you try to force the game to use the GPU more you get better/consistent FPS. IE the higher the settings, the more consistent my frames get...to a normal person, counter intuitive, however, the tech world it makes sense, more settings = more load on GPU...a CPU isn't designed to necessarily deal with rendering, a GPU is.

#18 Accused

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 989 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 04:51 PM

Currently running an i7-8700k @ 5.1 with 32g of GSkill Trident Ram and a GTX 1070. Was thinking my framerate drops where due to my Thermaltake Gold rated 850w RGB PSU not being able to keep up with the 11 Thermaltake Premium TT RGB fans I have installed, just in case my 360 rad AIO couldn't keep my CPU cool enough. I then discovered my Hero Maximus Rog (Wi Fi) wasn't set to run Aura so I turned that on and everything runs smooth now. Just the occasional framerate drop.

#19 ForceUser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 894 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 10:04 PM

View Postdario03, on 19 November 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:


Thanks, thats what I was looking for. You seem to be getting decent GPU usage for more of the match there. But did you have anything like shadowplay or obs with nvenc set? That would have it show more usage like my obs does for cpu.

No, no recording software or anything running. Just my browser/steam/background stuffs.

What everyone needs to remember is that different video settings affect different components. An easy example would be Textures. It almost exclusively affects the GPU. If your bottleneck is the CPU then lowering it will do nothing to improve FPS. If however your GPU is the bottleneck then lowering it will greatly increase FPS. IN my case I could gain probably around 10 to 15 FPS by lowering the GPU intensive settings because my GPU is obviously the bottleneck. This is also why I'm overclocking it. When I set it up I believe I gained around 10 or so FPS with the overclock. The voltage OC is particularly important because it allows the GPU to actually hit 100% power more easily, it won't auto throttle.

Speaking of throttling, bad air flow or temperatures because someone couldn't be bothered with doing the job of building a PC right will have very real affect on your GPU AND CPU. Both will throttle down, GPU especially, if temps get too high. The amount of extra performance you can get out of a PC by not being an ignorant little pos, especially some of the hardware people claim to have in this thread with terribad performance is crazy. 20-30 extra frames with a little overclock, a proper XMP profile, non terribad cooling/cable management and maybe cleaning out the gunk from your heatsinks/new TIM every 6 months.

Quote

Anybody else have usage graphs?

I see a lot of claims, very little evidence. Not surprising.

Edited by ForceUser, 19 November 2017 - 10:07 PM.


#20 Vellron2005

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blood-Eye
  • The Blood-Eye
  • 5,443 posts
  • LocationIn the mechbay, telling the techs to put extra LRM ammo on.

Posted 20 November 2017 - 01:22 AM

I have problems with random game freezes, especially on my laptop..

The most laughable occurrences are when the game server kicks me from the match back to the homescreen, and I can still hear the in-game VOIP..

This game is also one of the most resource-heavy games I've ever seen, especially for a 5yo game.. Newer games like Doom or Star Citizen, which is still in Alpha btw, run a lot better, smoother and without so many issues.

Not to mention the excessive amount of bugs..

Only yesterday, I was buying a mech, put it into the cart, then realized I could not buy two of the same, then suddenly, could not see the specs on any other mech anymore.. so I emptied the cart and turned the game off and went to sleep..

I have to mention that out of the multitude of bugs, support did not actually solve a single one of them on my computer, which means that 100% of the bugs were global, not local, and were solved through patches. That speaks volumes.

If you're looking for stability, MWO is not a great representative.

Edited by Vellron2005, 20 November 2017 - 01:26 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users