Your CPU for those with and without FPS issues

Pmarsico9

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO wrote: »

Old i7 930 overclocked to 3.5ghz
12gb ram @‌ 1680mhz
2x GeForce 660ti in sli.

Frame rate bottoms out when spell effects are plentiful.
Was much smoother prior to 1.2.

I have a similar setup with an old i7 clocked out and I have horrid issues if I don't delete my usersettings.txt and shader.cooked prior to every login.

SFBryan18

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

I want to show the quality difference so I took some pics after riding around on Ultra, looking for a really low point. Keep in mind that I was averaging about 25FPS on Ultra, and getting as high as 40FPS in places like Rivenspire. This location gave me a low of 18FPS and was the perfect place to show quality.

System Model: G74Sx
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2670QM CPU @ 2.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.2GHz
Memory: 12288MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 12266MB RAM
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
Display Memory: 4095 MB
Dedicated Memory: 3019 MB
Shared Memory: 1076 MB
Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Low - 60FPS:


Medium - 45FPS:


High - 27FPS:


Ultra - 18FPS:

MonkeyAssassin24

I run an Intel i5 and HAVE fps issues

SFBryan18 wrote: »

I want to show the quality difference so I took some pics after riding around on Ultra, looking for a really low point. Keep in mind that I was averaging about 25FPS on Ultra, and getting as high as 40FPS in places like Rivenspire. This location gave me a low of 18FPS and was the perfect place to show quality.

System Model: G74Sx
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2670QM CPU @ 2.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.2GHz
Memory: 12288MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 12266MB RAM
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
Display Memory: 4095 MB
Dedicated Memory: 3019 MB
Shared Memory: 1076 MB
Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Low - 60FPS:


Medium - 45FPS:


High - 27FPS:


Ultra - 18FPS:

I don't get what you are trying to show with this post. Of course taking a screenshot on Ultra will make the game look fantastic, but 18 fps performance is a big difference from 27 or 45. We all want the game to look great but if it doesn't run smooth at all then what is the point of pretty grass and shadows?

I may just have misunderstood the point you were making so I apologize if that's the case

ebondeath

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

Some of this goes over my head, but here you go:

Win 8 64-bit
8gb RAM
Nvidia GeForce GTX 670MX
Driver version: 335.23
Intel Core i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHZ

I play on High settings.

SFBryan18

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

MonkeyAssassin24 wrote: »

SFBryan18 wrote: »

I want to show the quality difference so I took some pics after riding around on Ultra, looking for a really low point. Keep in mind that I was averaging about 25FPS on Ultra, and getting as high as 40FPS in places like Rivenspire. This location gave me a low of 18FPS and was the perfect place to show quality.

System Model: G74Sx
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2670QM CPU @ 2.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.2GHz
Memory: 12288MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 12266MB RAM
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
Display Memory: 4095 MB
Dedicated Memory: 3019 MB
Shared Memory: 1076 MB
Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Low - 60FPS:


Medium - 45FPS:


High - 27FPS:


Ultra - 18FPS:

I don't get what you are trying to show with this post. Of course taking a screenshot on Ultra will make the game look fantastic, but 18 fps performance is a big difference from 27 or 45. We all want the game to look great but if it doesn't run smooth at all then what is the point of pretty grass and shadows?

I may just have misunderstood the point you were making so I apologize if that's the case

It was a comparison. That was the point. I said earlier that I play with everything on high, and get about 20-25FPS, but that's actually in lower FPS areas. Most games run with a cap at 30FPS, and most HD TV's output at 30FPS. Having more only matters if you have a newer 3DTV which would play at 120FPS (60FPS for each eye).

As far as input lag, I don't notice it at all. Everything still runs smoothly with perhaps the occasional jump here or there, but I really don't notice anything. Now, if I was playing at a lower quality, that would be noticeable. The way shadows render for objects makes a huge difference on how cartoon like the objects appear. So trading unnoticeable input lag for a more rich scenery is an easy choice. I drop shadows (the biggest killer) down from ultra to high, and particle density from ultra to high, and max everything else out.

Quality looks much better than high performance.

Anrik

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

System: Windows 8 64-bit
Processor: i7-3770K CPU @ 4.2 ghz
Memory: 32 GB RAM DDR3 1866
Graphic Card: Gigabyte Windforce GTX 780
Graphic Card Driver: nvidia 337.88

Auralia

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

i7-3770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
8GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 4GB

I run the game on ultra settings and fps is 60 to 100

Edit: I don't do pvp only pve though, so have no idea if my fps will drop in cyrodil as I wont bother with pvp until vet 12 when I have nothing else to do and I only just reached vet1.

Orchish

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

I7-3770K
16 GB RAM
GTX 660 Ti
Windows 8.1

Before the patch i had no issues at all. Big zergs and large siege battles were no problem. After the patch, battles as small as 20 players can drop me down to 12fps. Large battles have dropped me to 5, something i've never experienced in both beta and post release until the recent patch that introduced this issue.

PvE on the other hand is fine, perfectly playable. Although fighting a wispmother does drop my fps down quite a bit and even after moving away it fails to recover without a relog.

Forztr

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

i7-2600 CPU @3.40GHz
12.0 GB RAM
Windows 7 SP1 64bit OS
ASUS HD7770 Graphics card

Sleep

I run an Intel i5 and HAVE fps issues

Windows 7 64bit
i5-4430
9600GT 512MB
4GB DDR3 1600
No fps drop issue before patch 1.2.3. Due to my GPU, my fps was always low but it was above 30 for most of the time. Sometimes it dropped beneath 10 but climb up again after sometime when people nearby were dead. After patch 1.2.3, my fps could dropped to 7 or 8 both in and out of Cyrodiil and would stick to that level unless I zoned out or relogged. That happened fewer times after patch 1.2.4. But the worse thing is that my game frequently freezes after patch 1.2.4. That never happened before. And the EU server is now under maintenance. We'll see.

RinaldoGandolphi

I run an AMD processor and have no fps issues

I just want chime in.

todays patch fixed cyrodiil for me.

took part in giant groups of over 100 players taking 2 keeps. Huge battles with other players.

fps never dropped below 35 fps was very playable.

specs

AMD FX 8320 overclocked to 4.5ghz
2 AMD R9 280 3gb in crossfire
running Catalyst 14.6 rc drivers dated June 25th.

mix of high/ultra settings. View distance set to 50, in game aa turned of, mlaa forced through Catalyst. Rest of settings as high as they will go.

hopefully this helps. For those still having trouble hope it gets sorted soon.

had a blast in pvp tonight, took 2 keeps and a lumber mill and mining place, got a few kills most fun I have had in a group for awhile.

MarRyb

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

Hi I have laptop,

Windows 8.1 64bit,Intel i7-4700MQ @ 2.40GHz, 8GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M 2GB DDR3 on latest beta drivers.

I'm running on medium details (which looks terrible) ... No shadows, SubSampling on medium, textures High, otherwise everything else is off. When I try to increase graphics quality the fps drop is very high, almost 30% down in case of low quality shadows.

CPU load while I'm running game is no more than 20%, GPU load is everytime 99%.

With these settings frame rate is occasionally dropping to 25fps while in random environment (in Vulkhel Guard when I start the game is almost always between 50to60fps, after few minutes 25to40fps), sometimes outside of the cities I have like 60fps and again from time to time drop ti 35-40fps.

I believe this a graphics, code balance issue within this game or not effective CPU usage while calculating some stuff for GPU. Not sure I'm not an specialist in this. But is very strange because with this configuration it's suppose to run in much better details.

claudosan

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

Operating System: Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
Processor: i7 3770k
Memory: 32GB Ram
Graphic card: Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290 4GB [Driver Version 14.10]

OmegaSeven

I run an AMD processor and HAVE fps issues

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965
Memory: 16GB Ram
Video card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127745 - I got this about a month ago since my previous card from EVGA was defective. It has 60 FPS every where except PvP.

theyancey

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

I have no problems. I have a 2nd gen i7, A newer Asus kicked up MB, GeForce 660 TI with the 340.43 drivers, 20Gb RAM, Win 8.1 Pro, 64 bit, Samsung SSD for the OS and a Velociraptor for my data/game drive. I used the Asus utility to mildly auto overclock the system. I pay a little extra for more bandwidth on my ATT U-Verse plan. I use the onboard sound chip and I view the game on a Dell 24" monitor.

NerZhulen89

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

I am sorry but this is very bad survey, because for total majority of people fps is an issue only in large cyrodiil battles.
But anyone can vote, so there will be plenty of votes for no issue from players who never do pvp, making the whole survey complete bust.

win 7
gtx 760 2gb ocII
8 gb ram

Auralia

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

Yeah should list whether you do pvp or not.

SystemiK

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

Win 8.1 64
i7 2600k @ 4.4GHz
16GB RAM @‌ 1600MHz
HD 6970 2GB VRAM
SSD = OS
7200RPM HD = game files
1920x1200
Mostly high settings

FPS issue in PVP battles only (no issues when alone in Cyrodil)
No problems whatsoever in solo PVE (40+ FPS in most situations)

samthedagger

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

It's not your processor. It's a GPU memory leak.

Rodario

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

SFBryan18 wrote: »

Istyar wrote: »

My laptop:

I5 3337U - 2.8Ghz
4Gb RAM DDR3 1600Mhz
Nvidia GT 730M - 128bits/725 MHz- 2G DDR3/2000 MHz
HD 1TB Samsung 7200 RPM

Running game on max settings (Water and Shadows at medium) with 50FPS+ (crowded areas like trading cities i'm getting 30FPS+)

You should turn them up to high if you're getting 50fps on medium. No one can really see a difference in fps after 30, but high shadows make a big difference for small objects like grass.

I have an Nvidia 560m and run everything on high. I get between 20-25 fps and the game looks great without any input lag. I don't get why people are so obsessed with fps since the eye can't really detect that many frames going by (unless they were playing in 3D).

@SFBryan18‌ No, motions seem fluid from 24fps on. It's been proven that the untrained eye can make out the difference between even 100 and 120 fps. Why do you think they're starting to make 48fps movies?

michaeletringer_ESO

NerZhulen89 wrote: »

I am sorry but this is very bad survey, because for total majority of people fps is an issue only in large cyrodiil battles.
But anyone can vote, so there will be plenty of votes for no issue from players who never do pvp, making the whole survey complete bust.

win 7
gtx 760 2gb ocII
8 gb ram

and

Auralia wrote: »

Yeah should list whether you do pvp or not.

totally agree. cant someone make a new and improved poll? i cant seem to figure out how

Teargrants

I run an Intel i5 and HAVE fps issues

@ OP, your poll is flawed, it doesn't differentiate between PvE and PvP. It's well known that the FPS issue is most severe in PvP, and though there are PvE'rs effected by it as well, it's not in the same proportion as in Cyrodiil. I myself only have FPS issues in Cyrodiil, 40-60 FPS in all PvE zones.

That said, my specs:

Win 7 64 bit
i5 4670k @ 3.4 GHz
12 GB RAM
GeForce GTX 770, 4 GB

FPS in Cyrodiil drops to exactly 18 in large fights, then recovers to 30 and stays there.

samthedagger

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

thorntk421 wrote: »

eonowakb16_ESO wrote: »

This dicussion and poll is completly unnecessary...

Before Patch 1.2.3 for everything was working relativly nice for everyone in Cyrodil, regarding FPS. They have introduced some new lightning model, and maybe also some new way how to handle particles. Particles are mostly emmted from healing skills but also from some other skills.

For my part i have no issue with cyrodil, playing it for 5 up 120 Minutes - everything works fine....perfect FPS...after some time the client get in some kind of bad state, and lowers the GPU ressources. We have no CPU or whatever issue here, just somekind of bad programming

If it was bad programming would it not be effecting everyone? When, clearly it isn't. Not saying there isn't some bad code or optimization somewhere but, just seems like more people would be having the problems.

This game actually has very low system requirements considering what is available. Many people with excellent gaming rigs are WAY above what is required to run this game--in theory--flawlessly on maximum settings. So for those of you rocking a Titan or something similar, you're basically on the cutting edge and probably don't have problems with any game unless it's a driver compatibility issue. It's easy to overlook a memory leak when your GPU has 4x as much memory as this game was every intended to use. Use a diagnostic to examine system resource utilization though. I can almost guarantee you that you will see ESO.exe chomping up way more resources from your GPU than it has any right to. This isn't necessarily a CPU or RAM issue (although under-utilization of both might be partly to blame). Almost universally, I have seen people with various rigs sitting around with tons of unutilized CPU cycles and RAM space while the GPU gets crammed full of garbage. People with 8 GB GPUs and higher tend not to notice. If you have a 1 GB or 2 GB GPU, I would love to see you say you aren't having problems with this game. At the very least we might be able to figure out if some video cards are somehow "immune" to the leak.

samthedagger

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

Would everyone PLEASE be sure to include the size of your memory on board your GPU. The same model video card might come in 1 GB, 2 GB, and 4 GB varieties so just giving us the model is incomplete data. It is a key data point we are missing here. It is also the key (as I have already posted before) to where the problem lies. I'm not gonna repeat myself anymore on this subject. This entire thread is a waste of time because you are focusing on the CPU, which is obviously not the problem.

Leggit

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

crislevin wrote: »

This game needs optimization, its recommended CPU is nowhere near enough for it.

Its not cpu, gpu, or harddrive, its the codes that need more optimization. They should focus on that.

you really have no idea what you're talking about.

SFBryan18

I run an Intel i7 and have no fps issues

Rodario wrote: »

SFBryan18 wrote: »

Istyar wrote: »

My laptop:

I5 3337U - 2.8Ghz
4Gb RAM DDR3 1600Mhz
Nvidia GT 730M - 128bits/725 MHz- 2G DDR3/2000 MHz
HD 1TB Samsung 7200 RPM

Running game on max settings (Water and Shadows at medium) with 50FPS+ (crowded areas like trading cities i'm getting 30FPS+)

You should turn them up to high if you're getting 50fps on medium. No one can really see a difference in fps after 30, but high shadows make a big difference for small objects like grass.

I have an Nvidia 560m and run everything on high. I get between 20-25 fps and the game looks great without any input lag. I don't get why people are so obsessed with fps since the eye can't really detect that many frames going by (unless they were playing in 3D).

@SFBryan18‌ No, motions seem fluid from 24fps on. It's been proven that the untrained eye can make out the difference between even 100 and 120 fps. Why do you think they're starting to make 48fps movies?

It's such an insignificant difference compared to quality.

Phelproof

I run an Intel i7 and HAVE fps issues

FPS issues here
i7 - 3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz
8 Gig RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M

ZOS_MichelleA

Hi there, folks. We are in the process of pushing a hotfix to the North American megaserver, and will be pushing it to the European megaserver afterward. Please let us know if this resolves the FPS issue for you: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/118351/new-performance-fps-issues-hotfix.

Bhozz52

I run an Intel i5 and have no fps issues

No FPS issues;
i5 2500k @ 4.0 ghz
HD 7970 OC ED
8GB Ram
SSD 128GB
Win7 64bit

fosley_ESO

What exactly does "fps issues" mean? I'm pretty certain most of the people here could set it to low settings and peg it at monitor refresh rates, so it's not like the game doesn't run. I play at ultra with the view distance set to 35, and I rarely drop below 30 fps in town, but what does that really mean? Is that terrible because I'm not getting 60 fps at all times on ultra? Or is it perfectly fine because I don't personally have issues and it's not like I spent a bazillion dollars on my system?

I have:
AMD FX-6350 clocked at 4.5 GHz
8 GB DDR3 RAM clocked around 2 GHz (forget the exact clock speeds -- below the rated speed, above my MB's default 1.6 GHz)
Windows 8.1 64-bit
Power Color Radeon R7 260X 2GB (running PCIE 2.0)
ASRock 970 Extreme4 mainboard
2x 1TB 7200 RPM spindle drives running in Raid0, with the OS and programs segregated into different partitions.

I have had extensive issues with driver support for the R7 on W8.1 (along with tons of other people), but those issues are present in everything from Firefox to Skyrim to ESO, and don't seem to affect my framerates. I don't do much pvp, and the only times I've been in Cyrodiil I've seen a max of 2 other people. I've never seen an enemy player in Cyrodiil since beta, but I've mostly just looked around for skyshards.

As I said, I rarely drop below 30 fps in town, but I can get upward of 50 fps in more open environments. If I drag the view distance to max, it's playable, but sometimes I get down to like 20 fps, which is too choppy for my tastes. I do occasionally get lag spikes from turning around rapidly, but mostly my framerate is pretty stable for whatever area I'm in (as in, not a lot of microstutter).

As an aside, motion beyond 10-30 fps (depends on the content, the person, etc.) looks good if both the following are true:
1. There is appropriate motion blur.
2. The viewer is looking at a single point on the screen the entire time.

If (1) isn't true, you get strobing. (The object, instead of smoothly travelling through every point between where it was in frame A and where it is now in frame B, teleports many pixels to its new location, which looks wrong if there's any real speed involved.)
If (2) isn't true you get a blurry image. This makes sense if your eyes are just wandering, but not when you're tracking an object, such as a soccer ball across the field, or a spell across the keep. You can help the issue with a very low persistence display, but those are almost non-existent. (If the pixels all get aligned, then a really bright backlight flashes for like 500 microseconds before fading out, you see the frames, but they don't streak across your retina long enough to cause noticeable blur.)
And the fix for (1) means the fix for (2) doesn't help (your eye is now correctly tracking the object, but the motion blur ensures it's always blurry). The only true fix is very high frame rates.

This also has the advantage of reducing latency, but 33 ms (the max you could reduce it by if we compare 30 fps to infinity fps) isn't really that big of a deal compared to human reaction times for the vast majority of people (200-300 ms is typical, 100 ms is record-breaking, and some people are 400+ ms; and your internet adds another 30-100 ms for good internet with servers on the same continent).

30 fps vs 60 fps looks just as bad to me, and both have smooth motion, so I don't put a lot of money or effort into getting over 30 fps. Maybe someday we'll have 3000 fps systems where it will be worth bothering, but for now meh. But for some people 60 or 120 fps is noticeable enough to bother now.

And fyi, it's never really been shown one way or the other whether the human eye sees in discrete frames, but it doesn't really matter. Pretty much anything that affects our eyes would have a similar effect on a standard camera.