AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X + 1080ti + 64GB RAM + Samsung m.2 == bad performance

[LordKoriwan]

I am sorry to disturb everyone with another performance issue thread. I googled about it, and searched the forums. I did not find an answer to my issue.

I tried everthing, even with preset for the lowest quality I hardly get more than 40 fps on planets. When I run, fight or travel through structures, the performance drops below 20 (!) fps.

I looked up the Taksmanager, CPU, GPU, RAM everything is fine. CPU maxes to 60%, GPU never more than 70%, there is enough RAM free, no paging...

I am running windows 10, every driver is up to date. This is a gaming distributed rig, no other software is running on the background.

Does anybody have an idea, what I can try or do to get a smooth Empyrion experience?

Thanks in advance!

[margalus]

Originally posted by crimsonedge11:

Here are my specs:

Ryzen 5 1600x @ 3.9ghz
16GBs DDR4 3200mhz
GTX 1080ti
2 SSDs, 480GB Sata III, and 256GB PCI-E
Windows 10 64 bit

The game's performance is sub-par. Even by early access standards.

Haven't touched the game in weeks, and am probably not going to touch it again until they fix whatever is causing the degrading performance over time. Something with the memory not dumping properly. There is also I/O related stuttering, which happens even on SSDs. This probably has something to do with why they have the speed limit set lower on planets.

If 8.0 is just going to make all these issues worse, rather than fix them, then I'm not even gonna waste my time even trying it for more than the time it takes to experience the new features. And only if the new features aren't just blanket nerfs on everything that was fun in the game, prior.

The game would run great if they just fixed the issue with memory not dumping properly, and alleviate the I/O related bottleneck. I could run this game @ 200hz on planets.

Also, this game doesn't actually use more than about 6 threads. I got a 12 thread CPU, and used CPU affinity to disable 6 of them, and got a minor frame rate boost. FYI, doing this only ever works in those really crap coded games, or games that use old ass engines. Grim Dawn is the only other game in my library where disabling CPU cores gives a frame rate boost. They're doing some shotty coding work on this game. Grim Dawn has the excuse for using an old ass engine, but Unity Engine should be considerably better at handling CPU resources.

So yeah, anyone else with a higher threaded Ryzen CPU, or possibly one of the newer Intel I7s should try using CPU affinity and disabling 6-8 of the threads. I got around 10-15% more frames.

That's funny. I was thinking that this games performance is excellant even for a released game... Solid 60 fps all the time, no stuttering, no hiccups, no memory problems. I have an i7 6850K, 12 threads and this game uses all 12 just fine.

And the reason you go slower on a planet is because you can cover the whole planet in a couple of minutes even at the slower speeds... Any faster you couldn't stop in time...

[AH-1 Cobra]

This game doesn't actually use 12 threads efficiently. Just because threads aren't idle, doesn't mean the game is making use of them. Using 12 threads would be the game spreading the load out across 12 threads, it's heavy on 2-4 threads. Meaning extra threads beyond that aren't really helping.

The performance degregation is a documented issue. If you got your FPS locked at 60, you won't see it for awhile. But set the frame rate to 200, and tell me you don't get performance degregation over time. Fly around the planet 2-3x. It's a confirmed issue, and it happens for everybody.

The I/O related stuttering also happens for everyone who isn't running the game on ram disk.

I got a Samsun Evo 960 256GB SSD, and the I/O load stuttering happens even on that SSD.

Until they fix these 2 issues, I refuse to even touch the game for more than short intervals. Regardless of the content that's added.

[AH-1 Cobra]

Performance degregation example in these SCs:

Same spot after flying around the planet once.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1351922718

Exact same spot after logging in.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1351922346

20 frame rate difference. It's repeatable 100% of the time. If I fly around the planet a 2nd time, I'd lose roughly another 15-20fps. It's repeatable indefinitely. Meaning I can keep flying around the planet until my frame rates tank into the sub-60 range. And this is why I can't play for more than short intervals.

Also, when flying around the planet in 1 direction at top speed, I occasionally get a *bump*, etc micro stuttering when flying around when it loads textures. It's a pure I/O related bottleneck.

Between that and the performance degregation, unplayable.

If they're not at least going to fix the performance degregation issue with memory not dumping properly, then bigger planets in 8.0 is just going to make this problem worse. And more people are going to notice this issue. I'm talking about more than just people who have the audacity to set the frame rate higher than 60 who got hardware good enough to push it.

[CryptoCryst82/Killinj]

Originally posted by crimsonedge11:

Originally posted by BiGJ/Killinj:

Please don’t submit suggestions like this about I7 or Ryzen. He purchased a processor that is actually subpar to a 1700x or 1800x. The issue is not core count it is the design of the Threadripper systems. The Gaming mode turns off the 2nd half of the CPU to help with memory latency. This issue will exist in any game as it wasn’t intended for this purpose. If someone suggested this system to him they robbed him. My suggestion is dont spend 3k + on a system without a simple google search on what you are buying.

Then explain why I got a 10-15% FPS boost by disabling 6 cores through affinity with my Ryzen 5 1600x?

There are only 2 games that I know of where this works. Empyrion and Grim Dawn.

In every other game I've tried this in, disabling cores is either frame rate neutral, or I lose frame rates.

This is due to Ryzen XFR. Completely different factors in a 1600x vs a Threadripper. Less cores = less heat = more XFR boost on single cores. Yes this game is not the best multicore but your situation is completely different than his. I am dumbing this down but a 1950x is not far from 2 1800x squished into 1 die the latency of the 2 chips talking back and forth causes a unique problem to those processors

[CryptoCryst82/Killinj]

That comment was not to discredit a Threadripper or a Ryzen chip I actually use a 1700 on one of my PC's. But anyone who suggest anything other than a 8700k for a top teir DEDICATED gaming pc is just leading someone in the wrong direction.

[SpaceCowboy7]

from what i read about the threadripper, is they are not suitable for games. i7 is still the games king cpu.
See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/08/10/should-pc-gamers-upgrade-to-the-new-amd-threadripper-1950x/#3174f4de49b6

Glad You found a solution.

[AH-1 Cobra]

Originally posted by BiGJ/Killinj:

That comment was not to discredit a Threadripper or a Ryzen chip I actually use a 1700 on one of my PC's. But anyone who suggest anything other than a 8700k for a top teir DEDICATED gaming pc is just leading someone in the wrong direction.

I was going to buy an 8700k, but didn't for a number of reasons. I built my PC back in december 2017

#1 - The price was $50-$60 above MSRP. Or around $420-$430.
#2 - These chips run extremely hot, and require a delid if you plan on OCing. Or a 420mm AIO.
#3 - The combined price for the chip with a delid + cooling was going to put the price tag in the $500+ range.
#4 - I got my Ryzen 5 1600x for $200 on sale. And slapped a $40 air cooler on it, and it's good to go. Highest temps I hit during IBT was around 65-66c . Ryzen chips run very cool. My old I5 2500k ran hotter than that, on pretty much the same cooler. Coffee runs about 20-25C hotter than Sandy Bridge without a delid under heavy load. 8700k would be hitting 90C+ range on the same cooler on IBT with no delid.
#5 - The supply shortage on Coffee Lake chips last year was intentionally engineered by Intel. Everybody knew it. This also played a factor in why I went with AMD this time. And I'm not the only one who would have bought a Coffee lake chip instead of a Ryzen had Intel not done that.
#6 - AM4 is a new socket that's going to be supported until at least 2020, if not a little longer. I might get one more CPU upgrade out of this motherboard.
#7 - AM4 motherboards were cheaper than Intel counterparts. I also got a $150 motherboard on sale for $95. Whereas the Intel Motherboard I wanted was around $180. Just more cost for the CPU socket on top of already having to pay over MSRP for the chip, and having to pay someone $50 more on top of that to delid it, or spend $150 on cooling.

Additionally:

- Most I7 8700ks will not hit 5.1ghz OC. Something like 40% of them will.
- The I7 8700 will hit 4.6ghz on turbo. It's also got lower TDP than the K model chip.
- The best bargain for the new Intel chips is the I5 8400. It's only slightly worse than the 8700k for gaming, and it's half the price.
- I couldn't justify an I7 8700k CPU for any PC budget $1500 or under.
- I agree, Threadripper is crap for gaming.
- The Ryzen benchmarks from early last year are no longer valid. Chipset updates have improved the chip quite a bit.