Cpu Optimization Is Simply Awfull

[Hatr]

My cpu Athlon II x4 651k, it's a firggin quad core with stock clocks, it has.. acceptable performance per core but.. i get low fps on maps like kappa - sedna whille hosting a game of 4 players (8-10 fps) than on crysis 3 with very high particles and object details

Cpu usage? 45-50%, if i set affinity on 2 cores, i get the same fps because this game is coded on 2 cores, and coded badly(for those who don't know, a game can have support for multi-cores, the usage spreads on all cores but small usage on each core, in my case 50% per core, 50%x4 =2) , gpu usage is around 60-70%, never goes more.. HD6750 and playing on 1366x768, still 2gb of ram free, doesn't really matter but it is 1333 mhz.

I can't give constructive feedback about it because i lack programming aknowledge

 

Oh almost forgot to mention that when i host on void 4 players i get the awsome .. 1 frame per 2 sec, you've heard well, 1 frame every 2 seconds.

If you can't make the friggin hosting better, then increase the support to FULL 4 cores or even more cores.. might be needed. then you're going to say "we would have to rewrite more than half of the game for that" then make dedicated servers. 

I'm sure people would come saying "it's your cpu's problem, those who you're hosting for are having a huge lag too" nope, they don't have any lag because the game reserves my cpu power to them whille i get the leftovers.

The mobs are a reason for low fps too, i mean.. i get like 20 fps on kappa as host with clean map, 10 with mobs

 

On support page for minimum specs i see:

 

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo e6400 or AMD Athlon x64 4000+ (~2.2Ghz dual core CPU)

 

Are you freaking kidding me? I'm not able to get more than 15 fps whille hosting with my cpu, i wonder how these cpus would perform. If you won't fix this issue please put i5-3570k and fx-8150 on minimum requirements.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Hatr

[Morganna42]

I have a quad core and the game runs flawlessly, near-perfect 50-60 FPS unless there's a crapload of particle effects going on at once. I'm not sure what your problem is, but I did go and do a bit of prowling about that specific processor and it has the worst benchmarks out of this group of CPUs. That being said, do the standard eliminate-things-that-you-don't-need-running process and see if it helps you at all.

 

My specs, if you're curious:

-Core i7 960 @ 3.2GHz

-2x GTX 460s w/ 1GB VRAM

-6GB DDR3 RAM

[Hatr]

i have nothing on that eats cpu power, just ram (temperature monitoring and gpu oc backround programs)

I don't understand why do you compare athlon 651k to fx8320 and i7-2600, the performance and price difference is big, yet my cpu is by far better than Athlon x64 4000+ from minimum requirements, and i have unplayable experience

I get 30+ fps if i'm not hosting, but that's not what i'm talking about in this thread, it's exclusivelly related to performance as host

[Strac_CRO]

yeap, game engine needs some CPU multithreading optimization

[MEsoJD]

^this

[mattklanks]

Yeah, I can play Crysis 3 on max settings with high fps for over 6 hours. Yet since the recent update, this game turns my computer off if it's on for more than 3 minutes. Oh, but I'm sure it's not just the game, it's just so advanced only developer computers can run it, lol pfft. :/

[fraprue]

May I ask you what kind of internet connection you have?

 

I have the same problem, that when I host the game session, my FPS take a serious hit, when lots of enemies are around. Normally I have constant 60 FPS, but under the aforementioned circumstances I get like 20-40 FPS. I have an i5-2500k on stock speed, which runs on 50-60% all the time.

 

So I started to monitor my up-/download and recognized, that with 4 players in my session and many enemies around my upload hits is limit of 1 mbit/s and as soon as this happens, my FPS start dropping and everyone else on my server experiences lag (of course).

 

Hope that this helped ;)

[Klyern]

I am having no problems with the game, i do have quite a good rig <phenom 6 cores, GTX 570> since i just bought it 6 months ago, but i think it might rather be a compatibility issue or something similar, since i have everything on max and i am having not even the *slightest* hiccup.

Not the same genre but i remember TW Shogun 2 being quite delicate when it came to compatibility issues, it was just totally awful unless you had the specified components, most people must be reading this and be thinking, wtf is this guy talking about, but yeah, most games are coded so well that people end up non the wiser that games can be messed up horribly and be totally incompatible with some rigs.... until you find a game like TW Shogun 2 and you find out it IS possible for that to happen.

[Morcant]

Yeah, I can play Crysis 3 on max settings with high fps for over 6 hours. Yet since the recent update, this game turns my computer off if it's on for more than 3 minutes. Oh, but I'm sure it's not just the game, it's just so advanced only developer computers can run it, lol pfft. :/

 

If your computer is rebooting or shutting down in response to a program - any program - running, you probably have bigger issues than the program. Yes, even if you can run Crysis 3.

 

I am having no problems with the game, i do have quite a good rig <phenom 6 cores, GTX 570> since i just bought it 6 months ago, but i think it might rather be a compatibility issue or something similar, since i have everything on max and i am having not even the *slightest* hiccup.

Not the same genre but i remember TW Shogun 2 being quite delicate when it came to compatibility issues, it was just totally awful unless you had the specified components, most people must be reading this and be thinking, wtf is this guy talking about, but yeah, most games are coded so well that people end up non the wiser that games can be messed up horribly and be totally incompatible with some rigs.... until you find a game like TW Shogun 2 and you find out it IS possible for that to happen.

 

Fortunate for you to have a more modern AMD setup; older Phenoms and Athlons seem common in the support threads related to poor and inconsistent FPS performance.

 

Also, it's not a matter of incompatibility; these are all x86 or x86_64 processors. Certain games simply demand more from the CPU. It doesn't matter for 95% of games, where the limiting factor is the GPU performance, but RTS games with hundreds of units tend to bog down badly if the CPU isn't beefy enough. In Warframe's case, I think the frustrating and counter-intuitive thing is that despite sometimes poor performance, the CPU (and with newer hardware, GPU) usage rarely exceeds 50%. There's headroom for improvement there for a lot of people, it's just not being used.

 

For what it's worth, I get ~110-120 frames per second in most maps, down to ~80-90 in Mobile Defense missions, and down to ~60-70 in parts of Orokin Void missions with: i5 3570K @ 4.2Ghz, Radeon HD 7950 @ 1100/1400, 16GB DDR3 1866. All playable, but the gulf between the highest figures and the lowest is concerning. Not everyone has $750+ in hardware to throw at the game. A 50% dip in performance for many people means going from 40 fps to 20, or 30 to 15, along with exacerbating the micro-freezes I occasionally see when Grineer Rollers or sentinels explode, as an example.

[mattklanks]

If your computer is rebooting or shutting down in response to a program - any program - running, you probably have bigger issues than the program. Yes, even if you can run Crysis 3.

 

 

Fortunate for you to have a more modern AMD setup; older Phenoms and Athlons seem common in the support threads related to poor and inconsistent FPS performance.

 

Also, it's not a matter of incompatibility; these are all x86 or x86_64 processors. Certain games simply demand more from the CPU. It doesn't matter for 95% of games, where the limiting factor is the GPU performance, but RTS games with hundreds of units tend to bog down badly if the CPU isn't beefy enough. In Warframe's case, I think the frustrating and counter-intuitive thing is that despite sometimes poor performance, the CPU (and with newer hardware, GPU) usage rarely exceeds 50%. There's headroom for improvement there for a lot of people, it's just not being used.

 

For what it's worth, I get ~110-120 frames per second in most maps, down to ~80-90 in Mobile Defense missions, and down to ~60-70 in parts of Orokin Void missions with: i5 3570K @ 4.2Ghz, Radeon HD 7950 @ 1100/1400, 16GB DDR3 1866. All playable, but the gulf between the highest figures and the lowest is concerning. Not everyone has $750+ in hardware to throw at the game. A 50% dip in performance for many people means going from 40 fps to 20, or 30 to 15, along with exacerbating the micro-freezes I occasionally see when Grineer Rollers or sentinels explode, as an example.

 

This is the only game I can reproduce the problem with on any settings after any amount of time. If it's a problem with my computer, then it's not noticeable on any game I've ever played but this one, so for whatever that's worth. At least I can play tomb raider and sleeping dogs atm.

[DEATHLOK]

The game doesn't support multiple CPU cores. I thought everyone knew that.

[mattklanks]

The game doesn't support multiple CPU cores. I thought everyone knew that.

 

Isn't that like the vast majority of anyone who plays games? Anyways, two weeks ago I was able to play this game fine although it crashed a lot, now it turns off my computer. Can't reproduce with any other game on the market with any settings after any amount of time, kind of frustrating. 

[Hollow_Knight]

The devs have said they're aware of this, particularly with regards to hosting.  However, as yet there has been no word on when or how they intend to fix it.

[Hatr]

 

 older Phenoms and Athlons seem common in the support threads related to poor and inconsistent FPS performance.

 

Athlon II x4 651k is FM1, released in march 2012, it's not the architecture itself("athlon" has no relevance.. it's just the name), but you're right.. probably some bad support, but as you see.. there aren't too many threads about performance.. people with slighty better rigs but different architecture might have problems too, but they haven't made a thread about it since there are quite a few out there.

[Qynchou]

Hosting here - just like streaming a game, except that youre streaming highest possible resolution without any lag.

I got 100mbit upload and when I host 4 people my fps drops down to ~17-22 on kappa. When I join someone elses game ~60 fps.

 

Problem is that the S#&amp;&#036;tier connection people have the more resources its going to take for you to not lag them, and boy, do people have S#&amp;&#036; internet :/

 

Im not sure whether it goes all to CPU or does memory matter aswell.

[Hatr]

Hosting here - just like streaming a game, except that youre streaming highest possible resolution without any lag.

I got 100mbit upload and when I host 4 people my fps drops down to ~17-22 on kappa. When I join someone elses game ~60 fps.

 

Problem is that the S#&$tier connection people have the more resources its going to take for you to not lag them, and boy, do people have S#&$ internet :/

 

Im not sure whether it goes all to CPU or does memory matter aswell.

Internet should have nothing to do with computer resources

[Hollow_Knight]

Internet should have nothing to do with computer resources

 

I've experienced this as well, the more latency people have when I host, the worse the framerate gets, almost as if my processor is compensating for them.

 

Granted it makes no sense, but it does happen.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Hollow_Knight

[Morcant]

Athlon II x4 651k is FM1, released in march 2012, it's not the architecture itself("athlon" has no relevance.. it's just the name), but you're right.. probably some bad support, but as you see.. there aren't too many threads about performance.. people with slighty better rigs but different architecture might have problems too, but they haven't made a thread about it since there are quite a few out there.

 

Indeed, but I think the critical difference between AMD or Intel platforms in relation to the game is the single-threaded performance. If you look at a comparison like this, you can see that in multithreaded / SMP tests the AMD part wins by virtue of more cores, but in game benchmarks the Intel part outpaces it by a modest to wide margin.

 

Before anyone strings me up as a fanboy, the AMD A8-3850 was the closest approximation to the Athlon II X4 651k I could find in the Anandtech Bench. Same process, socket, stepping, core count, cache, TDP, and memory support, just 100Mhz lower clock speed. Then I chose the nearest Intel part, price-wise, for comparison (which conveniently is the same 2.9Ghz). It's just for illustration of my point. Intel tends to have better singe-threaded performance at any given price and clock speed, and I think that additional performance buffer is partly responsible for why AMD CPUs are so much more prevalent in threads complaining of performance problems.

 

The game itself has performance issues, no doubt about it. It seems bound by the available CPU power much more so than GPU power, and under-utilizes what processing capacity is available. However, as I briefly alluded to in my previous post, when peak software performance is hamstrung by the inherently lower performance of specific hardware clock-for-clock, the dips due to software are that much more severe. A 50% drop in performance on some configurations is mildly annoying, while on others it becomes unplayable.

 

Better multithreading can help alleviate this to an extent, but that will take a lot of time and effort in reworking the engine to bear fruit. This is one area that I'm hopeful will benefit from the work on the PS4 version, since it uses a lower-clocked x86_64 CPU, but with far more cores than most desktop systems (8 cores, estimated at 1.6Ghz).

 

Just a few thoughts.

[Hatr]

If they could put hosting on the other two cores, this shouldn't affect too much of game's code.. because hosting itself makes yourself a server, maybe giving you an option in the settings to put the "Server" to work on the other available core(s) if they are available

[Mikki79]

Sometimes the game runs fine for me at other times it runs like crap minimum frame rate can vary by 50% even when playing solo on the same orokin maps. I donno why.

Last night playing some orokin extermination missions performance was crap, 30 fps a lot of times. I felt like never playing the game again. Then this morning I played another orokin extermination mission and got 45fps minimum and 60 average and it seemed pretty smooth.

Got a i5 750 @ 3.6Ghz and a GTX 560 Ti (factory OC)

Edited June 9, 2013 by Mikki79

[win32.exe]

Well, mine laptop is perfect test for multi-thread testing. I have Nvidia GT 540m, and always overheating i7-2630QM. Why?

Almost with every recent game, my CPU get heated up real quick and lower its clock down from 2 GHz ti its minimum 800 MHZ. Yep 800 MegaHertz.

But 800MHz x4 core = 3.2GHz = 1.6GHz 2core, its not that bad right? It's like, a bit lower than i3.

 

For optimized game, the FPS will be capped at my crappy GPU and I get higher FPS as I drop down graphic quality (I prefer High with just 24fps. It's enough for my shooting game) So, it's kinda smooth. Crysis 3 on Off-High-Ultra run fluidly (I hate motion blur and AA).

 

In case for unoptimized game, Warframe for example, I got quite low fps (~25 at the start), unplayable (~4 fps) when hosting 3-4 players match, and lowering Graphic quality doesn't effect FPS that much, so I leave it at high.

I then use ThrottleStop to force my clock up a bit (good at 1.5GHz, well at 1.2GHz)and it run better and it went up to like >40fps when I set it up to it's normal clock (2.0GHz)

 

Don't talk about TurboBoost, I myself don't like to risk leaving it at 2GHz for too long or I'll have to monitor the temperature closely or it will thermal-shutdown itself, leaving all the mod and XP I got behind.

 

Hey, guess what, at 800MHz, I got 8 FPS on Planetside 2, with color showing solidly that CPU is a cap. Deleted it after first hour.

[Strac_CRO]

Well, mine laptop is perfect test for multi-thread testing. I have Nvidia GT 540m, and always overheating i7-2630QM. Why?

Almost with every recent game, my CPU get heated up real quick and lower its clock down from 2 GHz ti its minimum 800 MHZ. Yep 800 MegaHertz.

But 800MHz x4 core = 3.2GHz = 1.6GHz 2core, its not that bad right? It's like, a bit lower than i3.

....

 

 

maybe your PC needs some dusting out ?

[win32.exe]

maybe your PC needs some dusting out ?

I have no idea how to open up my laptop cover. Thought about it before.

May be it's thermal silicon thing because the core #0 is always hottest one and 3 other cores are just ~3-4 degree celcius cooler.

My country's room temperature is ~32C and I often only have fans on.

Edited June 16, 2013 by win32.exe

[-Kittens-]

The devs have said they're aware of this, particularly with regards to hosting.  However, as yet there has been no word on when or how they intend to fix it.

 

Are they aware it's potentially permanently damaging components, particularly RAM and thrashing the hell out of a single core of what would in this case would almost without exception be a multicore set up? There isn't a single core CPU left on the market, and yet utilization is essentially "thrash a single core with some usage of a second until hardware failure is imminent".

 

This is the only app I have that causes a measured and predictable spike in CPU temps. Something is rotten in denmark, it's no bueno for your system's long term longevity.

 

Hopefully it gets fixed none to soon.

[MangoMonkey]

Copying this from another thread for relevance, but I've found much the same thing. I recently upgraded from a quad-core Phenom Black II 2.8Ghz processor to a FX8350 eight-core 4.33Ghz CPU, and my frame rate issues while hosting have pretty much vanished, despite using the same GPU on both systems. This seems to indicate that the load on a host CPU is monstrous in comparison to that of the clients.

"Just from what I've observed, it seems as if a LOT of the information is required to be processed on the host computer. Enem AI, drops, ammunition and level design seems to all be running on the host CPU and being sent to the clients, with little being left to the actual client PC beyond rendering. This isn't a great system, because it hammers the host CPU with a monstrous amount of things once the ammunition drops begin piling up - pre-CPU upgrade, nearly all of my frame issues arrived during things like defense missions when I was hosting and the loot began to pile up."