Poor performance from a high-end build?

[Zok]

Who told you that was a high end build?

Problem 1: ---I5--- It's just a new name for the word "Celeron"
Problem 2: Windows 7 64bit (home edition)
All windows 7 even pro 64, with exclusion to ultimate still has the 3.2gb memory limit (straight off Microsoft's Technical forum)
So you have 4.8gb just sitting there gathering heat only.
---------
What resolution are you running at?
The higher you go; the more memory gets taken away to run the game. (so if your at 3.2gb do the math)
---
This games video rendering is pretty intense!

You video card comes in 3 versions 1gb 2gb an 4gb
Most Games have the option of hardware/software control.
(however) I'm beginning to wonder, that by default this game is 1/2 software then video controlled, (which would explain the heavy CPU usage).

[Raist]

Who told you that was a high end build?

Problem 1: ---I5--- It's just a new name for the word "Celeron"
Problem 2: Windows 7 64bit (home edition)
All windows 7 even pro 64, with exclusion to ultimate still has the 3.2gb memory limit (straight off Microsoft's Technical forum)
So you have 4.8gb just sitting there gathering heat only.
---------
What resolution are you running at?
The higher you go; the more memory gets taken away to run the game. (so if your at 3.2gb do the math)
---
This games video rendering is pretty intense!

You video card comes in 3 versions 1gb 2gb an 4gb
Most Games have the option of hardware/software control.
(however) I'm beginning to wonder, that by default this game is 1/2 software then video controlled, (which would explain the heavy CPU usage).

umm.. not sure where you got your information from, but I think you may be a bit confused about what you are reading. It sounds like you are looking at individual, specialized heap sizes... but even then, it's not entirely correct. Here's an actual link to the real numbers:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx

Windows runs on virtual memory. It is kind of "dumb" when it comes to your physical memory. It will use physical memory that it finds it can address up to a certain point, then it uses virtual memory (basically, your hard drive). The problem comes with x86 architecture that claimed address spaces for hardware in Windows mappings, which prevented it from seeing the full 4GB, and that is why many only saw about 3.2GB on average. Combine that with the default 2GB/1GB caps on the system and user heaps, and you had some wonkiness with memory management in XP. Let's not even talk about 98... that was a fun one when you passed the 384MB line... lol.

Most of that is obliterated with the newer x64 OS's now. With specific setups, in some cases you can hit TB's of address space now. Granted.. the page/nonpage pools are still limited to GB's, but that is 128GB or more--but the system can track up to a TB for specific situations. I mean.. come on... when your physical limit is 8TB.... yeah, Microsoft has ways for you to use the piss out of your physical memory.

Now... whether SE is claiming a big-@$$ed heap for the game, that is another story... but your SYSTEM will use it for other processes, if nothing else.

[samfisher]

A "stronger" i5? Seriously? Where have you been since the first gen i series came out? An i5-760 is barely slower than an i5-4570k, everything has been incremental since AMD couldn't come up with a competing product, and definitely NOT the cause of so much performance variance.

[JamieLee]

I didn't read everything, but HD is also somewhat important when you're trying to load everything. Especially given the fact that all the FPS drops are in the city where the most people are and you have to render them from data saved on your computer.

latency has a minor effect on fps but only because if you have massive packet loss or spiking ping then information isn't hitting your game. So rather than loading everything over the course of 5 seconds you're game's trying to play catch up and load everything at once.

Also one thing that I noticed affects my performance is just all the junk files from cache, leftover registry files after updates. So I run CCleaner and make sure I don't have any malware or spyware since those can take up resources.

But I have 16.7 gb's of ram with a Core i7 980 and the game barely uses any ram, let alone much of my cpu. It uses 70% of my gpu at max load and this is with my graphics on the High (Desktop). I still get crap fps at times, especially when I was doing the Svara fate and everyone spammed their skills. I had to take other people's battle effects and turn them to simplified to solve a lot of my FPS drops there.

But I think all in all, it's the optimization of the game. The point in which people start to load on your screen is my best guess is part of the reason for massive drops in FPS. So until the game becomes better optimized I would suggest tweaking your settings. It's lame, but the game still looks awesome at standard settings.

Oh and on a side note, this may come off as ignorant but I've always used a reputable MOBO such as Asus. I know that Gigabyte and EVGA are also somewhat equal contenders depending on your chipset/options. But I've always heard that ASrock is substandard and so that could be a bottleneck. Technically substandard parts could be limiting the actual potential of everything you have. Your PSU is plenty of enough wattage for a single GPU setup btw. People that say otherwise don't know what they're talking about.

A "stronger" i5? Seriously? Where have you been since the first gen i series came out? An i5-760 is barely slower than an i5-4570k, everything has been incremental since AMD couldn't come up with a competing product, and definitely NOT the cause of so much performance variance.

Point is without a specific need for HT unless u got a great deal on it your better off getting a better preforming chip that does not have it for gaming.. cause alot of the HT processors strengthens is in the ability to HT... Something that most games do not use.