Loading times

[Sanitaizer]

How much time it takes for you to load campaing map?

[TheAlmightyProo]

Originally posted by Isaac:

First load to campaign is like 1 minute on highest setting (except shadows).
Every load after that is more like 15 to 20 seconds

Pretty much this for me (on average) maybe 40-50 secs max for first load in but definitely 15-20 thereafter (campaign to battle and vv)

Again though, as mentioned above somewhere iirc, transitioning to and from the loading (bar) screen does have a pause of some seconds both before the bar starts to fill and before moving to next state once filled. It happens I guess... has done in a very few other games but not to this degree. If anybody has an idea why this is though, let me know. Anyway, because of that timing from entering/leaving load screens differs significantly from timing by loading bar status, anything between 5-10 secs each end of that bar.

All told, it's leaps and bounds better than HDD, and that follows for all games even if this one is the longest for loads that I have/play. Also at least a bit better than SATA SSD's.
This is all 980 Pro's (or OEM version of in the case of laptop's primary drive) for OS and main (AAA) game installs so I'm getting what I paid for at least. But then I haven't used a HDD for anything in some 7 years, much less buy one (two laptops came with HDD's installed) that I haven't immediately swapped out for whatever best option fit.

[Weissrolf]

1st start of a new campaign after starting the game takes considerably longer than 2nd start of a campaign. This is not a file-cache thing, though, because it also happens when the game was already loaded into the cache (restarting game after starting a campaign for the first time then starting a campaign twice to measure).

CPU, GPU and IO are basically idle most of the time. Those large asset archives seem to be decompressed via a single thread only, but there isn't even a single core fully loaded.

[TheAlmightyProo]

Originally posted by Weissrolf:

1st start of a new campaign after starting the game takes considerably longer than 2nd start of a campaign. This is not a file-cache thing, though, because it also happens when the game was already loaded into the cache (restarting game after starting a campaign for the first time then starting a campaign twice to measure).

CPU, GPU and IO are basically idle most of the time. Those large asset archives seem to be decompressed via a single thread only, but there isn't even a single core fully loaded.

Besides that, I don't ever get a single core fully used in gameplay either. Out of 8 (5800X) I generally have two trading places at maybe 30% use max, another three bouncing between 5-20% and the rest at 0-10%. As an overall use it's 25-30%. So much for TW games being particularly demanding on CPU's (which may have once been the case) I can tell you that running it with a 5600X and the 6800XT same res and settings is no loss, with a laptop 6800H pulling about the same, load vs perf.
I have pretty standard, averagely optimised AAA's hitting that much harder, 50-60% in some cases.

My 6800XT gets consistent use of 14.5Gb ultra (at 3440x1440) at 99% use with RAM use averaging around the same, 12-14Gb out of 32. Those same AAA's that go heavier on the CPU often go lighter on the GPU, around 12Gb use on average. Some games, which I wouldn't think of as RAM hungry, even go higher on the RAM too.

Now I know this comment veers from the subject of loading but imo it's an extension of how not everything about the game and how it does/goes is crystal clear. Why and how many of the decisions that fed into that were, I assume, necessary though, we'll probably never know... but I can take a really good guess or two.

But the above is why when the question of upgrading comes up it'll be the GPU before the CPU every time, especially if I can only afford one (a worthy CPU, mobo and possibly new RAM too costing near enough what a viable 6800XT upgrade would) While the former, say a 7900XTX to make it worth the doing, would net me a ~50 fps gain (from 70 at ultra) a new CPU, 7800X/13700K etc, might be half as a much a gain with the 6800XT.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Funny enough, my watercooled 13900KF gets hotter than my aircooled 4090 here (even though the GPU supposedly has more usage)

[pascal.difolco]

Originally posted by TheAlmightyProo:

Originally posted by Weissrolf:

1st start of a new campaign after starting the game takes considerably longer than 2nd start of a campaign. This is not a file-cache thing, though, because it also happens when the game was already loaded into the cache (restarting game after starting a campaign for the first time then starting a campaign twice to measure).

CPU, GPU and IO are basically idle most of the time. Those large asset archives seem to be decompressed via a single thread only, but there isn't even a single core fully loaded.

Besides that, I don't ever get a single core fully used in gameplay either. Out of 8 (5800X) I generally have two trading places at maybe 30% use max, another three bouncing between 5-20% and the rest at 0-10%. As an overall use it's 25-30%. So much for TW games being particularly demanding on CPU's (which may have once been the case) I can tell you that running it with a 5600X and the 6800XT same res and settings is no loss, with a laptop 6800H pulling about the same, load vs perf.
I have pretty standard, averagely optimised AAA's hitting that much harder, 50-60% in some cases.

My 6800XT gets consistent use of 14.5Gb ultra (at 3440x1440) at 99% use with RAM use averaging around the same, 12-14Gb out of 32. Those same AAA's that go heavier on the CPU often go lighter on the GPU, around 12Gb use on average. Some games, which I wouldn't think of as RAM hungry, even go higher on the RAM too.

Now I know this comment veers from the subject of loading but imo it's an extension of how not everything about the game and how it does/goes is crystal clear. Why and how many of the decisions that fed into that were, I assume, necessary though, we'll probably never know... but I can take a really good guess or two.

But the above is why when the question of upgrading comes up it'll be the GPU before the CPU every time, especially if I can only afford one (a worthy CPU, mobo and possibly new RAM too costing near enough what a viable 6800XT upgrade would) While the former, say a 7900XTX to make it worth the doing, would net me a ~50 fps gain (from 70 at ultra) a new CPU, 7800X/13700K etc, might be half as a much a gain with the 6800XT.

You won't get any noticeable FPS gain at 3440x1440 with a better CPU, as you're heavily GPU bound, it takes a 7900XTX to reach CPU bottleneck at that res with a Zen3 CPU - that's exactly my setup
Maybe loading time would improve a bit but imo it's drive speed limitations here that makes it slow, as even the fastest SSDs aren't that fast in random read and there's a huge pile of assets to load on the IE campaign
Would like to have real data tho, as most people with decent rigs get around 60sec load times and some says 30sec only, which makes no real sense to me