• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
She11shock

System Performance.

33 posts in this topic

I am an old PC gamer that hung it up over ten years ago. I played ww2ol from the start in 2001 and just recently got back into it.  I dug out my two old pcs one was an athlon 3500+ and the other was a Phenom 2 quad core. Sine then I put together some aging setups but that still have some grunt. A phenom 2 1100t 6 core @ 4g and a FX 8350 @ 4.9g both with 8 g ram and gtx 1060s. More modern machines in the works. My question here is thru all those machines I get almost identical performance. Some areas I break 100fps while others in heavy battles I fall below 30fps. Going from an athlon single core to the fx 8 core with double the single core CPU bandwitdth and quadruple the ram should of yielded results? What am I missing here? Curious to what people are running and what kind of performance they are getting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprising... the basic game engine is still running code from launch in 2001; so it still only uses a single CPU core and many things are CPU heavy (rather than GPU). Which is exactly why you see the same performance on a single core vs. a multicore. The best option is to get a more modern CPU that runs above 4GHz for best performance. I myself run a i5 8600k and get 150+ FPS in battles and 250+ FPS out in the countryside. The GPU isn't all that important as of now, a GTX 1060 is more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the CPU's you listed, the FX 8350 @ 4.9g will be your most beastly, you should get the most consistent performance from it.
Being as the game is highly CPU dependent for a big list of calculations, depending on what is going on, even a modern CPU can get drug down at times.

You might try shifting the game process to CPU1 in task manager (set affinity)
It will shuffle it away from where the OS is most likely doing its background jazz
It may help a little.

The reason you will see people getting higher frame rates on a newer generation CPU running at less clock speed than your FX8350
is simply down to efficiency in the newer architecture, can eek out more work at less cycles, and drawing less watts making less heat.

Part of what you are experiencing is simply the game itself, it does a wicked amount of complex calculations of various kinds
and it does them all in a single thread, you might say it gets internally thread bound.
The game can make any CPU on the self work it's arse off on a single core given an active enough area.

It is something that does need change, but it wont be an easy task, and it is something that has to come after the 64bit
It would probably be kind of a travesty to get multithreading and GPU parallel processing going, and hamstring it to a 32bit architecture. 
I wish it was an easier thing to carry out, or that crs1.0 would have been able to have at least begun a roadmap to multi threading, it would open up
so many possibilities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Yes been watching developments towards 64bit and beyond very closely. Very aware of single core optimization. Just so baffled by 3 generations of CPUs all performing the same. My Phenom 965, 1100t, and fx 8350 pushed to the limits are with in a frame or two side by side comparisons. I looked into single core performance of many modern CPUs. Looks like shelling out alot of cash won't even get me a 50% improvement from my best set up in this game. I will say we are a long ways from my 800mhz amd and vodoo 5 I was sporting when this game launched. I can remember 10fps pretty well. <S>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the modern multicores do is keep the OS and antivirus work out of your way so your game CPU gets max juice.  The video card can help FPS, but isn't really your bottleneck past a certain point.

 

One factor is that CRS doesnt take full advantage of all the goodies on video cards because there are subscribers with old equipment that aren't budgeted for $500+ upgrades and requiring the better cards would cut off those subs.  So that means a lot of the potential of our modern cards is left on the table, unused.  We could probably get some real improvements with a baseline of 5 year old cards or newer.

 

If you play other games, likely they will drive you to more modern hardware then this one will.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, aismov said:

Not surprising... the basic game engine is still running code from launch in 2001; so it still only uses a single CPU core and many things are CPU heavy (rather than GPU). Which is exactly why you see the same performance on a single core vs. a multicore. The best option is to get a more modern CPU that runs above 4GHz for best performance. I myself run a i5 8600k and get 150+ FPS in battles and 250+ FPS out in the countryside. The GPU isn't all that important as of now, a GTX 1060 is more than enough.

&^%$# my fps are 30-33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

 What the modern multicores do is keep the OS and antivirus work out of your way so your game CPU gets max juice.  The video card can help FPS, but isn't really your bottleneck past a certain point.

 

One factor is that CRS doesnt take full advantage of all the goodies on video cards because there are subscribers with old equipment that aren't budgeted for $500+ upgrades, their wives would beat them if they did and requiring the better cards would cut off those subs.  So that means a lot of the potential of our modern cards is left on the table, unused.  We could probably get some real improvements with a baseline of 5 year old cards or newer.

 

If you play other games, likely they will drive you to more modern hardware then this one will.

 

fify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MikeAZ said:

&^%$# my fps are 30-33

I will also add that I have a 100% custom built rig that a designed myself. So I avoid a lot if the bloatware and hardware bottlenecking that you can get with prebuilt systems from the big guys.

Oh and my GTX 1070ti also doesn't hurt to get the game running at 1440p (highly recommended btw). When high refresh rate 4K monitors become cheaper and lose the "gamer" design elements they have now I'll be upgrading to that next.

S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always built my own.

I decided this time to buy from Microcenter

 For $799 i bought a PowerSpec G224 Desktop Gaming PC

1920 x 1080 full settings and i never dip below 80 FPS;)

Would've cost around the same to upgrade my old rig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PITTPETE said:

I always built my own.

I decided this time to buy from Microcenter

 For $799 i bought a PowerSpec G224 Desktop Gaming PC

1920 x 1080 full settings and i never dip below 80 FPS;)

Would've cost around the same to upgrade my old rig

We have a Micro Center here, Shilling used to work there if you remember him.

 

They are in competition with Fry's Electronics from California in addition to the national retail chains, so they have to really roll out the deals.

 

CompUSA was from here but it lost the downsizing wars.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For instance. My phenom 2 and fx 8350 at stock speeds. Both spawned in and inf side by side are with in 1 or 2 fps. Battles they fall into high 20s. I over clock the fx 900mhz and I get the same exact performance. This game being so CPU dependent you would think to see some performance increase? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, She11shock said:

For instance. My phenom 2 and fx 8350 at stock speeds. Both spawned in and inf side by side are with in 1 or 2 fps. Battles they fall into high 20s. I over clock the fx 900mhz and I get the same exact performance. This game being so CPU dependent you would think to see some performance increase? 

I guess it is a bit hard to explain why since I don't really have any technical understanding of exactly what WWIIOL calculates outside of hand waving generalities like "ballistics" and "physics." That said the most modern processor you have is the FX 8350 which is from ~2012 (based on my very cursory online search).

Technology has changed a lot in those 6 years. CPU performance has stopped being defined purely by clock cycles (GHz) since roughly the mid-2000s due to thernal limitations when you get close to 5 GHz. A lot of the newer CPUs have better internal architecture so you get more computing power for a similar number of click cycles.

Its the same reason why a 6.0 L V12 engine from 2018 completely outclassed the same engine from 1970. Both technically have the same displacement and cylinders, but the newer one has more efficient engineering to maximize available power.

If you are upgrading I would highly recommend getting any CPU from 2017 or newer that running at 4.2 GHz+ stock (nonboosted/turbo'd). They are pretty cheap now and you will see fantastic performance gains. RAM not an issue, 8 GB will be more than enough even with multiple accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for great explanation. I already putting the pieces together for a Intel I7 7700. It's only a four core but from what I read it's a beast on single core performance compared to much more expensive chips. In my hay day of PC building I was the guy preordering cpus and video cards. Me and a squad mate always trying to outclass each other. That went on from a 500mhz AMD vodoo5 and ended up with a quad core amd and sli setup.  Those days are long gone. Now very surprised 10 year old hardware holding it's own. That would of never happened mid late 2000s. The performance is very good thru many titles with the 6 core phenom and 8 core fx. Not looking for very good I want much better. I guess the old PC building flame still burning! Thanks for taking the time to respond. Still interested on what people are running and there performance. S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, beyond quad core, you tend not to see the benefit of the increased core amounts with average gaming and and app use.
So i wouldn't fret much over it being only 4 cores

Pretty sure it hyperthreads anyways? in case you had the occasional need for more threads rather than more clock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 10:53 AM, aismov said:

I will also add that I have a 100% custom built rig that a designed myself. So I avoid a lot if the bloatware and hardware bottlenecking that you can get with prebuilt systems from the big guys.

Oh and my GTX 1070ti also doesn't hurt to get the game running at 1440p (highly recommended btw). When high refresh rate 4K monitors become cheaper and lose the "gamer" design elements they have now I'll be upgrading to that next.

S!

 

very cool. I know computers like I know Swahili. 2 fps in schilde!!   <rage quit> I did a speed test and it looks like I should have moar fps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

internet speed does not effect FPS, except if you are dropping enough packets to freeze a lot
What are your PC specs mike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

internet speed does not effect FPS, except if you are dropping enough packets to freeze a lot
What are your PC specs mike?

where do I find this info?

 

Image result for mongo blazing saddles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a retail PC?
If so brand and model would help

You can see some of your info by right clicking start menu and clicking system
Task manager performance tab will also tell you some info bout your system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried to look up specs by serial, lenovo site said the serial was invalid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Down load cpuz small clean little app will tell you everything about your system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

processor- amd fx 870k quad core 360 ghz

ram- 160 gb

system 64 bit x64 based processor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MikeAZ said:

processor- amd fx 870k quad core 360 ghz

ram- 160 gb

system 64 bit x64 based processor.

 

You hurt my brain.

160 GB RAM is something a VM server or mainframe would have, not a laptop.

160 GB would be something like an SSD disk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.