Unplayable performance

[Macattaq]

Hello, haven't played this game in a while and i decided to reinstall it. The performance in main menus and in game is so laggy and poor that i am getting a steady 6 fps. its literrally unplayable. I verified files and uninstall/install game and it still happening. anyone have any solutions.

Specs:
ASUS RTX 3070
Ryzen 5600x

[Jonny]

I have found that performance in this game is very definitely about graphics, despite people frequently claiming otherwise. Of course, it's also about CPU (I can only play on battle size medium, no matter what), but for me the difference between an unplayable 15FPS and a decent 40-60FPS is achieved very easily by setting all the graphics settings no higher than 100%, as suggested above (it still looks great), disabling tracer light and smoke and putting smoke reduction on high. That it's about graphics to some great extent is very easy to see when a rocket barrage comes in......

[Toni]

Thanks for the explanations! The question that I ask myself: At what point, does going for the next higher CPU version no longer make sense in the case of GT. Particularly:

1. At what point do more cores not make sense anymore for GT?
2. How much better is a bigger L3 Cache? The expensive CPUs have a lot more.
3. How important is RAM speed? (since I guess, that more than the now standard 16GB RAM are not needed for GT; currently I have 8GB)

Hardware prices are high nowadays (and clock speeds stagnated when compared with older, cheaper CPUs), so it would be very helpful, to know, what is needed for GT and what not.

Short: What is the "level", where investing more money in the hardware, will no longer really give significantly higher performance in GT?

GPU is not a problem in my case, since it totally depends on the screen/rendering resolution. And I will not go "high refresh", above 60fps, in a sim game like GT or SB anyway. So at least this aspect is more or less irrelevant.

Originally posted by Zephyr:

A standardized scripted Mission would really be best for direct comparison. Good idea.

Sadly, I cannot script (in GT)...

[Flan]

Originally posted by Toni:

I remember reading in an older post, that having more cores does not make that much difference for sim games like GT (or SB). Something like "more cores will primarily produce more warm air, without that much impact on performance". That was maybe an exaggeration... :)

What CPU would you recommend getting for GT? Thanks!

Yes more cores won't help in cases where you just need the cpu to solve lots of the same maths problems faster for a big physics thing unless it is specially programmed to be able to break it up and send it to different cpus like how you make 3d movies, it does helps so the cpu doesn't get distracted doing lots of different jobs.
Usually just getting the one that is overall good value for money and well reviewed and liked by gamers is a good choice.
It seems for GT people just get better results by getting the clock faster on normal multicore cpus.
The clock speeds will slowly increase over time and you should worry more about things like cpus that use to much power or too much heat or have other problems or if it is massively too expensive or which motherboard socket it uses.
Intel has some really bad cpus on the market now that are overpriced too.
The cache sizes are important yeah.

GT is mulitcore and on my 6 + 6 logical core cpu it has load on every core but no way of knowing how much that's actually making it run better since the slow down might be on a particular thread.
Ram speed is usually not noticeably important to anyone but the most serious gaming PC builders, just 3200 ram is all fine and good I'd say. It more comes down to the price and what will work with your MB.

I had a 2700k for ages and only changed when the MB died and really the new CPU that runs at the at a bit better clock wasn't that much of an improvement and it is still considered one of the better ones available. The newer GPU did a lot more (for other games).

If they came out with a cpu that ran at 8ghz but less cores then you would start to see noticeable better framerate in GT.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Jonny:

I have found that performance in this game is very definitely about graphics, despite people frequently claiming otherwise. Of course, it's also about CPU (I can only play on battle size medium, no matter what), but for me the difference between an unplayable 15FPS and a decent 40-60FPS is achieved very easily by setting all the graphics settings no higher than 100%, as suggested above (it still looks great), disabling tracer light and smoke and putting smoke reduction on high. That it's about graphics to some great extent is very easy to see when a rocket barrage comes in......

But this is not because of the GPU primarily, it is because the CPU does not have to make the calculations for the smoke and tracers. At least it is so in my case.

You can easily test this. When a game runs into GPU limits you will have the GPU at 100 % and the CPU has still reserves left. In this case the GPU (output) cannot keep up with the CPU. This is a GPU limitation.

In GT however the GPU is only at 100 % in small battles (if the GPU limit can be reached) and as soon as the performance drops below 60 FPS (if this is your FPS limit) you will see that the GPU will have 90-30% maximum load (or less). For example I get about 40 % load on the GPU when I have 30-40 FPS.

This is a typical CPU limitation. You have to consider, that all things you see in a game are calculated by the CPU first and then given to the GPU to make sense out of it for you in the form of a graphical output. In most games nowadays the CPU is much faster with this than the GPU, but in GT games it is not.

Originally posted by Toni:

1. At what point do more cores not make sense anymore for GT?
2. How much better is a bigger L3 Cache? The expensive CPUs have a lot more.
3. How important is RAM speed? (since I guess, that more than the now standard 16GB RAM are not needed for GT; currently I have 8GB)

1) At least Ryzen CPUs seem to share the workload over multiple cores. The gain is anything but linear, but I found deactivating more than 4 out of 8 cores very negatively affects performance.

2) Not sure. It should help, but how much it is worth I cannot say now.

3) For Ryzen CPUs RAM speed and timings matter, that is quite sure, at least in benchmarks. If you want the most out of a Ryzen CPU you should have DDR4 3600 with good timings. If it is worth the cost vs. the performance gain will be debatable. The direct performance gain in most games will be in the 1-10% range ("good" RAM vs. "Bad"). In my experience better RAM helps with the framerate in Mius, lesser drops and less severe. That is not so much, when price differences are considered, but it is not nothing... .

I would also like to know if going from a 3700X to a 5900X would help enough to justify the price. It might, since reportedly even multicore a 5900X can go 300-400 mhz higher than a 3700X combined with more IPCs... . Maybe I really will test sometime in the summer. Knowing myself I might just do it out of curiosity.

[Toni]

Thanks a lot for the explanations Flannelette and Zephyr!

I asked these basic questions, because I did not look at gaming hardware in the last decade. Built my i7-2600K gaming PC over ten years ago, and it still gives "acceptable" performance until now @4.4 GHz for games. I did not play much in these years, so buying a new one was not that justified anyway.

Is there a simple reason, why everyone is talking exclusively about Ryzen now? Intel, for example, has higher clock speeds:

- i7-10700K = 5.1 GHz, 8 cores (€ 300)
- Ryzen 9 5900X = 4.8 GHz, Cores: 12 (€ 640)

What is the point of having 12 cores for playing a 3D engine game like GT? Isn't the Intel i7 at only half the price, higher clock speed and still 8 cores "better" for GT? Or might the cache make such a big difference for GT? Or something else?

Thanks!

p.s. IIRC then the developers themselves also have Intel CPUs?

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Toni:

What is the point of having 12 cores for playing a 3D engine game like GT?

You can encode video in parallel with the gaming, compress large amounts of data using the most complex algorithm, or do something else for which purpose-built multi-core processors .

Originally posted by Toni:

p.s. IIRC then the developers themselves also have Intel CPUs?

Yes

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Toni:

Is there a simple reason, why everyone is talking exclusively about Ryzen now? Intel, for example, has higher clock speeds:

- i7-10700K = 5.1 GHz, 8 cores (€ 300)
- Ryzen 9 5900X = 4.8 GHz, Cores: 12 (€ 640)

Part of it is that AMD Ryzen is the "rising star" of the gaming hardware. Intel was/is seen as backwards, content with delivering "more of the same " CPUs with marginal performance increases from generation to generation. That was combined with high prices, because they essentially had a monopol for years.

AMD was not able to compete for many years (more than a decade I think actually), but with the first Ryzen generation they made a new architecture, which seemed very promising already and while it was not ready yet to directly compete with Intel (at least in gaming) it set an exclamation mark so to speak. And within only 3-4 years this architecture was developed to a point that it could outperform Intel in gaming and reportedly crush it in multicore workloads. That is what we have now with the 5000 generation. It really seemed like a small miracle what AMD managed there.

Intel is still in "refresh mode" despite everything and seems to have severe problems to develop concepts to counter AMD Ryzen. The Ryzen 2000/3000 generation was cheaper for the same or better performance than Intel, that is why they won so many new customers with it. Now with the 5000 generation this is not necessarily the case anymore. AMD is where it wanted to be, after all. Production shortages likely make this worse.

Still, the 5900X supposedly is 10-20% faster in many games than the 10700K. If this would transfer to Mius is the interesting question. I really like the Ryzen architecture, it runs reliable, without any problems and at least the 3700X does not produce overly much "waste heat". I still can use it as a moderate heater, but all powerful CPUs do this and the newer Intel CPUs are reportedly very good at heating, because Intel tried to squeeze as much as possible out of their ageing architecture to stay in the performance race.

Edit:
Here, with these shots you can have an impression what difference an i5 6600k vs Ryzen 3700X makes . I managed to get the same relatively large battle on both of my systems in Stepanovka/Marinovka. It can be seen nicely, that the CPU has all of the effect (GPU load).

Note: The GPUs and game resolution are different between the systems. The Ryzen system has a considerably better GPU and resolution. Game settings are the same more or less (bit more demanding on the Ryzen system).
I5 6600K
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2474457869
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2474498006

Ryzen 3700X
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2474888168
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2474888209

[Toni]

Thank you for the comparison, Zephyr! Building a new PC did not become easier (and also not cheaper). Even just deciding for what monitor to go, is kind of hard, so many different options nowadays...

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Toni:

Thank you for the comparison, Zephyr! Building a new PC did not become easier (and also not cheaper). Even just deciding for what monitor to go, is kind of hard, so many different options nowadays...

Yes, that is certainly true. Especially not cheaper... . The comparison I made is far from perfect, sadly, but at least at stock speeds the Ryzen 3700X system is far superior. It feels much more smoother in larger battles and is able to maintain 30+ FPS far longer and in larger battles than the 6600K system.

In your case it is quite safe to assume, that you will have a very noticeable difference with a new system.

The newest Intel generation seems to be genuinely new this time. With the 11000 generation they used an original 10 nm architecture and produced it in 14 nm... . It does have comparable or better performance than the Ryzen 5000 generation, though. And it is cheaper for the same performance, at least right now. However, the CPUs are less efficient and need A LOT of power. It is a classical "stopgap" production to have something effective to throw at the "enemy" while waiting for the more modern equipment end of year. I think we all know the concept here... .

Monitors are very diverse by now. Before I switched to higher resolution I was not aware how many different panel technologies exist now and are affordable at the same time. Each and everyone with its own advantages/drawbacks. In the end I decided for an IPS Panel (27 inch, so called "gaming" version), because I wanted a monitor which I could use for games and TV equally (no TV here) with very good colors and decent contrast. The Acer model I bought fulfills these requirements well, but I searched/read about it for several hours. I simply decided by price/reviews and the information I got from the reading to be honest. It could have gone terribly wrong I guess.

[Die Easy]

I have had this behaviour but only after playing for some time.
My fps suddenly began to drop from 40 or 50 to 6 and below until it crashed/froze completely with no error report and I had to close with task manager.
i5 6600k
2070 RTX
32GB ram
Nvme drive

[Zephyr]

Just as a small update here. I just went and upgraded my System from a Ryzen 3700X to a 5800 X3D. Great upgrade. To be honest I naturally have no idea how a cheaper 5800X would have fared. It is a bit sad that there are no benchmarks for Mius anywhere. But with the new upgrade the largest battles do not drop below 25 FPS so far, even with heavy fighting. And the 25 FPS seem really smooth for some reason ... . Well, now there will be no other upgrade for several years I think.