Why is this game so heavily CPU limited?

[Plex]

I'm trying to play this game on my GPD Win handheld which has a Intel Atom Z8700 CPU.
I'm mostly getting only 15-20fps, even less during battles.
Most of you would think: oh this is because of the integrated Intel HD graphics.
Nope ! The GPU usage is swaying between 40 and 70% in its native resolution of 720p.
It's the CPU that is limiting in this case, and I had barely any game that lags because of CPU limiting because its mostly the GPU limiting.
I can play FFX HD just fine with 30fps in all cases.

What is FFXIII doing on the CPU to produce such a bad framerate?
Software Rendering??

I've heard that the PS3 version does some rendering on the CPU with the help of its cell architecture.
Could be similar on PC and it might be using SSE2 to calculate vertexes or some sort.

[SenMithrarin85]

The game uses 1 cpu core and nothing else. Very little ram, and barely any gpu rendering.

You will need at least a 4th gen i7 clocked at around 4.2ghz to mantain 60fps in this game.

Most of the drops are actually due to the UI (health bars etc in battle, and the map in the field). Turning them off with something like gedosato, yields a good fps boost, but its hardly practical...

The game is a horrendous part. FFX is MUCH better coded but still has its own share of issues.

[Plex]

yea thats what I mean, why do some 2D sprites slow it down so badly?
I can play way more graphic demanding games such as Rage with 30+ fps on this little thing surprisingly.
Even Crysis 2 plays better.

Might just stick with FFX since I think is the better FF anyways.

[fl0wt]

Originally posted by SenMithrarin85:

You will need at least a 4th gen i7 clocked at around 4.2ghz to mantain 60fps in this game.

weird, i'm sporting an i5 2500 and i got constant 60fps. i've only played 8 hours so far, but i don't think the graphics are going to change much in the remainder of the game.

[Syad]

Originally posted by fl0wt:

weird, i'm sporting an i5 2500 and i got constant 60fps..

nothing weird about it, 90% of people complaining here have systems below realistic sys reqs. For example OP is trying to run the game on a tablet. You on the other hand have a computer the game was designed for, and even though it predates this 2014 game by three years it still runs it reasonably well (although it is doubtful you are getting 60fps in battles, unless somehow overclocked).

It's a shame SE didn't test it enough to be runnable on more configurations, because they totally could, but, technically they didn't have to, or they would be testing it today still, and charge full price and not $15.

[fl0wt]

you're right i've just checked the fps when running around outside of battles. i'll have to look at the numbers when in battle.

[Chouchers]

Originally posted by Plex:

I'm trying to play this game on my GPD Win handheld which has a Intel Atom Z8700 CPU.
I'm mostly getting only 15-20fps, even less during battles.
Most of you would think: oh this is because of the integrated Intel HD graphics.
Nope ! The GPU usage is swaying between 40 and 70% in its native resolution of 720p.
It's the CPU that is limiting in this case, and I had barely any game that lags because of CPU limiting because its mostly the GPU limiting.
I can play FFX HD just fine with 30fps in all cases.

What is FFXIII doing on the CPU to produce such a bad framerate?
Software Rendering??

I've heard that the PS3 version does some rendering on the CPU with the help of its cell architecture.
Could be similar on PC and it might be using SSE2 to calculate vertexes or some sort.

It not heavily CPU limited it limited 1 single core 15-20fps is good for intel atom that really week.

[Chouchers]

Originally posted by Syad:

Originally posted by fl0wt:

weird, i'm sporting an i5 2500 and i got constant 60fps..

nothing weird about it, 90% of people complaining here have systems below realistic sys reqs. For example OP is trying to run the game on a tablet. You on the other hand have a computer the game was designed for, and even though it predates this 2014 game by three years it still runs it reasonably well (although it is doubtful you are getting 60fps in battles, unless somehow overclocked).

It's a shame SE didn't test it enough to be runnable on more configurations, because they totally could, but, technically they didn't have to, or they would be testing it today still, and charge full price and not $15.

I get lock 60fps no drops in 720p in FF13 on intel i3-4170T 3.2ghz.

[fl0wt]

Originally posted by Syad:

Originally posted by fl0wt:

weird, i'm sporting an i5 2500 and i got constant 60fps..

(although it is doubtful you are getting 60fps in battles, unless somehow overclocked)

just tested it and the fps do indeed sometimes drop to the mid 30ies during battles when there's a lot going on. didn't even notice it in the heat of the battle.

[Syad]

Originally posted by fl0wt:

just tested it and the fps do indeed sometimes drop to the mid 30ies during battles when there's a lot going on. didn't even notice it in the heat of the battle.

Well it's basically about this, observe

https://youtu.be/5uOpw5TwuF4

The interesting thing is that i specifically picked up a location to get drops like this, but there are places where framerates are unaffected, so it's just a question of .. bruteforcing .. the menues.. haha..

[Syad]

Originally posted by Chouchers:

I get lock 60fps no drops in 720p in FF13 on intel i3-4170T 3.2ghz.

No you don't. in fact you just made a thread in FF13-2 complaining about getting single digit fps and both games use basically the same engine. Unlike others, i still maintain a notion that you are not a troll, but it is rapidly dwindling. :D

[SenMithrarin85]

Originally posted by Syad:

Originally posted by Chouchers:

I get lock 60fps no drops in 720p in FF13 on intel i3-4170T 3.2ghz.

No you don't. in fact you just made a thread in FF13-2 complaining about getting single digit fps and both games use basically the same engine. Unlike others, i still maintain a notion that you are not a troll, but it is rapidly dwindling. :D

Let me reiterate: you need a cpu clocked at around 4.2ghz to get anything close to 60fps in this game (in field and menus: battle is impossible)

I was under the impression that i7s clock higher than i5s, so forgive my earlier comment.

AS for 13-2 and LR 60fps is not possible. Skynet and NASA's best supercomputer working together in some kind of SLI setup couldn't get 13-2 to 60fps.

LR has drops in battle (less so with a strong cpu) but the stutter in towns makes 60fps unatainable due to crap legacy code from...Yep! The PS3!

The crystal tools engine was built to run on the weird cpu architecture the ps3 had and nothing more. LR having to keep loading and purging npcs at random was due to limited ram and vram. The engine was designed for the empty corridor layout of ff13. 13-2 tried more open locales and the engine buckled. LR went one step further and the game actually dropped to 15fps in places.

[Lightning]

did they patched this?
I remember game was a bad port, not getting 60 fps in powerful machines...

[Plex]

its fine on my i7-3770k but I'm just wondering why a turn based game is so cpu limited.

[Vyadhis]

what kind of performance can I expect from an i7 6700k 4.0? Will it at least be better than a ps3?

[Syad]

Originally posted by Plex:

its fine on my i7-3770k but I'm just wondering why a turn based game is so cpu limited.

This has been answered in the sticky. Someone dig into the code, and he appears to know what he is talking about

source

Originally posted by H1B3N15:

This is both problems, ie. bad driver + bad game behavior. AMD drivers have problems with vertex buffer transfers (slow as hell), dunno about Nvidia.
Issue is: game uses frequently modified vertex buffer using pool D3DPOOL_MANAGED ie. managed -by driver- without D3DUSAGE_DYNAMIC flag. So driver - without some advanced heuristic, which I think can be present on Nvidia side (Nvidia likes out-of-spec optimizations in their drivers - like D3D11 preemption, where Intel/AMD are strict) will re-transfer that 350KB buffer from system memory to GPU memory every time it's modified (in dumps I got, -every frame-). But for god sake, re-transfering 350KB vertex buffer is taking up to 1/3 of frame time on AMD hardware ! This is driver bug or f**ed up hardware. But also game should mark such buffers as dynamic and use D3DLOCK_DISCARD on lock when contents is not longer required.

Originally posted by H1B3N15:

350KB transfer of vertex data taking up to 50% of frame time is indeed a hardware/driver issue IMHO.
To get 60FPS each frame must be redered faster than 16,7ms, I have seen transfer of that 350KB vertex buffer taking up to 33ms, so plus all other thing that need to be done to render frame, frame takes around 66ms to render so you get around 15FPS.

PS: I rechecked dumps, is really up to 50% of frame time for that buffer (save loading screen).
PS2: That vertex buffer holds data for rendering GUI elements, like hand cursor, map, ect.
PS3: Also IDirect3DDevice9::StretchRect seems to be extreamly slow. It effect mostly XIII-2 where it causes main speed isuess.