Fantastic update bud low fps with at 4870

[OLDZEKE]

YOU WHAT! 16xAA and 16xAnisotropic.... I havent even gone there yet because of my poor performence' date=' running my settings at minimum AA and Anisotropic.[/quote']

I get no difference 16x, app controled or forced off with either.

Lol doin all the clock changeing I'm now at 60 in the twerp bench though....I realy need to write my clock settings down. I'll find the sweet spot again though, it's part of the fun of ocing

[chimaera]

I get no difference 16x, app controled or forced off with either.

Lol doin all the clock changeing I'm now at 60 in the twerp bench though....I realy need to write my clock settings down. I'll find the sweet spot again though, it's part of the fun of ocing

Yes I can confirm that now, I can force my ATI card to the highest settings 16x Antialiasing/Aniso and Highqual Mipmap etc etc. it doesnt affect the performance during .benchvehicles or .benchantwerp

Thats a let down, I thought that we where going to see improved performance with the new version of BGE, as the GFX cards where going to influence the game performance, must have dreamed it up. So currently its still the CPU doing most of the work... ?

[OLDZEKE]

Yes I can confirm that now, I can force my ATI card to the highest settings 16x Antialiasing/Aniso and Highqual Mipmap etc etc. it doesnt affect the performance during .benchvehicles or .benchantwerp

Thats a let down, I thought that we where going to see improved performance with the new version of BGE, as the GFX cards where going to influence the game performance, must have dreamed it up. So currently its still the CPU doing most of the work... ?

I realy don't know how much is cpu vrs gpu. I may at some point pull the 9600 out of the old rig and put it in the i7 rig to see what difference there is.

In the meantime, I'm assumeing you have pc1600 ram? Do you know what speed the ram is actualy running? My mobo defaults the ram i'm running (corsair cas7 pc1600) to cas 9 1066 mhz on stock settings. You can d/l CPUZ (also known as CPUID) and it will show your ram settings.

And, with xp at least so could be all windows versions, some usb devices on some mobos can lower game fps..even 1/2 your fps. I have a usb modem, its a good hardware modem, on a rig I had with a p4 asus mobo that modem would halve my fps. On the old rig I have now, asrock mobo, the same modem does not affect game fps.

[chimaera]

I realy don't know how much is cpu vrs gpu. I may at some point pull the 9600 out of the old rig and put it in the i7 rig to see what difference there is.

In the meantime, I'm assumeing you have pc1600 ram? Do you know what speed the ram is actualy running? My mobo defaults the ram i'm running (corsair cas7 pc1600) to cas 9 1066 mhz on stock settings. You can d/l CPUZ (also known as CPUID) and it will show your ram settings.

And, with xp at least so could be all windows versions, some usb devices on some mobos can lower game fps..even 1/2 your fps. I have a usb modem, its a good hardware modem, on a rig I had with a p4 asus mobo that modem would halve my fps. On the old rig I have now, asrock mobo, the same modem does not affect game fps.

Yes I have PC1600(1066MHz) RAM.

Doing some O/C'ing via BIOS gives me a couple of extra FPS, but nowhere near 40fps...

A couple of USB devices like a USB HUB(D-Link), USB mouse/keyboard, G940 HOTAS(joy/throttle/rudder) dont have the energy to start unplugging devices to see if they are the deciding factor.

[haughtkarl]

I'm running:

E6600 o/c to 3.2GHz

GTX 280

8 GB RAM

Win 7 64bit + XP 32bit dual boot

There's no question about it on my machine - 1.31 beta runs like absolute crap on my machine within Win 7 64bit environment. Under XP it runs smooth as butter. The FPS spikes and dips are less pronounced under XP and overall the framerate is much higher. I have no idea why there's such a discrepancy in WW2OL performance between the two OS' but for now I'll be booting into XP for the 1.31 beta.

[deyoxman]

I'm running:

E6600 o/c to 3.2GHz

GTX 280

8 GB RAM

Win 7 64bit + XP 32bit dual boot

There's no question about it on my machine - 1.31 beta runs like absolute crap on my machine within Win 7 64bit environment. Under XP it runs smooth as butter. The FPS spikes and dips are less pronounced under XP and overall the framerate is much higher. I have no idea why there's such a discrepancy in WW2OL performance between the two OS' but for now I'll be booting into XP for the 1.31 beta.

Probably something with win7 and CRS servers I wonder what OS the run on? is it Wins7? I had an issue with my business and win7 and older xp servers once I changed it over to 64bit servers the client side sped up tenfold. Lots of variables for them to figure out hopefull they can work on performance enhancing the new patch otherwise I fear it will be detrimental to the majority of users.

[gongor]

I am starting to fear this game is going to lose alot of players do to everyone needing what I like to call a "Super Computer" to run this game now.

[chimaera]

I was starting to get nervous that I've done some config to my computer which might have created some bottleneck some where in the system....

So I reinstalled 3DMark Vantage with the latest patch 1.0.2 and ran some benchmarking on my system.

I can say that I'm relieved that my computer is working as intended. Getting consistent good scores on CPU/GPU, cant see any bottlenecks.

3DMark Score(Preset:Performance)

P16596

GPU Score

16363

CPU Score

17338

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

3DMark Score(Preset:High)

H11767

GPU Score

11138

CPU Score

17312

So it's back to 'troubleshoot' BGE vs ATI/Windows7(64bit)........

------------------

System Information

------------------

Operating System: Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_rtm.090713-1255)

Language: Swedish (Regional Setting: Swedish)

System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.

System Model: EX58-UD4P

BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG

Processor: Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.8GHz

Memory: 6144MB RAM

Available OS Memory: 6142MB RAM

Page File: 2270MB used, 10269MB available

Windows Dir: C:\Windows

DirectX Version: DirectX 11

DX Setup Parameters: Not found

User DPI Setting: Using System DPI

System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)

DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled

DxDiag Version: 6.01.7600.16385 32bit Unicode

---------------

Display Devices

---------------

Card name: ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2

Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc.

Chip type: ATI display adapter (0x9441)

DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz)

Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_9441&SUBSYS_25421002&REV_00

Display Memory: 3826 MB

Dedicated Memory: 1014 MB

Shared Memory: 2811 MB

Current Mode: 1680 x 1050 (32 bit) (59Hz)

Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor

Monitor Model: PL2201W

Monitor Id: IVM5602

Native Mode: 1680 x 1050(p) (59.954Hz)

Output Type: DVI

Driver Name: atiu9p64 aticfx64 aticfx64 atiu9pag aticfx32 aticfx32 atiumd64 atidxx64 atidxx64 atiumdag atidxx32 atidxx32 atiumdva atiumd6a atitmm64

Driver File Version: ()

Driver Version: 8.702.0.0

DDI Version: 10.1

Driver Model: WDDM 1.1

Driver Attributes: Final Retail

Driver Date/Size: , 0 bytes

WHQL Logo'd: n/a

WHQL Date Stamp: n/a

Device Identifier: {D7B71EE2-D701-11CF-7D64-4305A1C2C535}

Vendor ID: 0x1002

Device ID: 0x9441

SubSys ID: 0x25421002

Revision ID: 0x0000

Driver Strong Name: oem1.inf:ATI.Mfg.NTamd64.6.1:ati2mtag_RV7X:8.702.0.0:pci\ven_1002&dev_9441

Rank Of Driver: 00E62001

Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_A ModeMPEG2_C

Deinterlace Caps: {6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive

{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY

{6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive

{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=

{3C5323C1-6FB7-44F5-9081-056BF2EE449D}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,2) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive

{552C0DAD-CCBC-420B-83C8-74943CF9F1A6}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,2) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive

{6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive

{335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=

{5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=

D3D9 Overlay: Not Supported

DXVA-HD: Not Supported

DDraw Status: Enabled

D3D Status: Enabled

AGP Status: Enabled

Edited February 27, 2010 by chimaera

[chimaera]

Made a new benchmark run with BGE 1.31.26, everything set to low settings like the instructions says. Also set my settings for my ATI card to lowest possible(Optimal performance).

Got the following results.

.benchremagen

57fps

.benchvehicles

29fps

.benchantwerp

27fps

[OLDZEKE]

Hummm. Remember I am OCed so being this is a cpu dependant test I should pull higher fps over a stock clocking.

Antwerp=61-65

Remagen=68-70

Vehicles=54-55

You changed the desktop dpi setting?

Out of curriousity maybe try setting the exe like this and see if the benchmarks change.....Can simply rightclick the pratice offline shortcut then properties and compatibility.

Be interesting to see if your fps changes any.

[chimaera]

I have not changed my desktop dpi setting, it's at 100%(default).

Good advise I actually looked at those settings earlier but never touched them. Tried it now though and they didnt do anything.

Doing some other 'tweaking'(disabling some background services, disabling prefetch and making the Page File smaller, disabling minimap and other HUD elements) got me a few more fps.

.benchremagen

62fps

.benchvehicles

31fps

.benchantwerp

29fps

I mean it's not bad for a system that hasn't been O/C'ed... it's just frustrating to know that the GFX card doesnt seem to be the biggest factor when it comes to performance. I'm not prepared to O/C my computer to get more fps.

This is what I get when O/C'ing to 3.5GHz.... Looks like there is a bigger gain with a faster CPU than a expensive GFX(ATI) card :-).... (or a combination of a fast CPU and nVidia card seems to be the magic formula).

.benchremagen

78fps

.benchvehicles

40fps

.benchantwerp

37fps

Edited February 28, 2010 by chimaera

[OLDZEKE]

So @3.5 your remagen bench is a bit more than mine @ 3.5 which could be difference in ram or even sound card. I don't run a SC but use a DSP500 usb headset with inline processor, which I suspect also uses cpu cycles.

Odd that the twerp fps is so much different.

[chimaera]

I have a Soundblaster XFi sound card. Running the benchmarks with sound disabled didn't do anything.

[OLDZEKE]

Well being it's still beta I'd not worry just yet. Hopefully this will be usefull input.

Seems some ati cards like yours are seeing dift ranges of fps in the benchmarks compaired to nvidia. But on the other hand some ati users are

not seemingly affected by low fps in binocular zoom where as nvidia users

(me included) are getting hammered when zoomed in.

I'm pretty confident CRS will iron both issues out pre release.

[Slpr]

had to get me a new monitor, since the old one died on me. but still major FPS increase for me from 1.31.18 to .26. from about 20-30 FPS @ 1360x768 in .18 it increases to stable 40-60 @ 1920x1080 in the last build (even no drops at the silly farm in Eersel).

my system:

core2duo 6850 @ 3ghz, 4gb DDRIII on Intel35, 8800GTS/512, onboard sound. i maxed out the ingame settings (no postrender tho) and running 16x anti aliasing and 16x anisotrop filtering. since i still got a lot of option to decrease detail level, i'm really looking forward for the live version.

so long slpr

[chimaera]

Benchmarking comparisons between a Nvidia Geforce GTX 260(896 MB) and ATI Radeon HD 4870(1024 MB) shows they are very similar in performance.

Thats why I bought my 4870x2 card, it was at the time a less expensive card than the GTX260 while still outperforming it.

Tom's Hardware - Benchmark The Last Remnant

Why do I link to a benchmark between ATI 4870(1024 MB) vs GTX 260(896 MB)?

Well I figured as BGE doesnt utilize both GPU's on my x2 card it should should be equal to a ATI 4870(1024 MB).

The benchmark shows that in 'mainstream' applications/games the cards are very similar in performance, some are 'won' by ATI and some are 'won' by nVidia.

When it comes to testing in BGE we get a picture that shows that nVidia has some kind of advantage, what it is I dont know.

If I would be buying a computer today I would not go for a ATI card which is sad as my latest 3 computer builds has been with ATI cards.