Performance with the engine upgrade

[leqesai]

Just wondering if there is much of a performance hit with the UE5 upgrade.

[RomanarmoR]

can no longer change FOV no matter what the preset u use or customized, it loads much slower, and so far a few minor bugs. ive only been playing it for a few hours tho

[leqesai]

Originally posted by RomanarmoR:

can no longer change FOV no matter what the preset u use or customized, it loads much slower, and so far a few minor bugs. ive only been playing it for a few hours tho

are you on SSD?

[Bilstar]

Bad framerate now I imagine?

With updating to UE5 I imagine there was a significant frame-rate hit despite the game looking pretty much the same? Can anyone confirm or deny?

[LoonyToons]

All depends on your system, no frame drops in going to update 8. system default ultra settings @ 1920x1080 on a gtx 1080 sc 90+ fps never drops below 85. With same settings as i had in update 7 easy 120fps locked no dips at all.

[οk]

you can always disable gpu intensive features

[Rawrey]

i havent played the game since update 3. So i cant give a direct comparsion to the previous version.

But for me it runs very well at 45 frames, 4K resolution. No framedrops yet. View Distance, Texture Details Set to Maximum and Lumen runs on High.
Pretty sure the performance would be much better on 1080p or 1440p resolutions.

My System:
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
16,0 GB DDR 5
AMD Radeon RX 6600
Win 10
Game installation on a M.2 PcI4 SSD

[curtyuiop]

Experimental update 8 was more of a frame rate hit than early access version.

[Cheesecake]

Originally posted by curtyuiop:

Experimental update 8 was more of a frame rate hit than early access version.

I almost made myself look like i couldnt read as I misunderstood what you were saying because when you made your comment Experimental update 8 is now the early access version and has been for some hours.

When it think you meant is the "Experimental update 8 was more of a frame rate hit the PREVIOUS early access version."

I think I would agree with your assessment provided someone compared using the same labeled settings.

[Doc✪Hollywood]

when you you guys say frame rate hit: do you mean frame rate drop?

[Doc✪Hollywood]

Originally posted by LoopyTooner:

All depends on your system, no frame drops in going to update 8. system default ultra settings @ 1920x1080 on a gtx 1080 sc 90+ fps never drops below 85. With same settings as i had in update 7 easy 120fps locked no dips at all.

with 1x 16 GB RAM (single channel), i5-11400F and gtx 3060 @ 1920x1200 I have in Update 7 fps locked to 60 fps with dips oftenly to 45 fps. mostly in biomes with water fog like Crater Like or the green coal-lake-valley with iron, caterium and sulfur on top, adjacent to the red dessert.

I just run a check gtx 1080 8 GB vs rtx 3060 12 GB: my rtx is equal or faster, so it should be not the graphics card.

==> therefore:

If you have 120 fps in Update 7 you must have either the faster RAM (my single channel really that bad ??)
OR the much better CPU
OR you are not in biomes with water fog yet (maybe still Grassfield)

--------
EDIT:
When I have Firefox open in the background the dips get much more. Seems to be RAM related (?) But still have dips with firefox closed.
I changed from DirectX to Vulcan a few weeks ago. It is about the same.
In GeForce I have no image scaling activated, so just normal 1920 x 1200


Black week in two days. If they have a decent system I upgrade.

Black Friday: Nov. 24th
Cyber Monday: Nov 27th

[LoonyToons]

Originally posted by Gordon✪Gekko:

Originally posted by LoopyTooner:

All depends on your system, no frame drops in going to update 8. system default ultra settings @ 1920x1080 on a gtx 1080 sc 90+ fps never drops below 85. With same settings as i had in update 7 easy 120fps locked no dips at all.

with 1x 16 GB RAM (single channel), i5-11400F and gtx 3060 @ 1920x1200 I have in Update 7 fps locked to 60 fps with dips oftenly to 45 fps. mostly in biomes with water fog like Crater Like or the green coal-lake-valley with iron, caterium and sulfur on top, adjacent to the red dessert.

I just run a check gtx 1080 8 GB vs rtx 3060 12 GB: my rtx is equal or faster, so it should be not the graphics card.

==> therefore:

If you have 120 fps in Update 7 you must have either the faster RAM (my single channel really that bad ??)
OR the much better CPU
OR you are not in biomes with water fog yet (maybe still Grassfield)

--------
EDIT:
When I have Firefox open in the background the dips get much more. Seems to be RAM related (?) But still have dips with firefox closed.
I changed from DirectX to Vulcan a few weeks ago. It is about the same.
In GeForce I have no image scaling activated, so just normal 1920 x 1200


Black week in two days. If they have a decent system I upgrade.

Black Friday: Nov. 24th
Cyber Monday: Nov 27th

full system spec's (total cost £500 bought from Ebay so has some mileage on it)
Ryzen 5 5600x
Evga gtx 1080 sc
Asus strix b550 gaming mobo
Corsair Vengeance 16Gb Ram (2x8 Gb sticks running at 3600Mhz).
Game installed on a 1tb Fanxiang M.2 drive @ 3500MB/s this is the Only addition I made to the system and is used as game drive only, Os installed on a a different M.2 drive.

All drivers,firmware and bios updated, Fresh win 11 install as of last week.

Settings used from update 7 All High except AA and Post processing which is Low, View distance which is set to Medium and Foliage load distance default. Dx12. No up scaling and no global illumination. FPS locked at 120 with 99% fps between 100 and 110, Gpu usage between 90 and 99% and cpu usage no higher than 45% (Mainly sits around 40% after update 8) with render latency at about 7-9 ms.

And yes frame rate hit = Frame rate drop.

[kLuns]

Maxed 60 fps and 60 it is 99% of the time.

16GB RAM
AMD 7
NVIDEA 3060 something :) and updated thanks to Zak's comment in another thread :)

I haven't tried global illumination yet but for now I have more beauty + more performance.

[Zak]

Originally posted by Bilstar:

With updating to UE5 I imagine there was a significant frame-rate hit despite the game looking pretty much the same? Can anyone confirm or deny?

"Pretty much the same"??? No, it looks different. Whether it looks better may be debatable, it depends, but it definitely looks different. Though, my framerate remained about the same when I switched to U8 Experimental back then.

@Gordon: yeah Firefox and Chrome can eat your RAM for breakfast. I only have 6 tabs opened Firefox and it's already over 1GB. Your specs are not bad. You should look into disabling some background applications perhaps? RAM speed (single vs. dual channel) does not affect games so much as the amount of RAM itself. How much RAM do you have available in Task Manager right after booting into Windows, before opening anything? Inside my busiest factory the game uses just over 5GB of RAM. So IMHO, 16GB should be plenty enough (unless something else is gobbling up your memory) and your FPS drops may simply come from varying draw distance when you're moving around. Try to lower the draw/view distance.

For instance, I see around 30-40% FPS drop instantly when I use Fly Mode and go high up, which increases my viewing distance.

Viewing distance is one of the top three FPS killers in games along with texture size (eats up your VRAM) and shadows (very GPU intensive too). So always focus on those three first if having performance drops.

Sometimes though, FPS drops are just inevitable, like my above example with Fly Mode.

[Cheesecake]

Originally posted by Gordon✪Gekko:

Originally posted by LoopyTooner:

All depends on your system, no frame drops in going to update 8. system default ultra settings @ 1920x1080 on a gtx 1080 sc 90+ fps never drops below 85. With same settings as i had in update 7 easy 120fps locked no dips at all.

with 1x 16 GB RAM (single channel), i5-11400F and gtx 3060 @ 1920x1200 I have in Update 7 fps locked to 60 fps with dips oftenly to 45 fps. mostly in biomes with water fog like Crater Like or the green coal-lake-valley with iron, caterium and sulfur on top, adjacent to the red dessert.

I just run a check gtx 1080 8 GB vs rtx 3060 12 GB: my rtx is equal or faster, so it should be not the graphics card.

==> therefore:

If you have 120 fps in Update 7 you must have either the faster RAM (my single channel really that bad ??)
OR the much better CPU
OR you are not in biomes with water fog yet (maybe still Grassfield)

--------
EDIT:
When I have Firefox open in the background the dips get much more. Seems to be RAM related (?) But still have dips with firefox closed.
I changed from DirectX to Vulcan a few weeks ago. It is about the same.
In GeForce I have no image scaling activated, so just normal 1920 x 1200


Black week in two days. If they have a decent system I upgrade.

Black Friday: Nov. 24th
Cyber Monday: Nov 27th

Whether single channel vs dual channel memory has an effect on FPS varies depending on the game. Yes it CAN have up to about a 20%, at the extreme, or basically no difference on FPS single vs dual channel with the same amount of RAM.

Personally i have 4 sticks of 8 GB DDR 4 3200 CL 16 for a total of 32 GB of system ram.

[Mihle]

With Global illumination off, game performs *better* on my PC with RX 5700 XT than it did a year ago on Update 7.
Especially when traveling with speed and the world have to load in.

But with GI on, it performs worse.