Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
Changing this setting has fixed (or significantly reduced) issues I'd been having in several games. I'd be very happy to hear that I wrote a bunch of stuff (below) for nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------
It looks like neither the CPU nor the GPU meet the Recommended Specs for 1080p gaming (note that the recommended specs are for the Desktop 950, not the Mobile 950M).
Even though Minimum/Recommended Specs aren't exactly known for being accurate, it does suggest that one of your components may be acting as a bottleneck (could be something else as well, but this is the most likely). This is easy enough to see with some form of Performance Monitoring; either the CPU or GPU will be pinned at 100%, and the other component will be doing very little.
GPU:
If it's the GPU, turning down the Resolution is guaranteed to improve performance (but at a huge visual cost).
CPU:
If it's the CPU, turning down Resolution may do nothing for the CPU.
That said, there are graphical settings that will also tax the CPU. You might try looking up different settings to see which ones tax the CPU more. Or just experiment and see if changing anything works.
----------------------------------------------------------
MINIMUM SPECS: (Rated for 1280 x 720)
CPU: i5 @ 2.4GHz
GPU: Intel HD Graphics 4400
RECOMMENDED SPECS: (Rated for 1920 x 1080)
CPU: i5-6400 @ 2.7GHz
GPU: GTX 950
GTX 950M (Mobile):
Cuda Cores: 640
Base Clock: 914 MHz
Memory Type: DDR3 or GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth (DDR3): 32 GB/sec
Memory Bandwidth (GDDR5): 80 GB/sec
GTX 950 (Desktop):
Cuda Cores: 768
Base Clock: 1024 MHz
Memory Type: GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth: 105.6 GB/sec
Regarding specs, I'm glad you caught my mistake. I never knew "M" referred to a PC card weaker than its desktop counterpart. In that case, a bottleneck could be responsible for the stuttering problem mentioned above. The CPU seems fine whenever I check the Task Manager, but it's possible the game goes through short spurts of high resource consumption. I'll keep fiddling with resolution, textures, etc. until I find a working configuration.
Thanks as always for your help. I thought for a moment my playthrough was dead in the water.
The 900-Series is actually the last to use weaker cards for Mobile (and the last to have the "M" suffix). The 1000-Series Mobile cards are the Desktop GPUs, but optimized for the Mobile form-factor through Software.
Task Manager has one major flaw for detecting CPU bottlenecks; it doesn't show per-core use. Some programs will bottleneck on only 1 CPU Core. In Task Manager, this will only show as 25% CPU usage on a 4-Core 4-Thread CPU. However, it's not possible to say whether 25% Total CPU Usage is 1 Core at 100%, 2 Cores at 50%, or 4 Cores at 25%.
Edit: Lowering the resolution actually worked in this case. TM lied; GPU is probably overtaxed behind the scenes. Luckily playing windowed isn't too bad.
There are Bottlenecks that won't show up in Task Manager. For instance, GPU Memory Bus.
It's entirely possible for a GPU to have enough horsepower to pump out the frames, but be unable to push or pull data to and from its dedicated memory fast enough. If you happen to have the DDR3 version of the 950M, the 32 GB/sec of effective Bandwith could be a bottleneck and you'd never be able to see it (since the GPU would be effectively idling while waiting for information).
I don't know what the odds are of this being the issue (remote even for the DDR3 version if changing Resolution had no impact). At the very least, I'd consider it fairly unlikely if you have the GDDR5 version.
Another thing that might be worth looking at is the HDD (even if it's an SSD, it's still worth checking this). There are programs in Windows (and Windows itself doing its background updates) that can eat RAM for breakfast, forcing data from the fast RAM to the slower HDD.
Windows will push data to the HDD regardless, even if Total RAM useage is under 25%. At its worst, this transfer from RAM to HDD can slow an entire system to the speed of frozen molassis.
Basically, is the HDD being heavilly used? This will be visible in Task Manager.
I can't thing of anything else currently.
EDIT: Missed your edit before posting.
I appreciate the feedback regardless. This is good learning material for a tech-illiterate chump like myself. The info on this thread might help other players as well.
If you're using a laptop, make sure it's plugged in to AC Power. When Laptops run on Battery, they default to "Optimal Battery Life" mode at the sacrifice of Performance. This is a setting that can be changed, but at the cost of Battery Life.
EXAMPLE:
While Running on Battery:
- Max Performance = 1 hour run time
- Optimal Battery Life = 3 hours run time, but lower overall performance
Even when plugged into AC, most systems are set to "Balanced Mode" in the Power Options, which basically means the system won't run at maximum performance even when plugged in.
To see the Power Plan and its details:
1. Open [Control Panel]
2. Select [Power Options]
3. Select [Change Plan Settings]
4. Select [Change Advanced Power Settings]
There are two options that are important here:
1. PCI Express (GPU connects to the system via PCIe)
2. Processor Power Management
Setting PCIe to Maximum Performance will guarantee that GPU performance won't be impacted by the PCIe slot Power State.
Setting the CPU Minimum Processor State to 100% will guarantee that the CPU will always run at or above its full Base Frequency. This can make a big difference in overall system performance since the CPU tends to be sluggish when switching from low power states to higher power states.
CPU Maximum Processor State should always be 100% (there are reasons to set this lower, but that's a whole other topic).
CPU Cooling should ALWAYS be set to Active. Setting this to Passive will turn off the fans, and will result in the CPU overheating.
[CPU Cooling = Active]
EDIT: Line above added for clarity.
Windows seems to reset the standard Power Plans to default settings after Windows Updates. As such, if you plan to make changes, I'd suggest creating your own Power Plan. This will also allow doing things like having Max Performance while on AC Power, but better Battery Life while on Battery.
To see the Power Plan and its details:
1. Open [Control Panel]
2. Select [Power Options]
3. Select [Create a Power Plan] on the left.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than Task Manager, Windows has another tool called "Resource Monitor" which will show a Graph of CPU Frequency (this is the blue line in the graph) as well as separate Graphs for per-Core CPU Use. There's a link in Task Manager underneath the Performance Graphs to open this tool.
With CPU Minimum Processor State set to 100%, the CPU Frequency Graph should be at or above 100% all the time (with short blips to ~95% here and there). The CPU Frequency going above 100% is Turbo Boost giving a short burst of extra performance.
CPU issues can be identified through just this graph when Min and Max Processor State are both set to 100%. This is because with these settings anything that's not a smooth line near the 100% Mark would be anomylous behavior. For example, Thermal Throttling will produce a graph that looks like a kid took a blue crayon and scribbled all over the place.
If the Frequency Graph looks fine (as described above) and none of the per-Core CPU Graphs show 100% CPU Usage, this will completely eliminate the CPU as the bottleneck.
Just one question: does max performance on AC power cause hardware to degrade faster? I can't help wondering if low power states are meant to protect against overuse.
Setting Minimum Processor State to 100% will have a bigger impact for things that don't demand constant CPU use. This is because with Low Power States enabled, the CPU will go from "Full Power State" to "Low Power State" and then back to "Full Power State" as the demand on the CPU shifts. With this disabled, the CPU will always be in "Full Power State", so there will be no delay caused by the shift in power states.
In the case of Games, there will still be an improvement by setting Minimum Processor State to 100%, but it will be less noticable since the dips are more like "Full Power State" to "90% Power State" to "Full Power State". The differences in Power States are not as large, so the improvement is not as large.
Basically, this may not help as much as I initially though. It will at least be useful for diagnostics using Performance Monitor.
NOTE 1:
This is not the correct terminology for power states.
NOTE 2:
Running at "Full Power State" and Running at "Full Load" mean completely different things.
The CPU will sip a bit more power, and will therefore degrade faster. This is trivial. Even moreso compared to the significant Power Draw and Degridation of an Overclocked CPU (setting Min Power State to 100% is NOT an Overclock).
And yet despite this significant extra degredation, Overclocked CPUs from 10 to 12 years ago are still in use and still enjoying healthy Overclocks even today.
Lets say that a Workforce of 100 People is "Full Power State", and a Workforce of 10 People is "Low Power State". Anything inbetween would be the various "Mid-Tier Power States". When all of the current Workforce is doing something, this is "Full Load"; doesn't matter if the Workforce is 10 People or 100 People. When all of the current Workforce is doing nothing, this is "Idle".
Basically, when all 100 Members of the CPU Workforce are doing nothing (Idle), the CPU fires 90 Members to save on Costs. And in this case, the currency is Power (Watts). This is the main purpose for doing this; to save power.
When the "Minimum Power State" is set to 100%, the CPU keeps all 100 Members of the Workforce despite them all doing nothing. This costs a bit more Power, but not much more because the CPU already has the infrastructure in place to support the 100 Member Workforce.
At "Full Power State" and "Full Load" (100 People all Working), there is no extra cost since there is no opportunity to fire any of of the Workforce. This also means that as the CPU approaches this state, the extra cost of maintaining the 100 Member Workforce decreases. Additionally, performance increases because the system doesn't have to re-hire members before giving them work.
An Overclock, on the other hand, is like increasing the workforce by 10%. This means that "Full Power State" is 110 People, and "Low Power State" is 11 People (since the Overclock applies across all power states). This increases Power Costs across the board, and is especially significant at "Full Power State": the building is already Full with 100 People, but now 10 more People have to be crammed in; everyone gets paid more for the less than ideal conditions.
More Power technically causes more degredation to Electronics. However, stable power (like what is described above) is a very slow killer. The Power Surge that occurs every time a Computer is turned On is more likely to damage the system, but that's not a huge concern in that the hardware is designed to handle it in the same way that the hardware is designed to handle being at "Full Power State" and "Full Load" over an extended period of time.
However, Serious Power Surges like Brown-Outs can definitely Kill Hardware. I had a near 8-year Old Laptop that took a Serious Power Surge. And it still ran afterwords, though it would eventually freeze after being On for a time. After that, I bought a Surge Protector, and never plug in my system without it.
My next Laptop died in 3 Years due to what I suspect was a cheap BIOS Chip. I don't know whether this was due to flashing it with BIOS updates too often or due to the Power Surges of turning the computer On every day, but it was a problem that was common enough that it was easy to find on the internet.
However, there is one other thing that could have killed this particular system; HEAT.
Heat doesn't kill systems as quickly as a Power Surge (unless the system is literally on fire), but it does degrade hardware faster. That's why Laptops tend to die faster than Desktops; they run hotter. This is the tradeoff of portability. It's of course possible to set the fans to run harder, but then the system will be noisy, and the fans will die more quickly.
OK, so I've gone on several different tangents. But the Short of it is the same as the previous post; setting Minimum Power State to 100% is nothing to worry about. Hopefully this makes it clearer as to why though.
Absolutely; the workforce analogy really drove the point home. I'm grateful to have this thread as a reference for future troubleshooting.
1. Right-click on the CPU Graph.
2. Select "Change Graph To".
3. Select "Logical Processors".
Task Manager will now show Per-Core utilization (though it still won't show the Frequency Graph of Performance Monitor).
-------------------------------------
In regards to Performance, I have a few questions that I never thought to ask until now:
1. What Resolution were you running at?
2. When you entered an area with the issue, was the slow-down immediate? Or did it take some time for it to kick in?
My native resolution is 1920x1080. For whatever reason, lowering the in-game setting only saved frames after I'd switched to windowed mode.
That depends. Sometimes entering an area like Kylos immediately killed my FPS; in other cases the game would run tolerably and then explode with lag. Closing my menu often triggered the latter, though I'm not sure what the correlation is.
I wound up finishing the game in a window 75% the size of my monitor; the performance boost was so massive that I didn't mind seeing desktop icons out of the corner of my eye. It reminded me of using emulators back in the days of pre-fascist Nintendo.
To summarize: try Borderless Windowed + lower resolution if you're struggling with frame drops. This should improve performance in cases where a GPU bottleneck is to blame.
The Borderless Windowed theoretically shouldn't matter if it's a GPU bottleneck; the Resolution on its own should be enough.
However, resolution on its own only suggests a GPU bottleneck. It's not enough to prove it. The fact that the GPU wasn't at 100% during slowdowns and that Borderless Windowed was also required are both significant inconsistencies.
Something I've recently discovered is that there are plenty of people reporting on this Forum that they can play Ys Seven on less powerful Hardware than your own. One of these reports is the ability to play using Intel HD 4000 Graphics at 1080p (1920x1080) and at 60 FPS. The interesting thing about HD 4000 Graphics is that it ONLY uses DDR3 RAM.
SOURCE 1: https://steamcommunity.com/app/587100/discussions/0/2579854400733687617/
Obviously, this info is second-hand. However, if it's true that it's possible to have a solid Ys Seven experience on HD 4000 Graphics at 1080p and 60 FPS... Lets just say that the 950M (even with DDR3) absolutely CRUSHES the HD 4000.
SOURCE 1: http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-950M-vs-Intel-HD-4000-Desktop-115-GHz/m27713vs2169
SOURCE 2: http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-950M-vs-Intel-HD-4000-Mobile-125-GHz/m27713vsm7653
This is strong evidence against DDR3 VRAM being an issue. In conjunction with the GPU being at approx. 50% load during the slowdown, these two points strongly suggests that the GPU is not a bottleneck.
Though just like changing Resolution doesn't conclusively prove a GPU bottleneck, this evidence doesn't conclusively eliminate it either.
Additionally all processors that use HD 4000 Graphics are Ivy Bridge CPUs. Ivy Bridge processors are 3 generations older than your own CPU. This means that if the processors were set up to run at exactly the same speed (e.g. both running only at 2.3 GHz), your processor would be faster due to generational improvements.
The specific CPU that the Poster had was an i5-3210M.
SOURCE 1: https://support.apple.com/kb/sp659?locale=en_US
SOURCE 2: https://ark.intel.com/products/67355
SOURCE 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)
i5-3210M Specs:
Cores = 2
Threads = 4 (Hyperthreading)
Base = 2.5 GHz
Boost = 3.1 GHz
The processor you have is an i5-6300HQ.
i5-6300HQ Specs:
Cores = 4
Threads = 4 (Faster than Hyperthreading)
Base = 2.3 GHz
Boost = 3.2 GHz
If the Poster is to be believed, then your CPU and GPU shouldn't have any issue running Ys Seven. Task Manager useage percentages seem to suggest this as well (though it doesn't prove it).
THE SUMMARY:
Nothing currently noted in this forum is conclusive. In fact, the things noted in the forum don't even cover half of the possibilities (example: Anti-Virus can cause issues with certain games).
That said, all of this might be moot at this point seeing as you've already beaten the game (though under less than ideal settings).