Regarding hardware compatibility for optimisation purposes

[Jumpscare Myers]

I just wanted to bring to light a potential problem for players running on older hardware that aren't going to be benefiting from any optimisation anytime soon because the developers want to prioritise content over optimisation, not that i have any quarrel with that, it's completely fine, but i have had to face my own issues because of this as i'm (like i can assume many other people) running older hardware, and encountering lower frame rates on my graphics card where i would assume i'd be getting higher.

I'm currently using a NVIDIA GTX 1080, it was only a couple or years ago that this card was released to the market, a flagship staple of NVIDIA's GPU lineup at the time, only surpassed by it's 1080Ti variant.

However i'm having to run the game in the lowest settings possible, like barebones low, and i only average around 40-50 fps with 25-30 fps lows at a 2560x1440p resolution running @165hz. even playing around with downscaling the resolution to 1920x1080 or 1280x720 does offer improvement but not by much, and the massive loss in clarity seems like a hefty trade off for improved clarity but lower fps.

The main reason i'm bringing this up is because in the store page the minimum system requirements are a GTX 1050ti or AMD equivalent, while the recommended is an RTX 2060 or AMD equivalent.

according to Userbenchmark.com a GTX 1080 is significantly better than a 1050ti (Shocker i know, it's not surprising but i have to include this), but a 1080 is slightly better in terms of overall performance to a RTX 2060, otherwise they are almost exactly the same.

To put it more into perspective, a GTX 1080 is rated 61st out of 714 tested GPU's in terms of speed, while a RTX 2060 is rated 77th in terms of speed, making the "Older" GPU better than what's considered new.

If any of you's followed any tech review channels at the time of the RTX 20xx series release, you'd know that the RTX 20xx series of cards were ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ compared to the last generation.

So my question is this, if my card is similar to what's recommended by all accounts by the developers to play the game, then why am i getting negative performance? By all accounts and the facts on GPU performance compared, i should be able to play the game with more than 40-50 fps.

And my question for the developers if this ends up being read, will there be any optimisation for older GPU models? or is the focus going to be primarily on the newer generation?

[John Digger]

I think it have to do more with CPU than GPU my 1070 Ti are barely running because i got a little bit of bottle neck due to this game insane CPU requirement

[K3NSAI]

Hey,

User of an older GPU here (GTX 1070 OC edition 8GB).
Having to upgrade your hardware with the passing of the years is inevitable, still optimization should be a goal, even on the long run.

For some reason HD II is very CPU heavy, so if also your CPU is old it will hit performance very heavily.

To put you in perspective, I spent around 229€ and upgraded to a newer Ryzen 7 CPU (2700x to a 5800x) and it is such a difference. Before i would only be able to play at 1080p with everything on low and still get about 30 - 40 fps, but now after the upgrade now i can play at 1440p with high settings and get about 45-65 fps (obviously with FOV and motion blur deactivated)

I plan on getting a newer GPU next month or so.

[JinxTheWorld]

That GPU is almost 8 years old. I mean comon. You should always try to match or exceed whatever the latest consoles are at. It isn't just about rasterization, a decent amount of the time it comes down to simply driver support and more up to date technologies like DLSS/frame gen.

Also there is a good chance that you have a very dated CPU and RAM if ya are still using a 1080. Might wanna start there first with upgrading.

[Jumpscare Myers]

Originally posted by JinxTheWorld:

That GPU is almost 8 years old. I mean comon. You should always try to match or exceed whatever the latest consoles are at. It isn't just about rasterization, a decent amount of the time it comes down to simply driver support and more up to date technologies like DLSS/frame gen.

Also there is a good chance that you have a very dated CPU and RAM if ya are still using a 1080. Might wanna start there first with upgrading.

I'm using a Ryzen 5 1600X, but six cores should be more than sufficient for a game like this, i shouldn't need to buy a 12 core processor for what is seemingly a shooter type game, and i'm also using 16gb DDR4 3200Mhz RAM but that shouldn't be as important.

And yeah the GTX 1080 might be 8 years old, but it's still a very good card, and why should i waste my money spending thousands of dollars on every new gpu release, i don't understand why people do that, the RTX 40xx series is a couple of thousand dollars AUD, so maybe until driver support ends for my card i might consider buying a newer card once prices go down on a new generation launch.

[Jumpscare Myers]

I should also mention that compared to my CPU which is a Ryzen 5 1600X compared to the recommended Ryzen 7 3700X is literally only 25% faster, i very much doubt that 25% is going to give me fps values of over 90 or so.

Games like CS:GO you could run on the most potato of pc builds because of how incredibly robust the optimisation was, and people are also protesting that their newer hardware on the forum here isn't performing as well as it should, which is just telling of the low optimisation work that was done for this game.

I have hopes that it will improve, but just because my hardware is "Old" doesn't mean it still can't benefit from the developers making the game more compatible with less recent hardware.

[Jumpscare Myers]

Originally posted by eram:

1080 is end of life now, it sucks but its almost time to move on.

I'm gonna milk every dollar i spent on that card until newer games block me from booting up the game due to "My hardware being too old"

[Bunkerotter]

Originally posted by Tombstoned:

I should also mention that compared to my CPU which is a Ryzen 5 1600X compared to the recommended Ryzen 7 3700X is literally only 25% faster, i very much doubt that 25% is going to give me fps values of over 90 or so.

Games like CS:GO you could run on the most potato of pc builds because of how incredibly robust the optimisation was, and people are also protesting that their newer hardware on the forum here isn't performing as well as it should, which is just telling of the low optimisation work that was done for this game.

I have hopes that it will improve, but just because my hardware is "Old" doesn't mean it still can't benefit from the developers making the game more compatible with less recent hardware.

CPU is 7 years old, GPU is 8 Years old.
Generally speaking, PC Hardware should be used about 10 years until it's ecological viable to replace it.

But sadly that doesn't reflect Games and their advancements in graphical and general complexity.

Don't get me wrong, your hardware is not bad, it's just aging, so newer games which are more demanding will just not run as well on it anymore.
If you compare your 1600X with a 7600X, you'll see that the newer CPU is about twice as fast, Memory is about twice as fast, and the Cache is bigger. AMD made a lot of improvements over the past few years. Same on the GPU side of things.

Comparing a "normal" game with a competitive title is also a bit unfair, as those are build and optimized for performance and lower end hardware. As they want to draw in as many people as possible. Just different goals for the games I suppose.

For myself, I can't see many performance issues, but I suppose I'm a bit of an outlier, as I spend a lot of time in VR, and because of that I have a very high end system (7950X, 64GB of 6000MT/s RAM, 4090) and I play on a 120Hz 4k monitor at native resolution and it runs great, even at Helldive with all the enemies going ham and meteor showers going on. I don't really notice any framedrops, but I also didn't measure it, as it looks good to me ;)

[Jumpscare Myers]

Originally posted by Bunkerotter:

Originally posted by Tombstoned:

I should also mention that compared to my CPU which is a Ryzen 5 1600X compared to the recommended Ryzen 7 3700X is literally only 25% faster, i very much doubt that 25% is going to give me fps values of over 90 or so.

Games like CS:GO you could run on the most potato of pc builds because of how incredibly robust the optimisation was, and people are also protesting that their newer hardware on the forum here isn't performing as well as it should, which is just telling of the low optimisation work that was done for this game.

I have hopes that it will improve, but just because my hardware is "Old" doesn't mean it still can't benefit from the developers making the game more compatible with less recent hardware.

CPU is 7 years old, GPU is 8 Years old.
Generally speaking, PC Hardware should be used about 10 years until it's ecological viable to replace it.

But sadly that doesn't reflect Games and their advancements in graphical and general complexity.

Don't get me wrong, your hardware is not bad, it's just aging, so newer games which are more demanding will just not run as well on it anymore.
If you compare your 1600X with a 7600X, you'll see that the newer CPU is about twice as fast, Memory is about twice as fast, and the Cache is bigger. AMD made a lot of improvements over the past few years. Same on the GPU side of things.

Comparing a "normal" game with a competitive title is also a bit unfair, as those are build and optimized for performance and lower end hardware. As they want to draw in as many people as possible. Just different goals for the games I suppose.

For myself, I can't see many performance issues, but I suppose I'm a bit of an outlier, as I spend a lot of time in VR, and because of that I have a very high end system (7950X, 64GB of 6000MT/s RAM, 4090) and I play on a 120Hz 4k monitor at native resolution and it runs great, even at Helldive with all the enemies going ham and meteor showers going on. I don't really notice any framedrops, but I also didn't measure it, as it looks good to me ;)

I know that CS;GO is very different in how it operates but i just wanted to showcase that if a game studio maintaining that game can make it so optimised to a Tee that everyone can play it then what's stopping developers for other game studios doing the same for their games, if not this one.

If anything that would just mean you get even more players which means more money in their pockets, i don't know what the numbers are in how much the expenses would be for setting aside a few guys in the team to handle optimisation, i just know that it can be done.

[Spartykins]

I'm getting 30 avg on a 4790 and a 970, lows into 14-20

honestly not sure why your perf isn't leagues above mine OP

[Khamal]

Umm hate to break it to you
But it’s not thousands lol
You are on an older card so you haven’t been spending thousands anywhere
400$ a year set aside and you’d be fine
You can get an rtx 2070 for 200-400 where you are
Or an 4070 for 700-900( even less if small form factor comes to your area)
I don’t see thousands there

And the reason for 20”s up is architecture and dlss

[Bunkerotter]

Originally posted by Patriot of Patriotism:

I know that CS;GO is very different in how it operates but i just wanted to showcase that if a game studio maintaining that game can make it so optimised to a Tee that everyone can play it then what's stopping developers for other game studios doing the same for their games, if not this one.

If anything that would just mean you get even more players which means more money in their pockets, i don't know what the numbers are in how much the expenses would be for setting aside a few guys in the team to handle optimisation, i just know that it can be done.

Well, you might want to take a closer look at what game engines are being used:
CS:GO/CS2: Source/Source 2, both made and developed by Valve
Fortnite: Unreal, both made and developed by Epic

Both engines can be tuned to run very well.

Sadly Helldivers 2 uses kinda weird game engine which is now also discontinued, so it will be difficult and/or expensive to optimize and develop it further (mind you that was a rather recent thing, the game was in development for about 7 years).
Also game engine development is a huge task, there's a reason why nowdays most game devs use an existing engine instead of developing their own.

Another important factor is the games fidelity, some games are okay with simple graphics or game logic, if you look at competitive shooters for example, you want high performance, looks are not that important, but things like framepacing, hitboxes, etc.
Look at factorio, the graphics are just 2D sprites, that can be run on pretty much any integrated GPU since 10+ years, but the simulation of all the things going on can bring _ANY_ existing CPU to it's knees.
Helldivers 2 has quite a decent graphical fidelity which is taxing for the GPU, and it has a decent amount of complexity (shooting of indiviual limbs, or blow off armour, all the pathfinding that all the enemies need to do, projectile interactions, etc). Which in turn taxes a CPU a bit.

Also as someone who did diddle a bit with a game engine, optimization isn't as easy as so many people like to believe, rarely it's as simple as upgrading the game engine to a newer version (that in it self can be a huge task which involves the whole dev team for a year), but also sometimes you have to invest thousands of hours just for a few percent improvements.
Everybody likes optimized things, but the sad truth is that throwing better hardware at the problem until it works in cheaper. Nowdays only in very niche cases will be heavily optimized, things like HPC (High performance computing, think super computers), Embedded systems (most of the time industrial equipment) and Aerospace.
It boils down to a cost factor. Sometimes it's worth to optimize heavily (competitive games), and sometimes it's just not.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Jumpscare Myers]

Originally posted by Khamal:

Umm hate to break it to you
But it’s not thousands lol
You are on an older card so you haven’t been spending thousands anywhere
400$ a year set aside and you’d be fine
You can get an rtx 2070 for 200-400 where you are
Or an 4070 for 700-900( even less if small form factor comes to your area)
I don’t see thousands there

And the reason for 20”s up is architecture and dlss

It is thousands, give or take 2-3k in AUD since i'm from Australia, that's what the new cards are retailing for and it's not something i'd like to spend my money on.

If you don't believe me you can take a look at the 4080 cards yourself from one of our biggest retailers here https://www.pccasegear.com/category/193_2229/graphics-cards/geforce-rtx-4080

I would never even settle for an RTX 20 series card though, the performance compared to my card is undeniably the same if not slightly better based off of proven results.

Also i don't need to buy a new card, and i don't need to save up to afford one, i have other priorities in my life and spending money on every new hardware release is just a massive waste of money in my opinion.

[Jumpscare Myers]

Originally posted by Bunkerotter:

Originally posted by Patriot of Patriotism:

I know that CS;GO is very different in how it operates but i just wanted to showcase that if a game studio maintaining that game can make it so optimised to a Tee that everyone can play it then what's stopping developers for other game studios doing the same for their games, if not this one.

If anything that would just mean you get even more players which means more money in their pockets, i don't know what the numbers are in how much the expenses would be for setting aside a few guys in the team to handle optimisation, i just know that it can be done.

Well, you might want to take a closer look at what game engines are being used:
CS:GO/CS2: Source/Source 2, both made and developed by Valve
Fortnite: Unreal, both made and developed by Epic

Both engines can be tuned to run very well.

Sadly Helldivers 2 uses kinda weird game engine which is now also discontinued, so it will be difficult and/or expensive to optimize and develop it further (mind you that was a rather recent thing, the game was in development for about 7 years).
Also game engine development is a huge task, there's a reason why nowdays most game devs use an existing engine instead of developing their own.

Another important factor is the games fidelity, some games are okay with simple graphics or game logic, if you look at competitive shooters for example, you want high performance, looks are not that important, but things like framepacing, hitboxes, etc.
Look at factorio, the graphics are just 2D sprites, that can be run on pretty much any integrated GPU since 10+ years, but the simulation of all the things going on can bring _ANY_ existing CPU to it's knees.
Helldivers 2 has quite a decent graphical fidelity which is taxing for the GPU, and it has a decent amount of complexity (shooting of indiviual limbs, or blow off armour, all the pathfinding that all the enemies need to do, projectile interactions, etc). Which in turn taxes a CPU a bit.

Also as someone who did diddle a bit with a game engine, optimization isn't as easy as so many people like to believe, rarely it's as simple as upgrading the game engine to a newer version (that in it self can be a huge task which involves the whole dev team for a year), but also sometimes you have to invest thousands of hours just for a few percent improvements.
Everybody likes optimized things, but the sad truth is that throwing better hardware at the problem until it works in cheaper. Nowdays only in very niche cases will be heavily optimized, things like HPC (High performance computing, think super computers), Embedded systems (most of the time industrial equipment) and Aerospace.
It boils down to a cost factor. Sometimes it's worth to optimize heavily (competitive games), and sometimes it's just not.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This is exactly the kind of answer and discussion i was looking for, i wasn't aware that Helldivers 2 was using it's own game engine or just an older proprietary game engine that i haven't heard about, when looking at the game i'll be honest i thought it would be on Unreal Engine 5 or something similar.

And now that you've mentioned all the physics based components like dismembering limbs, and some others that come to mind like terrain deformation, environmental destruction, yeah i can see that would be taxing on a CPU now that you've helped me think about it.

So what can i take from all of these helpful replies, i understand that hardware is ever constantly advancing and that what was once new later ends up becoming obsolete, but only to a point. Nothing is ever bad just because it's old, it was made to serve a purpose at it's time and who's to say it still can't do that in the future, Nvidia made a very good graphics card when they released both the GTX 1080 and 1080Ti, and when AMD released it's new 1st generation Ryzen processors they too as still very good in terms of performance.

I'm very much a "If it ain't broke" kind of guy, and i like getting every little bit out of my system that i can, and my hardware has been serving me well and it's still going strong, i just hope one day for Helldivers 2 at least that there will be some optimisation if any at all even if it is as difficult as you say it is.

Thankyou for your constructive discussion, i appreciate it.

[Karathkasun]

Also, you say a few years ago... but the 1080 is ~8 years old now. Its older than a whole console generation. The R5 1600 is also similar in gaming performance to something like a 3770k or maybe a 4770/4790k, it just has more cores.

Also, GTX 10 series GPU will get slower faster as newer games use things like VRS and other newer shader functions that they just do not have. 1080 can push more RAW pixels, but even a 2060 can do more complex compute, so they can end up being roughly equal in lots of newer games.

Having said that, I get OK performance on a i7 3770 (roughly, its using Xeon CPUs from that era) + Vega 64 system. I think there are some driver issues with Nvidia 10 series cards, you might try going to slightly older drivers to see if that fixes anything.