ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Aug 5, 2014 @ 12:18pm
Direct x11 not using video card memory?
Is direct x 11 still not using video card memory? I got an r9 270x (bc 1140MHz, EMC 5.6 Gbps), with 2gb of memory just being wasted. My fps drops even lower if I use direct x9 on large games. (which does use video card memory)

Somehow my fps is still dropping in the 50's/high 40's maxed out with my fx 8350 OC 4.4ghz (any higher i'm going to need a water cooling). To put this into perspective, at stock this will overpower any stock i5 on the market with all the cores used. At 4.4ghz it's slighly weaker than a mid range i7. Profiler shows 3/8 cores untouched.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core
Last edited by ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex; Aug 5, 2014 @ 2:43pm
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
A. Pajander Aug 5, 2014 @ 1:29pm 
Originally posted by ᵡᴳḽᴰ >>Stickz<<:
To put this into perspective, at stock this will overpower any stock i5 on the market with all the cores used.

That's not what video games do though. Use all cores I mean. Fully utilizing several cores in games is very hard if not impossible, games just don't multi-thread very well. So per-core performance is still very important and I'm sorry to say that a stock i5 will outperform your CPU in most games, or it's a tie when limited by the GPU.

You can try this yourself. If you disable cores 4-8 and try to run some games, you're probably not gonna see a very big difference. And yeah, NS2 is CPU intensive and depends heavily on single-thread performance. There are a number of reasons for that.

That link you posted uses a fully multi-threaded synthetic benchmark (it's a nice site if you just keep that in mind). Here are some actual gaming benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Aug 5, 2014 @ 2:03pm 
Originally posted by A. Pajander:
Originally posted by ᵡᴳḽᴰ >>Stickz<<:
To put this into perspective, at stock this will overpower any stock i5 on the market with all the cores used.

That's not what video games do though. Use all cores I mean. Fully utilizing several cores in games is very hard if not impossible, games just don't multi-thread very well. So per-core performance is still very important and I'm sorry to say that a stock i5 will outperform your CPU in most games, or it's a tie when limited by the GPU.

I think this is better a comparision to natural selection 2 becuase its alot more complex, with more entities flowing around. Furthermore, alot less of the gpu is wasted in terms of performance.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Originally posted by A. Pajander:
You can try this yourself. If you disable cores 4-8 and try to run some games, you're probably not gonna see a very big difference. And yeah, NS2 is CPU intensive and depends heavily on single-thread performance. There are a number of reasons for that.

Based on what I saw when running game's profiler, disbling core 3 & 4 (cores start 0 and go to 7) would have a noticable impact by increasing reliance on single threaded strength

Also do keep in mind, my fps starts off above 60 at round start. It restores to 60 at random points in the middle of the round.
Last edited by ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex; Aug 5, 2014 @ 3:24pm
Razorkiller1337 Aug 5, 2014 @ 4:00pm 
Originally posted by ᵡᴳḽᴰ >>Stickz<<:
Is direct x 11 still not using video card memory? I got an r9 270x (bc 1140MHz, EMC 5.6 Gbps), with 2gb of memory just being wasted. My fps drops even lower if I use direct x9 on large games. (which does use video card memory)

Somehow my fps is still dropping in the 50's/high 40's maxed out with my fx 8350 OC 4.4ghz (any higher i'm going to need a water cooling). To put this into perspective, at stock this will overpower any stock i5 on the market with all the cores used. At 4.4ghz it's slighly weaker than a mid range i7. Profiler shows 3/8 cores untouched.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core
This is sorta because of some of the optimization and Physx. If you don't remember, if you don't have an nvidia card, the physics engine is offloaded into the cpu, putting ALOT more strain on the cpu, which is my same problem, meaning, the ideal system atm is an intel plus nvidia build sadly, because I have friends with inferior intel/nvidia computers than mine that run the game better than me...
ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Aug 5, 2014 @ 4:06pm 
Originally posted by {=Razorkiller1337=}:
This is sorta because of some of the optimization and Physx. If you don't remember, if you don't have an nvidia card, the physics engine is offloaded into the cpu, putting ALOT more strain on the cpu, which is my same problem, meaning, the ideal system atm is an intel plus nvidia build sadly, because I have friends with inferior intel/nvidia computers than mine that run the game better than me...

does the game support mantle for amd?
Last edited by ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex; Aug 5, 2014 @ 4:06pm
Razorkiller1337 Aug 5, 2014 @ 4:07pm 
Originally posted by ᵡᴳḽᴰ >>Stickz<<:
Originally posted by {=Razorkiller1337=}:
This is sorta because of some of the optimization and Physx. If you don't remember, if you don't have an nvidia card, the physics engine is offloaded into the cpu, putting ALOT more strain on the cpu, which is my same problem, meaning, the ideal system atm is an intel plus nvidia build sadly, because I have friends with inferior intel/nvidia computers than mine that run the game better than me...

does the game support mantle for amd?
Nah, sadly, this is an nvidia optimized game, so we're out of luck :(, though hopefully it comes later...
A. Pajander Aug 5, 2014 @ 7:24pm 
Originally posted by ᵡᴳḽᴰ >>Stickz<<:
I think this is better a comparision to natural selection 2 becuase its alot more complex, with more entities flowing around. Furthermore, alot less of the gpu is wasted in terms of performance.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Yeah, BF4 is weird because you'd think (and I would think) it would be a lot more demanding on the CPU but really it's very much GPU bound after that point.

http://i.imgur.com/5aJTp.png

Here's a game that seems to behave a lot more like NS2, and in fact, what made me finally upgrade from Phenom 2 to Ivy Bridge was NS2 and Planetside 2 being released within one month.

Based on what I saw when running game's profiler, disbling core 3 & 4 (cores start 0 and go to 7) would have a noticable impact by increasing reliance on single threaded strength

My non-academic guesstimate is that in gaming a second core is essential, a third one is nice and after that they're not really doing much. Would be interesting to test though.

By the way, did you try the new patch already?
A. Pajander Aug 5, 2014 @ 7:26pm 
Originally posted by {=Razorkiller1337=}:
This is sorta because of some of the optimization and Physx. If you don't remember, if you don't have an nvidia card, the physics engine is offloaded into the cpu, putting ALOT more strain on the cpu, which is my same problem, meaning, the ideal system atm is an intel plus nvidia build sadly, because I have friends with inferior intel/nvidia computers than mine that run the game better than me...

I'm pretty sure there's still no hardware accelerated PhysX in the game. Yes the game uses the PhysX library, but many games do, just not the hardware accelerated parts.
ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Aug 5, 2014 @ 8:25pm 
Originally posted by A. Pajander:
My non-academic guesstimate is that in gaming a second core is essential, a third one is nice and after that they're not really doing much. Would be interesting to test though.

By the way, did you try the new patch already?

New patch really didn't do much peformance wise for direct x11 other than bug fixes. Dx11 still runs better than dx9 for myself on amd.

If you press ` (to the left of the number 1 that will open up console). Type profile in it to bring up the games profiler. Use the spacebar to stop and pause. It will use 5 threads which in amds case can execute on 5 cores, or intels case (with 4 cores and 8 threads) double execute on a core. Each thread has a certain set of data on it. Depending on what it is and how much will decide the load on the core it's sent to.

The first thread will be maxed out unless you have vertical sync or some other frame rate limitor on. (even then it could still be maxed out) On ns2 this is your single threaded choke point which will stop your fps from going any higher. If the game only ran on 2 cores you'd be choked out at 100% cpu usage. (unless you overclocked a dual on water to 4-5ghz ish). Atleast 3 cores is essential for this game. (assuming your single threaded strength is strong enough)

What I did to increase the games performance on my pc is turn off turbo mode and only overclock 2 of my 8 cores. This allows for less voltage which causes less heat for an higher and safer overall overclock/preformance boost. Overclocking more than 2 cores is pointless for ns2 becuase none of the other cores are going to ever max out. (due to limited multi-threaded support)

Originally posted by A. Pajander:
Yeah, BF4 is weird because you'd think (and I would think) it would be a lot more demanding on the CPU but really it's very much GPU bound after that point.

http://i.imgur.com/5aJTp.png

Here's a game that seems to behave a lot more like NS2, and in fact, what made me finally upgrade from Phenom 2 to Ivy Bridge was NS2 and Planetside 2 being released within one month. :gorge:

BF4 has whats called mantle. Its pretty the amd video card taking load off the cpu. It also uses 8 threads (unlike 5 threads on ns2) which means all 8 amd cores can be used and the load can be more evenly split between the intel cores. (allowing for better overall processing in both cases) The game can be described as being both gpu and cpu bound becuase both are used efficiently. (unlike the amd gpu on ns2) How else can BF4 which is mpre cpu demanding than ns2 achieve higher fps?

Planetside 2 beta would be an example of a complete failure for ns2. An i3 with no turbo boost is near the top with only 2 cores and 3.1ghz. Its show a HUGE lack of game optimization from a mult-threaded standpoint. You can only push so much load onto 2 cores before it maxes out. If this is a good concept why make a quad core with more than double the power?
Last edited by ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex; Aug 6, 2014 @ 6:31am
Keijo Aug 6, 2014 @ 6:15am 
If you look at this comparision http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1185&page=10, its very interesting because it has a low resolution and graphics setting fps benchmark.(and alot of games to compare). Because that should show the real power of the cpu.

Now it does not have the fx 8350 and it has an fx 4320 and not the 4350, how ever it should not make that much difference because they have similar performance. Assuming naturally that noone of those games or ns2 uses more than 4 cores efficiently.

But what that comparision shows very well is how much faster one intel core is to an amd core, the difference is just HUGE. Some of of those games propably use only 2 cores, but it doesn't matter for the result naturally.

Like naturally the difference in ns2 should be something similar, because the fx 8350 would be basicly like the fx 4320,because it doesn't benefit from more cores, and because noone runs this game on full gfx settings because you need every fps you can get:P.
A. Pajander Aug 7, 2014 @ 8:33am 
Originally posted by ᵡᴳḽᴰ >>Stickz<<:
Planetside 2 beta would be an example of a complete failure for ns2. An i3 with no turbo boost is near the top with only 2 cores and 3.1ghz. Its show a HUGE lack of game optimization from a mult-threaded standpoint. You can only push so much load onto 2 cores before it maxes out. If this is a good concept why make a quad core with more than double the power?

Games don't multi-thread just because a developer wants them to. It requires huge amounts of effort and many things in a game just have to be calculated in order, so the other threads have to wait. And DICE (BF4 dev) happens to have literally 100 times more employees than UWE (518 vs. maybe 4-7 during development). :)
ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex Aug 9, 2014 @ 4:01pm 
Just found an experimental setting (physics multithreading) in the menu that uses 8 threads. That combined with an 4.4ghz turbo on 2 cores is enough for all high on an amd with ambient occlusion off and dx11. Just wish that dx11 had some of the texture handling support dx9 has. In some cases its actually waiting for the gpu. (ie when going from a phase gate/tunnel or back to base)
Last edited by ᵡᴳḽᴰ::Vertex; Aug 9, 2014 @ 5:21pm
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Aug 5, 2014 @ 12:18pm
Posts: 11