458 replies to this topic

[FerretGR]

PiWright42, on 01 December 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Yup, even after optimizing Windows 7, the average frame rate was right around 14 with the lowest I saw at 8, (this was out of combat). Several major lags when trying to hit a fast target at close range suggests much lower FPS in action. Possibly as low as 3-4FPS.

This was my next step in tonight's attempt to remedy the FPS issue a little and make the game playable. I retried overclocking to 3.8GHz (from 3.3), set everything to low, set the process priority to high and the affinity to all six cores, and was getting numbers that made the game playable, ie. 20 FPS. Still pretty bad but not slideshow bad.

I took someone's advice and ran HWinfo and MSI Afterburner to monitor the CPU, RAM, and GPU. It did seem like the game was using all 6 cores, and at no point did any core get to 100%. Again, the GPU stayed at about 30% maximum, and RAM usage never got above 30%. So with nothing apparently maxing out, what could the bottleneck be?

Here's my system again:

AMD FX-6100 6 core, 3.3 GHz
8G DDR3 RAM
ASUS Radeon HD 7870

[Nashidaran]

ASUS (K53TA-CST1-CBIL)
AMD Quad-Core A6-3400 (1.4 GHz overclocked to 2.3 GHz and undervolted)
Radeon 6720G2
8GB RAM (DDR3 1333)
500GB HDD

Dedicated Radeon HD 6650M
Integrated Radeon HD 6520G

Cards seem to be working fine in Crossfire, which I turned on a couple of patches ago when, like so many others, my FPS dropped significantly after patching. That gained me 10-15 FPS. Every major patch has consistently, bit by bit, reduced my FPS further to the point that it is once again barely playable. Tried playing with the Multi Thread settings in Tray Tools after enabling it and setting threads to 4 changed nothing. Set it to 2 and FPS dropped nearly by half, so my system seems to be using all 4 cores.

FPS is 30-40 at match start, drops to 20-ish when I look around, drops to 8-20 in engagements, particularly when lots of missiles are in the air near me.

I've tried disabling crossfire to just use the dedicated card, and using the thermal efficiency that gives me to overclock up to 2.9GHz, but FPS is not as good.

Edit: Tested some settings. Crossfire no longer does anything. Game is bottlenecked by processor.

Edited by Nashidaran, 01 December 2012 - 03:42 AM.

[p4r4g0n]

Just a heads up that the gradual decline in fps may be due to the fact that PGI has been replacing the mech model in stages. This may be the reason why fps dips whenever another mech is in view.

Having said that, I believe the game needs overall optimization when even mid-range AMD GPUs and quad core CPU systems can't get better than low 30s fps in game.

[Alex57]

Hello


I am very disappointed of the 2 last patch which leaded the performances
I was to 50-60 FPS today I have falls with 15 fps, I find not easily comprehensible such a regression and such a catastrophic optimization whereas all to function until now

I7 850 4Ghz
GTX 570 1285 mo
6Go DDR3

(I use a translator, I hope this is understandable) ^^

Edited by Alex57, 01 December 2012 - 03:43 AM.

[EternalCore]

PiWright42, on 01 December 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Did not really do anything for me. Maybe a frame or two faster but I must stress that maybe.

OS Version: Microsoft Windows 7 Home 64bit

System RAM: 8gigs DDR2 PC5400

Mother Board: Asus M4A785-M

CPU: AMD Athalon 3.0ghz
Physical CPUs: 1
CPU Cores: 2

Video Card: Radeon HD 5850
VRAM: 1GB DDR5

Solid State Drive: OCZ Agility 4 258gb
Free Drive Space: 180GB
Total Drive Space: 250GB

Windows Experience Index Rating: 6.1

Frame Rate before ATI Tray Tools was about 12, now about 14.

Been through this machine, all new mobo drivers, all Catalyst options set to performance, power configuration set to performance, game options set to lowest, V-Synch turned off, not playing in windowed mode, and monitor set to the lowest possible resolution. Gonna streamline Windows 7 next and turn off all unnecessary background programs and Windows options next.

I'm not gonna turn off the firewall or virus protection.

Yes I know my CPU, Mobo and RAM are all a giant bottle neck but do we all have to have a Windows Experience Index of 7.4 to enjoy this game?

Yup, even after optimizing Windows 7, the average frame rate was right around 14 with the lowest I saw at 8, (this was out of combat). Several major lags when trying to hit a fast target at close range suggests much lower FPS in action. Possibly as low as 3-4FPS.

Your computer is too old for this to work as it requires the new Hyper-Transport link and your mother board is still using the Frount-Side-Bus. Time to upgrade hmm?

FerretGR, on 01 December 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

This was my next step in tonight's attempt to remedy the FPS issue a little and make the game playable. I retried overclocking to 3.8GHz (from 3.3), set everything to low, set the process priority to high and the affinity to all six cores, and was getting numbers that made the game playable, ie. 20 FPS. Still pretty bad but not slideshow bad.

I took someone's advice and ran HWinfo and MSI Afterburner to monitor the CPU, RAM, and GPU. It did seem like the game was using all 6 cores, and at no point did any core get to 100%. Again, the GPU stayed at about 30% maximum, and RAM usage never got above 30%. So with nothing apparently maxing out, what could the bottleneck be?

Here's my system again:

AMD FX-6100 6 core, 3.3 GHz
8G DDR3 RAM
ASUS Radeon HD 7870

The AMD FX CPU Series are garbage for gaming... Because AMD went backwards with the technology in them... Which is why your system isn't working properly

Nashidaran, on 01 December 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

ASUS (K53TA-CST1-CBIL)
AMD Quad-Core A6-3400 (1.4 GHz overclocked to 2.3 GHz and undervolted)
Radeon 6720G2
8GB RAM (DDR3 1333)
500GB HDD

Dedicated Radeon HD 6650M
Integrated Radeon HD 6520G

Cards seem to be working fine in Crossfire, which I turned on a couple of patches ago when, like so many others, my FPS dropped significantly after patching. That gained me 10-15 FPS. Every major patch has consistently, bit by bit, reduced my FPS further to the point that it is once again barely playable. Tried playing with the Multi Thread settings in Tray Tools after enabling it and setting threads to 4 changed nothing. Set it to 2 and FPS dropped nearly by half, so my system seems to be using all 4 cores.

FPS is 30-40 at match start, drops to 20-ish when I look around, drops to 8-20 in engagements, particularly when lots of missiles are in the air near me.

I've tried disabling crossfire to just use the dedicated card, and using the thermal efficiency that gives me to overclock up to 2.9GHz, but FPS is not as good.

Edit: Tested some settings. Crossfire no longer does anything. Game is bottlenecked by processor.

Yea that's a pretty weak processor

Alex57, on 01 December 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

Hello


I am very disappointed of the 2 last patch which leaded the performances
I was to 50-60 FPS today I have falls with 15 fps, I find not easily comprehensible such a regression and such a catastrophic optimization whereas all to function until now

I7 850 4Ghz
GTX 570 1285 mo
6Go DDR3

(I use a translator, I hope this is understandable) ^^

Have you tried the Fix that's in the 1st post?!
for a gaming laptop... How old is it?


for gaming. If you search google for any game and the AMD FX Series CPU's you'll see that for every game people are having major issues with them..

[PiWright42]

EternalCore, on 01 December 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

Your computer is too old for this to work as it requires the new Hyper-Transport link and your mother board is still using the Frount-Side-Bus. Time to upgrade hmm?

Yeah I did mention that I was gonna upgrade the CPU, RAM and mobo in a couple of months in my first post, so yeah I had already considered it. Pay and holidays equal limiting factors, don't cha know?

[EternalCore]

PiWright42, on 01 December 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

Yeah I did mention that I was gonna upgrade the CPU, RAM and mobo in a couple of months in my first post, so yeah I had already considered it. Pay and holidays equal limiting factors, don't cha know?

Ah okay. I recommend staying away from the AMD FX CPU Series as they suck for gaming...

[PiWright42]

EternalCore, on 01 December 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Ah okay. I recommend staying away from the AMD FX CPU Series as they suck for gaming...

Thanks for the heads up. I've been saving for the Zambezi.

[EternalCore]

PiWright42, on 01 December 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Thanks for the heads up. I've been saving for the Zambezi.

Thats an FX Chip... http://www.cpu-world...es/Zambezi.html

[FerretGR]

EternalCore, on 01 December 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

The AMD FX CPU Series are garbage for gaming... Because AMD went backwards with the technology in them... Which is why your system isn't working properly

for gaming. If you search google for any game and the AMD FX Series CPU's you'll see that for every game people are having major issues with them..

Yes, that's been said in this thread, and I recognized as much in my first post. That said, I've never experienced issues with this relatively new chip in any other game than this one. I run Skyrim, for example, at all "ultra" settings and it hovers around 40 frames at the worst. Not exactly what I'd call major issues. The only game I have ANY issues with is MWO*. So yes, I'll accept that the chip might be the bottleneck, despite my testing not showing as much, but people play this game with better performance on worse chips, and "the FX series sucks for gaming" isn't holding up as an explanation from where I stand.

*ETA and bear in mind that I had great performance in this game until the last couple of patches.

Edited by FerretGR, 01 December 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[EternalCore]

FerretGR, on 01 December 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Yes, that's been said in this thread, and I recognized as much in my first post. That said, I've never experienced issues with this relatively new chip in any other game than this one. I run Skyrim, for example, at all "ultra" settings and it hovers around 40 frames at the worst. Not exactly what I'd call major issues. The only game I have ANY issues with is MWO*. So yes, I'll accept that the chip might be the bottleneck, despite my testing not showing as much, but people play this game with better performance on worse chips, and "the FX series sucks for gaming" isn't holding up as an explanation from where I stand.

*ETA and bear in mind that I had great performance in this game until the last couple of patches.

I Run Skyrim at 60-120fps and 60 is my worst on ultra, with Ultra High Detail realistic mods added and the default highres texture packs enabled; here are my specs:

Spoiler

OS: Windows 7 64bit Professional Edition
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-890XA-UD3
CPU: AMD Phenom™ II X4 965 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.4GHz + OC'd and tweaked to 3.7GHZ
RAM: 8GB 2 sets of XMS3 — 4GB Dual Channel DDR3 Memory Kit (TW3X4G1333C9)
GPU: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Ti OC'd Edition
Monitor: Samsung 27" LED Monitor S27A950D True 120hrz 3DTV Enabled.
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D Fatal1ty Professional PCIe
SSD: Force Series™ 3 240GB SATA 3 6Gb/s Solid-State Hard Drive
PSU: HX Series HX750 Power Supply — 750 Watt 80 PLUS® Gold Certified Modular PSU

Edited by EternalCore, 01 December 2012 - 11:26 AM.

[FerretGR]

EternalCore, on 01 December 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

I Run Skyrim at 60-120fps and 60 is my worst on ultra, with Ultra High Detail realistic mods added and the default highres texture packs enabled; here are my specs:

Yes, that's interesting, your machine is better than mine, but I wasn't looking to measure my e-peen against yours. I was just pointing out that I should be getting performance in this game that's similar to other demanding games, and I gave an example of performance in another game, where, again, while my frame rate isn't what I'd get on a dedicated gaming machine, it's not exactly "major issues" either.

[fxrsniper]

PiWright42, on 01 December 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Did not really do anything for me. Maybe a frame or two faster but I must stress that maybe.

OS Version: Microsoft Windows 7 Home 64bit

System RAM: 8gigs DDR2 PC5400

Mother Board: Asus M4A785-M

CPU: AMD Athalon 3.0ghz
Physical CPUs: 1
CPU Cores: 2

Video Card: Radeon HD 5850
VRAM: 1GB DDR5

Solid State Drive: OCZ Agility 4 258gb
Free Drive Space: 180GB
Total Drive Space: 250GB

Windows Experience Index Rating: 6.1

Frame Rate before ATI Tray Tools was about 12, now about 14.

Been through this machine, all new mobo drivers, all Catalyst options set to performance, power configuration set to performance, game options set to lowest, V-Synch turned off, not playing in windowed mode, and monitor set to the lowest possible resolution. Gonna streamline Windows 7 next and turn off all unnecessary background programs and Windows options next.

I'm not gonna turn off the firewall or virus protection.

Yes I know my CPU, Mobo and RAM are all a giant bottle neck but do we all have to have a Windows Experience Index of 7.4 to enjoy this game?

Yup, even after optimizing Windows 7, the average frame rate was right around 14 with the lowest I saw at 8, (this was out of combat). Several major lags when trying to hit a fast target at close range suggests much lower FPS in action. Possibly as low as 3-4FPS.

Dont worry to much about Windows Exp. the only reason you scored that high was because of the SSD

FerretGR, on 01 December 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

This was my next step in tonight's attempt to remedy the FPS issue a little and make the game playable. I retried overclocking to 3.8GHz (from 3.3), set everything to low, set the process priority to high and the affinity to all six cores, and was getting numbers that made the game playable, ie. 20 FPS. Still pretty bad but not slideshow bad.

I took someone's advice and ran HWinfo and MSI Afterburner to monitor the CPU, RAM, and GPU. It did seem like the game was using all 6 cores, and at no point did any core get to 100%. Again, the GPU stayed at about 30% maximum, and RAM usage never got above 30%. So with nothing apparently maxing out, what could the bottleneck be?

Here's my system again:

AMD FX-6100 6 core, 3.3 GHz
8G DDR3 RAM
ASUS Radeon HD 7870

FX series not so good there just not performing as well as they should be VS like the Phenom 2 CPU's

FerretGR, on 01 December 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Yes, that's interesting, your machine is better than mine, but I wasn't looking to measure my e-peen against yours. I was just pointing out that I should be getting performance in this game that's similar to other demanding games, and I gave an example of performance in another game, where, again, while my frame rate isn't what I'd get on a dedicated gaming machine, it's not exactly "major issues" either.

Not always true CryEngine 3.4 is resource heavy also everyone needs to keep in mind that we're all on DirectX 9 not 11

[EternalCore]

FerretGR, on 01 December 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Yes, that's interesting, your machine is better than mine, but I wasn't looking to measure my e-peen against yours. I was just pointing out that I should be getting performance in this game that's similar to other demanding games, and I gave an example of performance in another game, where, again, while my frame rate isn't what I'd get on a dedicated gaming machine, it's not exactly "major issues" either.

Yes I know... It's a habit

Oh and what he said:

fxrsniper, on 01 December 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

FX series not so good there just not performing as well as they should be VS like the Phenom 2 CPU's

Not always true CryEngine 3.4 is resource heavy also everyone needs to keep in mind that we're all on DirectX 9 not 11

Edited by EternalCore, 01 December 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[Asatruer]

The main point here is that a few patches ago the game ran better than it does now. It was DX9 a few patches ago, and is still DX9 now. A few patches ago performance was fine for some of us, and is not still fine. The DX version did not change, our hardware did not change, only MWO changed.

[EternalCore]

Asatruer, on 01 December 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

The main point here is that a few patches ago the game ran better than it does now. It was DX9 a few patches ago, and is still DX9 now. A few patches ago performance was fine for some of us, and is not still fine. The DX version did not change, our hardware did not change, only MWO changed.

Lets just say it ran better in closed beta before the CryEngine3.4 update because it had way less features and no memory leaks.
But Ever since the implementation of the 3.4 update the game has been steadily declining... And this is why we're here which is to help the devs track down all the issues/bugs.

Edited by EternalCore, 01 December 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[FerretGR]

Asatruer, on 01 December 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

The main point here is that a few patches ago the game ran better than it does now. It was DX9 a few patches ago, and is still DX9 now. A few patches ago performance was fine for some of us, and is not still fine. The DX version did not change, our hardware did not change, only MWO changed.

Precisely. I had a major drop. You can blame my hardware if you like, and I'm sure my hardware is the reason why the effect was so drastic for me, but that doesn't change the fact that my hardware did the job this time last month.

Is there somewhere I could find a list of Cryengine 3.4 games? I'd like to compare performance on my machine.

[fxrsniper]

FerretGR, on 01 December 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Precisely. I had a major drop. You can blame my hardware if you like, and I'm sure my hardware is the reason why the effect was so drastic for me, but that doesn't change the fact that my hardware did the job this time last month.

Is there somewhere I could find a list of Cryengine 3.4 games? I'd like to compare performance on my machine.

Fibble
Warface
Nexuiz
Crysis 2
Cabal 2
FarCry 3 Dec 4
But keep in mind that these games can and will be different than Mech Warrior lot of it depends on how much PhysX is in the game as well. I say this because I run dual GTX Superclocked 560 ti's but my 2nd card only goes to 12-22% usage whereas Borderlands 2 pushes both cards pretty hard due to the level of PhysX, I have a higher frame rate on borderlans 2 than Mech Warrior

Note: These games also may not be running CryEngine 3.4 it could be just 3

Edited by fxrsniper, 01 December 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[FerretGR]

Cheers, thanks. I don't own any of those games and I don't really want to buy a game just to do some experimentation. I'd love to get my hands on a demo of a game that makes use of Cryengine 3: anyone have any ideas?

[fxrsniper]

FerretGR, on 01 December 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Cheers, thanks. I don't own any of those games and I don't really want to buy a game just to do some experimentation. I'd love to get my hands on a demo of a game that makes use of Cryengine 3: anyone have any ideas?

The only 2 games that you could compare Mech to would be Cyrsis 2 and FarCry 3