Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
For example, my computer will run the game around 60-120fps with all settings at max except low resolution to stop my gtx1060 from limiting things. However, even with my processor locked down to only 4cores at 4threads and none of them running over 85%, something else seems to be holding me back from getting higher FPS.
A faster processor would likely mean nothing in my case, though switching from AMD to Intel might help simply based on architecture benefits from Intel.
A faster GPU will help in my situation at 1080p because my current GPU is running 100% usage and holding the rest of my system back at 1080p, BUT even the best GPU will never help me get beyond 60-120fps with my current system since something else is holding me back there.
In my situation, faster RAM can help even more than it'll help you on your Intel system, but I seem to have hit the limits of what my processor's IMC can do with my RAM before getting the occasional bluescreen from it. Faster RAM would likely let my system stay closer to 120fps all the time, but it seems to be outside of the hardware's abilities..or outside my ability to fine tune it further.
So far, the City at 1800North 1500West Navezgane seems to hit my system harder than anywhere else I've been.
yeah i play on mostly max settings and i play random gen a lot so i usually use up my pc to the max.
so far the hardest hitting thing is turning tree quality up (which affects distance at which things are like fully rendered? what? i dont know why)
other than that i can get over 100 easily outside of a super stressful and hard hitting scene
-TreeQuality like you mentioned which affects a lot of in-world items and some lighting/decorations render distance. Sadly the MEDIUM and LOW settings make some pretty bad pop-in for outdoors.
-ShadowDetail which got a lot more adjustable in 17.4 although settings below max can still look weird to me with the cutoff line where shadows stop being rendered..particularly at night.
-ReflectionQuality seems to hit my FrameTimes pretty hard above MEDIUM, though it doesn't tank performance like it used to and it luckily doesn't look much different to me between LOW and ULTRA+.
On the GPU side the newly added setting SS Reflections can make a 20FPS difference while barely changing how the game looks. If you usually play with SS Reflections ON, you should definitely give the game a try with it OFF to see if the trade is worth it to you.
If you end up with enough spare time at some point would you mind starting a new file on Navezgane, pressing F1 then typing
teleport -1600 1800
pressing enter, then looking around and seeing/sharing what framerates -F8?- you're getting with all settings cranked but resolution set to something like 720x1280?
If you don't feel like it that's fine of course, I'm just really curious what a top-end CPU can reach with 7Days.
i did not do exactly what you said because i didn't see this comment but i was playing earlier on one of the new pre-made map types (i think valley or county one, not navezgane) and i did play well and i adjusted settings over time, and i turned up my overclock on my gpu and was well on my way of getting 90+ fps with all settings cranked.
after turning off the ss reflections and reflection qual down and some other stuff i was easily getting 120-144 (i have my monitor capped at 144 for all games using rivatuner, so i dont use v sync, i use g sync)
and even though it was jumping in that range due to zomboys spawning, explosions and running around and generating scenes it was stable and solid. the gpu was crying a bit though ahah
Unless you really want all the new stuff like GPU raytracing, I'd hold off on buying anything like a 2080ti. At the moment the 1080ti is really close to a 2080ti in terms of normal game performance.
The big problem with upgrading to a 9900k is that all the new tech is just around the corner. PCI-e v4 will really change the performance of a pc. It will be worth upgrading to a pci-e v4 motherboard soon. PCI-e v3 is about 1/2 the speed of pci-e v4. If you arn't sure about what this actually means. Think about having dual (or quad) m.dot 2 or nvme or what ever you want to use on a motherboard in a raid 0 (this means basicly twice the speed if you have 2) and then still having enough speed left over for 2 gfx cards and other devices.
If you do want to buy a 9900k then I'd wait until the ryzen 3k series is released and then hold off and see what the pricing and performance of the new stuff is. It should also push down intel cpu prices regardless. It's about a month away. It's worth waiting.
Yes. It's really worth the wait. It's only a month away and intel will definately push down their prices a little. At the moment you can get first gen ryzen systems quite cheap. This is no doubt due to all the retailers scrambling to get rid of stock they know won't really be worth holding onto in another month when the new stuff hits. It's times like this that you can wait and get a really good deal if you are patient.
Also (as I said above) the new ryzen systems will have pci-e v4. The 9900k is stuck on a platform with only pci-e v3. This isn't an issue now but it will be soon (6 months to 1 year when all the new hardware is released for it).
If you have the money and the benchmarks and reviews look good then I'd suggest getting a new ryzen system as they look to be about on par with the current intel lineup.
The other thing the new ryzen systems will have is a much higher memory speed out of the box. What that means is they'll just be faster. Also it will be interesting to see how fast the nonstandard compatibility ends up being from vendors (which usually push the support a significant amount faster).
I also have a 3930k. I'd be interested to know what over clock you run it at? Typically these chips get to 4ghz really easily on air. I run mine between 4.2 and 4.4 ghz when I over clock it. I don't usually need to overclock it much.
I decided when I bought my system to max out the ram. I was lucky, It was cheap at the time in about 2012. More ram is a really good way to extend the life of a PC. I'd suggest any one to buy a bit more ram if they find that their system is some times a bit slow. It's amazing what a large amount of ram can do for performance.
I'm only worried about the motherboard dieing or the cpu dieing in the next 6 months or so because I don't think I need to upgrade this pc for a while. I'm personally going to see what the ryzen 3k series is like and if it's the same or really close to i9 performance then I might go buy a 12 core system. It's one of these things where waiting and seeing is the best thing right now.
My motherboard is a Sabertooth x79, and is truly built for overclocking. I basically built the system around being able to push the limits, and it currently benchmarks almost the same as a i7-7700k.
Ryzen is making some waves lately, but AMD is still having bad compatibility issues with a lot of things out there. Until they can get those issues resolved, I'm not keen on going back to AMD.
All that said, I get a pretty solid 80FPS most of the time with my setup right now.
Win 10
i7-3930k overclocked at 4.2GHz
16GB DDR3 RAM overclocked at @1600Mhz
GTX1060 6GB with stock OC
OS and game on SSD, save data on ultra-fast HDD's in RAID 0
AMD has historically had issues like this for the past 8-10 years, and it wasn't until very recently that the combined speed and workload of their chipsets even compared to Intels. (They have always been fast, but could never carry a load with that speed like Intel could, and Intel wasn't that much slower. If you wanted real power with speed, you got Intel.)
I used to swear by AMD, but then they dropped the ball on quality products to try to keep up in the speed race. Buying out ATI didn't do them any favors, it just split their development focus. (It didn't do ATI any favors either.)
According to a quick google search this only happened on ASUS boards and i could only find topics from last year. So yeah, ryzen seems fine.
The truth is the instruction set should be the same, IBM ensured that with it's contract with Intel. So it has to come down to the chipset and how the processor communicates to the rest of the system. If that is different, then there can be issues with things not working right.
Back to ATI/AMD video cards, play any game that uses OpenGL for example, you will either have performance issues compared to a similar Geforce card, or it simply won't work. This is because ATI had this brilliant idea: If they built a wrapper that converted every OpenGL instruction into a DirectX instruction, they wouldn't have to support OpenGL at all anymore. Never mind the fact that OpenGL uses a different rendering method and it's constantly being developed. Their wrapper constantly fails, but Nvidia would rather help develop OpenGL as well to keep their drivers compatible and to leverage new hardware through it.
And right now the 2700x for like 300$ beeing only 15% short in performance against a 9900K. Beeing able to use a way cheaper Mobo and still beeing able to overclock is also a huge plus.
Also Intel always demanding a new platform sucks. 1151v2 is dead already. Thermals also suck with the 9900K.
And you can´t compare K7 to Ryzen. The current gen is waaaaay better than K7 was. It´s a new age. Also where is the intel mainstream cpu with 12 and 16 cores?