11 replies to this topic

[Dictatorfish]

Current PC specs:
2 x Intel Xeon E5345 (quad core 2.33GHz, 8 cores total)
16GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 7870
Other PC stuff

In game video settings:
Low everything
No antialiasing

With the above set up I get about 50 FPS in the mission loading screen. At the start of the mission, just walking around, it'll drop to around 25 FPS. In a fight, they'll be around 15-20 FPS. Opening up Windows Task Manager, it appears that only two cores are being utilised. Since CryEngine 3 is capable of utilising up to 8 cores, is there something up with my settings or is this something that hasn't been implemented in the game yet?

I will downgrade the CPUs to a pair of Intel Xeon E5160 (dual core 3.0GHz, 4 cores total) tonight and see if that makes any difference.

Edited by Dictatorfish, 12 November 2012 - 01:52 AM.

[Dictatorfish]

Okay, I downgraded the CPUs and I'm now getting around 25 FPS in the fight. Not a massive improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. Shame, being able to use more than just two cores would have been nice. Has there been any word from the PGI if they plan to implement improved multi-core support?

[Capt Jester]

I have a single i7, 4GB DDR3 RAM, and an NVIDIA GeForce540m on my laptop and I play just fine. That's quite a shame, because your box is a beast compared to mine.

[unwary]

Keep in mind that MWO isn't optimized yet, it barely uses 50% of my gpu (geforce gtx 660) and 50% of my quadcore cpu (i5-750 oc'ed to 3.14ghz). I get around 40fps.

Edited by unwary, 12 November 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[EternalCore]

@OP: You do realize that a Intel Xeon chip is meant for server use and not gaming use right? Also I bet your using a server board for a gaming rig then too huh?

A gaming rig is designed vastly different from a server, especially when you get into a higher class of components like what your using.

Here are some of the differences:

• Gaming rigs require a higher bus speeds for faster data transfer between CPU, gpu and ram.
  
• Servers require more torque to keep up with higher loads, which means slower but broader data transfer rates.
  
• Servers have slower pci/Pci-e transfer rates as they're designed for simple gfx viewing or remote viewing.
  
• Gaming rigs have a higher cache for maintaining the speeds required for gaming.
  
• etc https://www.google.c...er+vs+gaming+pc ...

Those are just some of the significant differences. I Hope that helps clear up the issues for you.

Edited by EternalCore, 12 November 2012 - 11:38 PM.

[Sp4wNers]

My GPU utilization is about 50-65% so something isn't right with game optimalization yet also it's a shame it doesn't support SLI yet o.O

[Dictatorfish]

@EternalCore: Yes, there is a difference between hardware designed for servers and those designed for general use, and most people over estimate how much that difference makes in their performance when running video games. Also, if you're looking for the best bang for your buck, refurbished/second hand "server" hardware is far better value for money than their "gaming" equivalents. For example, you can get a second hand Intel Xeon E5450 for around £60. A "gaming" equivalent, the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650, is going for £180+.
Word of note: graphics cards are the big exception. Graphics cards designed for work are *far* more expensive than those designed for gaming. Even then, the biggest difference isn't in the hardware either - which are almost identical - it's the BIOS.

I have no doubt that the developers will work on optimisation once the more important stuff like getting the game finished is done and out the way. I'm used to getting 60+ FPS on max graphics settings of every other game I play and I would usually lower these settings a bit (such as shadowing, anti-aliasing, etc.) to get this to never drop below 60 FPS. Having gotten used to this, 25 FPS is like playing an interactive flip book. Tonight I plan on playing around with the .cfg files and see what I can do there. I'll post again tomorrow with the result. =]

[SerpentrasD]

Sp4wNers, on 13 November 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

My GPU utilization is about 50-65% so something isn't right with game optimalization yet also it's a shame it doesn't support SLI yet o.O

Who need optimization, my rig use 30% cpu and 40% gpu for mwo and I get with max setting 60 frames, without sli or some other expensive stuff.

I also have a HD 7870 and 16gb or 32 gb ram in this rig.

Edited by SerpentrasD, 13 November 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[PapaKilo]

You have already discovered the problem -- the first Xeons you had installed were too slow MHz/GHz wise. With the faster processors installed, you basically have a quad-core 3GHz processor, and that's much better for MW:O than an eight-core 2.33GHz processor. It would perform better if you could get closer to 4GHz.

My i5-2500K quad-core @ 4.2GHz with a GTX 570 pegs the meter at 60 FPS in-game.

[Dictatorfish]

@PapKilo: Yes, I am aware of that, and that's I asked if anyone had heard from the developers regarding if they were intending to implement improved multicore support in future.
Put another way, right now someone with a dual core 4.6Ghz would get better performance than you with your quad core 4.2GHz. I'm pretty sure even you can agree that just isn't cool.

[von Pilsner]

It is not your hardware, the game is not really optimized yet...

[Sen]

Performance really is hit and miss. . . the posts about "why do my FPS suck" are starting to stack up. Some people with ultra high end systems are capping at 15-20 FPS, while others with more lackluster hardware are getting 40-60.

As a baseline, all i can tell you is that my Son's 1090t @ 3.8Ghz with 6870 is getting 40-60 FPS. My 3930k @ 4.5 with 7970 is getting 60-75. Adding my 2nd 7950 bumped it to 78-92. My mobile Sandy i7 laptop W/ 570m is getting mid 50s, while the 5870/460m equipped Asus G73 are seeing only about 15 FPS.

I'd love to just say it was the engine and let it go, but it seems so sporadic. .you'd think if it was an optimization issue EVERYONE would be experiencing it in one form or another. Aside from the random 4FPS bug though, I've only seen it on the retired G73. Even my wife's 2600k @ stock w/ 6970 gets 60+fps.

I'm rambling, sorry. . . just coalatin' data, as they say ^^