@Luna - Nice.
I think I will play around with higher Ram frequencies to see if I get better performance as well.
Maybe the character rendering is system memory bandwidth limited and not the API at all.
Or maybe it just takes higher bandwidth to collect the character info and to feed the GPU that info.
(Your Ram @ 2666 Mhz is 65% faster than mine and you FPS is about the same. You normally don't have that sort of scaling with Ram unless there is a bottleneck)
bottleneck performance?
Printable View
-
05-27-2015, 12:39 AMJudge_Xero
-
05-27-2015, 12:49 AMeinzeleno, i want to believe hence why i make this thread. your previous screenshots didnt tell the whole story, but now they do. u cant just assume everyone is on the same setting as yours can u? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by LunaSnowfield
now that we're at it, tell us how did u get that fps? :)
sure my fps is at the lower end, but everyone else except you are nowhere close to 60 either.
iirc your spec is i7 4790k with gtx 980? -
05-27-2015, 12:58 AMPseudopsiaCan you do one more test and I'll 100% believe you? Go to top gate, zoom out like screen shot below. What is fps?Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaSnowfield
http://i.imgur.com/d82XV8a.png -
05-27-2015, 01:57 AMLunaSnowfieldQuote:
Originally Posted by Pseudopsia
sup
http://i.imgur.com/PY9DZ4x.jpg -
05-27-2015, 02:07 AMPseudopsiaI believe you. I like to find out why, may be population difference on servers or mine is done during prime time. Two generation difference between processors can't double the performance. I'm using 16 GB of 2400Mhz DDR3 on my system.Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaSnowfield
-
05-27-2015, 02:12 AMLunaSnowfieldMy old computer was a I7 950 3.0 (stock speed) with a GTX 760 and in 1080p i was getting around 15-30fps in cities (specially mordhona). a few months ago i got a i7 4790k with the same GTX 760 and then my fps improved from 15-30 to 45-55.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudopsia
This game doesnt need a extreme powerful card. -
05-27-2015, 02:16 AMGenJoeDamn it!! That goes against every fiber of my gamer being!!Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaSnowfield
I intentionally have a cheap ass cpu (G3258) with a decent gpu (R9 270X) and FF14 has to be the ONE game that throws the curveball at me :( -
05-27-2015, 02:16 AMMiniTofu
This is normal
Summer Time Setting:
3930k 6 cores 12 threads @ 3.8Ghz (50'c)
GTX TITAN 1050Mhz (41'c)
http://i.imgur.com/bRIaIid.png
Winter Time Setting:
3930k 6 cores 12 threads @ 4.6Ghz (60'c)
GTX TITAN 1200Mhz (45'c)
Don't have the image but running at 45FPS.
Keep in mind OP, GTX TITAN > GTX 970 I would have a bit more FPS than yours.
Low temp, entire rig is under watercool. -
05-27-2015, 02:19 AMPseudopsiaBloomfield was quite weak and didn't overclock that well. I'm using a 6 core sandy bridge that I have clock at 4.6Ghz, which was quite a jump from previous generation. Newer generations CPUs only had around 10% increments in performance and didn't overclock any better.Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaSnowfield
I plan to upgrade to Skylake in the fall. -
05-27-2015, 02:52 AMMiniTofu
What I really want is FFXIV at least implement DX12 support for the load-balancing on CPU. Right now the game runs at 100% one of my 12 threads. Which is not efficient at all.
Most DX11 GPU should be able to support DX12 as said by many articles and reports. -
05-27-2015, 02:53 AMeinzeletitan x or old titan? if its the latter then 970 is slightly better. not that it matters since our gpu both will run only at 40% load anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniTofu
now im really wondering how luna reach 60fps flat there... -
05-27-2015, 03:03 AMMiniTofuGTX TITAN (old vanilla) modded BIOS OC from 876Mhz to 1200Mhz > GTX970 ~1400mhz (not really slightly better).Quote:
Originally Posted by einzele
I just checked Luna spot same area same setting. I am getting 55-57FPS at 3930k 3.8Ghz stock clock. 4.6Ghz is 60-65FPS.
Luna and I game performs normally. Not sure about you.
ps. also fps maybe be dropped 3-5fps overall due I have Shadowplay on the entire time. -
05-27-2015, 03:30 AMAyuhra
I have an i7 4790s and a GTX 970 and get around 50-60 fps in Mor Dhona. On Gilgamesh.
I haven't checked during peak hours, though.
Normally my game runs around 150 fps so Mor Dhona DOES cause a slow down. For everyone.
What is your framerate outside the game's most densely populated area?
Also, do you have NVidia Geforce Experience? If not you can download it. It will set the game to optimal settings (which will probably be maxed out or close to it, this game is nothing for a 970) -
05-27-2015, 03:51 AMJudge_XeroIf you turn down your memory speed does it reduce your FPS? Maybe set it at 1600Mhz. (system memory, not GPU memory)Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaSnowfield
-
05-27-2015, 03:54 AMeinzelemordhona at peak hour 20fps is the lowest i could get with 2560x1080 resolution. thats the lowest on record, not that it stays that way all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniTofu
you with oced titan and 3930k get 32fps, so i guess it performs normal for me too then.
yes i have geforce experience, i dont use it though :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Ayuhra
outside dense area is capped at 60, not sure why now even if i remove the frame rate limit it still stays 60, it was ok some time ago, could get 100 plus depending on location.
i want to remind u guys again this is not a topic about fps race or why im getting low fps. this is about why im getting low fps with my gpu load at 40%, hence the title. does somewhere in my system bottleneck my gpu or not. some people shared their system load snapshot also show this low gpu load. so i guess thats normal? im not sure anymore since people now throw 60fps at md on my face xD
my only relief is this only happens in ff, other games are fine. -
05-27-2015, 04:06 AMUltimateAoe2
http://puu.sh/i1trU/d4467048db.jpg
Prime time on Gilgamesh looking at aetheryte.
(57 FPS if you're lazy to right click -> open image)
http://puu.sh/i1tXs/77b0c430d2.jpg
Same with HDR Rendering.
For some reason, I have some odd Frame Limits, lol.
http://puu.sh/i1u4v/084e5091dc.jpg -
05-27-2015, 04:08 AMPseudopsiaSounds like you have V-Sync forced on, possibly in Nvidia control panel. With a 60hz monitor it won't go above 60. If you drop below it will probably cap at 30, if you drop below 30 it will cap at 20.Quote:
Originally Posted by einzele
-
05-27-2015, 04:30 AMeinzele
hahaha i knew its the i7! see both luna and ultiaoe both use 4790k. but as someone said i'd be nuts to buy an i7 just for mor dhona :)
as far as i know ff doesnt utilize hyperthread? if so a 51% utilization i7 in task manager means the 4 main thread are very well utilized (90-100%) while the other 4 are idle. it is because task manager totals all cpu % load then divide with the number of all threads then it just say 51%. this is true with my brother pc with amd 8350 8 cores, ff is not using all 8 cores and task manager shows less than 50% cpu load while some cores are at 100%.
thank you all for the time and trouble posting here, i really appreciate it!
will go check on that later..Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudopsia
-
05-27-2015, 05:12 AMJudge_Xero
lol - Hopefully it hasn't just been V-Sync. That's why one of the first questions I asked was if it changes between, Full/Windowed as I don't think V-Sync works in Windowed Mode.
http://cdn.guildwork.net/albums/imag...30e6823a77.jpg
Here's what I meant about the Ram slots. Although it's motherboard specific sometimes, for the most part this is how it works.
So if the Ram sticks are installed side-by-side which looks a lot nicer, they will each run in Single Channel, limiting the system Bandwidth. -
05-27-2015, 05:18 AMMiniTofuIt's because the current DX9. DX10.x and DX11.x is not utilizing the CPU in balance, most games you see one core runs at 99% and other cores are just idle to nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by einzele
Hyperthreading basically 1 core with 2 threads. So it still use under 1 core powering 2 threads. -
05-27-2015, 10:17 AMOoshimaSkylake doesn't even provide that much difference from 4790K. Unless you are referring to Skylake-E (since you are on Sandy Bridge-E), maybe that's worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudopsia
-
05-28-2015, 04:29 AMShuraIf you don't mind me asking, have you run the Heavensward Benchmark and if so what score did you get? Thanks. Trying to build a budget gaming build for my GF to play FFXIV on and was wondering how the G3258 performs.Quote:
Originally Posted by GenJoe
-
05-28-2015, 08:06 AMGenJoeWell, I don't have the benchmark software, but it's really not that bad in terms of performance, I run my PC a lot heavier than the average person. Dual monitors, a source of media (netflix/youtube/kodi) FF14, Chrome with about 6-7 tabs open at any time.. Then sometimes even WoW running simultaneously alongside FF14, it still gets playable frame rates (low settings everything)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shura
20fps average with similar fashioned screenshot taken in Mor Dhona at Desktop (High) Settings. Note this is while running youtube on the other monitor, it does dip down to teens, sometimes spikes up to mid 20s
The only performance issue I can feel is that UI responds slowly, i.e. opening up inventory takes a second or two, running just the FF14 resolves the issue though.
It should be good enough to run the game maybe only trouble would be running frontlines, I did have trouble there previously with sprites not loading but I didn't try running without all the clutter, that probably would've fixed it..
I did do T5 without any issue, CT raids worked fine also.
Really though, I have run the game in a somewhat playable manner on my old Core 2 Quad rig with Radeon 5570 low profile card :D So you should have a field day with anything better than that as long as your girl friend isn't too picky about having Ultra crisp graphics
Funny little tidbit, I'm usually the first one to load content out of anybody I know (typically ~3 seconds) due to having a SSD and it's just really funny seeing my friend running his i5 and dual gpu crossfire lagging behind me when we go places :D
P.S. SS is taken on Jenova, typically less people hanging around Mor Dhona than other servers I imagine, but still crowded :) (quick headcount shows about 80 people, very roughly counted)
P.P.S. I didn't realize there was a Maximum graphics settings, that gives me ~13fps. -
05-28-2015, 01:42 PMLaraul
ARGHS! Here let me show you how what my system load is while in Mor Dhona. I have Two 12 core Xeon processors... this shows the problem very well...
http://i.imgur.com/frBWBdb.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/umIO5M7.png
Thread 2 or the second core of the first processor (aka core #4 or 24) has hit a 100% usage. The CPU thread executor on both processors is also at a 100%. Total average CPU usage though reads only 20%.
Open Hardware Monitor for me doesn't accurately show my processor usage. I.E. this is what I see w/ OHM. Not that CPU core #2 on processor 2 shows to be at 50%. This is misleading since every core is capable of executing two threads! Despite this average CPU usage is at 20% just like the first readout.
http://i.imgur.com/2T72iYZ.png
This readout does not tell me the full story! I suggest perhaps you should rely on something other than Open Hardware Monitor! -
05-28-2015, 01:53 PMGenJoeDamn impressive rig drooooolQuote:
Originally Posted by Laraul
But umm I don't think you can realistically expect any game to be optimized for 12 cores :D I'm happy to see quad core optimization and even that's rare..
Hopefully DX11 helps with the optimization for you guys. -
05-28-2015, 02:55 PMeinzele
@Laraul: umm an i5 doesnt have hyperthread, so whats shown on ohm is accurate enough for i5
-
05-28-2015, 03:34 PMKarstenSFullscreen is very smooth for me. Window and borderless Window not. Running Win7 borderless Window was a good option. But since Win8 not anymre.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateAoe2
-
05-28-2015, 04:37 PMOoshimaNot going to. This game isn't CPU intensive, doesn't make use of hyper-threading. For this game you are better off with a high clock speed i5-4690K than a 12-core Xeon. Even my 6-core i7-5820K overclocked lose out to my i7-4790K @ 4.8GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by GenJoe
-
05-28-2015, 04:45 PMeinzeleGonna be a beast in dx12 time though :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Ooshima
-
05-28-2015, 08:52 PMRaist
Would be interesting to see a comparison of scores on some of these rigs from running a "winsat mem" test in an Admin CMD prompt.
-
05-28-2015, 10:56 PMItseotleRun Time: 5.09Quote:
Originally Posted by Raist
Memory Performance: 21760.24 MB/s -
05-28-2015, 11:12 PMPseudopsiaIn my video test I used RivaTuner overlay to show CPU usage. There is one core that's 80-100% usage when GPU is not fully utilized. I had HT disabled on my 6 core CPU. With more cores you have the more that it is apparent that one thread has very high CPU usage, since other threads are distributed on the extra cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laraul
A long time ago during I ran some tests against original benchmark with cores disabled and found that more than 4 cores hardly increase overall score and minimum frame-rate.
http://i.imgur.com/jrd5hqM.png
Clock speed however did increase the minimum frame-rate
http://i.imgur.com/BdTqrea.png
It's most likely an API issue, DX11 will alleviate the problem to a certain amount.
This article simplifies how the APIs work:
http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/artic...oversimplified
Quote:
To to summarize:
DirectX 11: Your CPU communicates to the GPU 1 core to 1 core at a time. It is still a big boost over DirectX 9 where only 1 dedicated thread was allowed to talk to the GPU but it’s still only scratching the surface.
DirectX 12: Every core can talk to the GPU at the same time and, depending on the driver, I could theoretically start taking control and talking to all those cores.
That’s basically the difference. Oversimplified to be sure but it’s why everyone is so excited about this.
-
05-29-2015, 01:33 AMPseudopsiaYa... I see leaked benchmarks any where from 4-8% or 15% IPC gain from haswell. I'm a little mixed on continuing with -E platform because I haven't seen increase gaming performance switching between 4 to 6 cores, it's expensive to upgrade frequently and it's nearly a year behind latest architecture. DX12 games may take advantage of the extra cores. Depending on further benchmarks I see with DX12 and skylake if I'm not impressed I may wait it out till Skylake-E, which will probably be around 2nd half of 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ooshima
-
05-29-2015, 01:55 AMRaistThat is interesting indeed. My memory is a bit slower than yours (2 4GB sticks, DDR3-1600 CAS-11, in Dual-channel) and comes in about 1GB/slower than yours. In order to get north of 50FPS in MD, I have to clip object/characters displayed. Unfortunately it's a laptop that won't let me tweak the timings (RAM is capable of 1700 at CAS-11). Regardless though, it holds up well for an old i7 (3630-QM, 3.2GHz) and just a GTX670MX for the GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Itseotle
Wonder if the guys able to lock 60FPS with higher quality settings are clocking in north of 26GB/s like my PC does. The PC manages MD well--but the FSB and MEM clocks are ramped up to the brink of failure too (why I don't game on that rig at all in the summer--too freaking hot). -
05-29-2015, 02:06 AMJudge_XeroI built a rig with the G3258. It ran the game pretty good overclocked to 4.2Ghz but the CPU will be constantly pegged at 99% which makes the FPS bounce around quite a bit which makes some areas pretty choppy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shura
I'd recommend getting at least an i5 even if it means spending less on a GPU. Can always turn down settings with a cheaper GPU, but that little Dual Core can only work so hard. I doubt it will make much difference with DX11 either since both cores are already maxed on DX9.
Edited: unless someone can chime in on how an i3 would fare as I've never tried one on this game, as they're pretty good value as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I did try Overclocking my ram to 2000Mhz from 1600Mhz which in turn gave me about a 5 FPS difference when looking across the market, but it also made my CPU hit 90% usage in those instances (compared to 74%ish)
So for those steady 60 FPS I guess it would take the advantage of the i7 hyper-threading + fast ram.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raist
4670k @ 4.0Ghz -> Memory 2000Mhz 9-11-11-27
> Running: System memory performance assessment ''
> Run Time 00:00:05.13
> Memory Performance 26033.07 MB/s
> Total Run Time 00:00:06.19
4670k @ Stock -> Memory 1600Mhz 8-9-9-21
> Running: Feature Enumeration ''
> Run Time 00:00:00.00
> Running: System memory performance assessment ''
> Run Time 00:00:05.13
> Memory Performance 22455.55 MB/s
> Total Run Time 00:00:06.41 -
05-29-2015, 02:42 AMFensevenDoesn't support SLI eh? what board do you have and have you ever told us how many sticks of ram you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by einzele
-
05-29-2015, 10:30 AMOoshimaDoes not need to support SLI. As long as your mobo have at least a 2nd PCI-E 3.0 slot that supports at least x8 speed then you can plug there and try.Quote:
Originally Posted by einzele
The thing is -E series chips aren't primarily for gaming. In fact the i5-4690K is very sufficient. Most games are on single core performance rather than multi-core performance and thus -E chips won't be able to beat Devil's Canyon in terms of single core speed. Haswell-E in generally can't be clocked as high as the i7-4790K.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudopsia
As a matter of fact, my i7-4790K is a golden chip and was able to clock at 4.8GHz @ 1.24V stable. On the other hand, I didn't get lucky at all with my i7-5820K (which I use for content creation purposes) which I have to settle for 4.2GHz @ 1.24V too. -
05-29-2015, 12:34 PMeinzeleit has 2 pcie slot, but doesnt support SLi. i have 24gb ramQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenseven
okay i'll go try it later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ooshima
-
05-29-2015, 04:41 PMKarstenSFrom my research, before exchanging my mobo, only SLI boards do have 2nd PCI-E x16 slot connected with 8 lanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ooshima
On boards without SLI (also that ones supporting Crossfire) do only have 4 lanes at the second slot.
There is a way to modify the driver to activate SLI. But the 4 lanes connection of the second card is very noticeable. -
05-29-2015, 09:48 PMJudge_Xero
Typically if you have 2 X PCIe full slots then either will run in 16x or 8X (whichever they are designed for, as most Intel Boards are moving to 8X PCIe 3.0 where as AMD Boards still have Native 16x with PCIe 3.0)
But what typically happens is this.
Slot 1 16x - No GPU
Slot 2 16x - No GPU
You can put a GPU in either slot and have it work in 16x PCIe
------------------------
Slot 1 8x - GPU Present
Slot 2 8x - GPU Present
With both slots populated it shifts both to 8x - where as individually they are capable of 16x
---------------------------------------
The only native 4x PCIe lanes are those little short ones that you would plug a wireless/SSD/Video Card/Network card into (which can also be Native PCIe 1x on budge motherboards)
The motherboard does not need to be Crossfire/SLI capable to have each of the individual slots to run in 8X or 16x, it just matters how many you have populated in how it divides the available communication lanes.