Yes, an AMD issue topic again, need feedback from another AMD users

tomiffseb17_ESO

Hello everyone!
Lets start with my story, it will be really short, if you do not interested in this, please just jump to the point "B"
I participated in 3 beta before the release, and i had my old config with a real old Phenom xII amd cpu, which was ok, as long as i didnt do any pvp. In cyrodiil, the fps was bad, real bad, which did not suprise me, afterall i knew my cpu was that bad for this. As launch came i decided to upgrade, but sadly(?) i stayed loyal to AMD, so my choice was the fx8350, and a compatible motherboard. Rest of my system is:
hd7850 slightly overclocked, 8Gb ram, and windows8,1, game is not on SSD.

I was happy, other games finally ran fine at max settings, so i was really interested to see how Eso will perform. Then the facepalm. Basically my fps improved like what, 5 max? Changing graphic from the real minimum to ultra makes like a few fps difference if makes any at all. Since that day whenever i decided to play i end up checking all the forums to see for a miracle, but nothing so far. Low scale or large, whenever pvp happens my fps is under 30, which is "playable" but far from the experience i could actually enjoy.

"B" As reading almost every forum and topic related to this issue i found some strange things. Most people running on AMD config and got this bad fps is running on the new Fx Series of CPUs, more specifically the Fx8*** line. I have seen posts where people said they have 40~ fps with AMD hardware, cant recall which ones, but certeanly not The Fx8*** line.

So afterall i just want feedback here from you guys, running on AMD hardware,
what kind of performance/fps you got, i am only concerned about pvp in cyrodiil, pve is smooth 60fps almost all the time. Im scared to say so, but i really think its something with the Fx8350.

Oh and sorry for my bad english and grammar, also thank you for any helpful feedback. Oh and CPU is not overheating btw

dekameo

I'm running an AMD system but I just get black screen after hitting play. So yeah

Leesha

dekameo wrote: »

I'm running an AMD system but I just get black screen after hitting play. So yeah

Not trying to derail the thread but @Dekameo have you read this thread pertaining to your issue? http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/100650/black-screen-after-hitting-play-is-back

dekameo

I have but thank you for the thought.

mikescchen

Guess I'm the lucky one...
Have no problem since launch, and occasional memory leak after the Craglorn patch.
(yeah it leaks sometimes, but with max ~1.5GB memory, never really crashes during mostly 2~4 hr play)
And the CrossFire works now.

The AMD FX are weak in per clock per core performance.
But since most software can't really use more than 4 cores, I chose FX-6350 instead of 8350 for higher stock frequency.
In the (gaming) end the frequency matters more than core numbers.

FX-6350 OC to 4.3GHz
Asrock 990FX Killer Fatal1ty
DDR3-1600 4GB x2
MSI 7850 PowerEdition OC (950/1200 MHz) x2
Windows 8.1 x64
CCC 14.4 WHQL

In my current setting I can get 60fps in most scenes, and 30~40 in main city @ 1920x1080.
But heck, why there's 60fps in bank with around ~40 players party, but 30fps in ordinary city scene?

Saerydoth

The reason you only got 5fps improvement is because the FX processors are not an improvement in per-core performance over the Phenom II's. They actually have LESS performance than the Phenom II's, only compensated for by a higher clock speed. The Intel CPU's at this point in time are 25-40% faster in IPC than the AMD's.

Also, the FX-8350 is nearly 2 years old now. It is not a current processor, and the platform it runs on (AM3+) is extremely outdated and does not support a lot of modern features (PCI-e 3.0, USB 3.0, etc).

I do NOT recommend AMD for a new build at this time, for a gaming computer. If you are making a budget or media machine, this is where AMD's APU's shine (FM2+ is a modern platform unlike AM3+). And AMD's integrated graphics (on the APU's) are so much faster than Intel's that adequate comparisons can't be made. But for a gaming machine with a dedicated GPU, right now Intel is the ONLY option. AMD is still competitive with Nvidia in the dedicated GPU area.

When I upgraded from an FX-8350 to an i7-4770k, my FPS increased by about 15-20. JUST from the CPU change.

LariahHunding

Core parking was killing my AMD in Windows 7.

WylieCoyote1511

Saerydoth wrote: »

The reason you only got 5fps improvement is because the FX processors are not an improvement in per-core performance over the Phenom II's. They actually have LESS performance than the Phenom II's, only compensated for by a higher clock speed. The Intel CPU's at this point in time are 25-40% faster in IPC than the AMD's.

Also, the FX-8350 is nearly 2 years old now. It is not a current processor, and the platform it runs on (AM3+) is extremely outdated and does not support a lot of modern features (PCI-e 3.0, USB 3.0, etc).

I do NOT recommend AMD for a new build at this time, for a gaming computer. If you are making a budget or media machine, this is where AMD's APU's shine (FM2+ is a modern platform unlike AM3+). And AMD's integrated graphics (on the APU's) are so much faster than Intel's that adequate comparisons can't be made. But for a gaming machine with a dedicated GPU, right now Intel is the ONLY option. AMD is still competitive with Nvidia in the dedicated GPU area.

When I upgraded from an FX-8350 to an i7-4770k, my FPS increased by about 15-20. JUST from the CPU change.

Since you are an Amd genius (Intel fan boy) cough

How is it I get 100 fps on game like bf4 with max settings and 64 players running around the map, yet not great fps in this game.

Also eso is first game my rig has struggled with.

So I don't agree with your amd comments sorry.

tomiffseb17_ESO

I am not saying Intel isnt better, but still, the fact is kinda ridiculous that not a single Amd based rig can handle the large cyrodiil zergs? That sounds bad enough, even if the game only using 2 cores, -as from the rumors i believe one for the ui elements and one for the rest- I am not going to pay more $ to change to Intel as this was my upgrade, and yes it was an upgrade for everything else..

Saerydoth

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

Saerydoth wrote: »

The reason you only got 5fps improvement is because the FX processors are not an improvement in per-core performance over the Phenom II's. They actually have LESS performance than the Phenom II's, only compensated for by a higher clock speed. The Intel CPU's at this point in time are 25-40% faster in IPC than the AMD's.

Also, the FX-8350 is nearly 2 years old now. It is not a current processor, and the platform it runs on (AM3+) is extremely outdated and does not support a lot of modern features (PCI-e 3.0, USB 3.0, etc).

I do NOT recommend AMD for a new build at this time, for a gaming computer. If you are making a budget or media machine, this is where AMD's APU's shine (FM2+ is a modern platform unlike AM3+). And AMD's integrated graphics (on the APU's) are so much faster than Intel's that adequate comparisons can't be made. But for a gaming machine with a dedicated GPU, right now Intel is the ONLY option. AMD is still competitive with Nvidia in the dedicated GPU area.

When I upgraded from an FX-8350 to an i7-4770k, my FPS increased by about 15-20. JUST from the CPU change.

Since you are an Amd genius (Intel fan boy) cough

How is it I get 100 fps on game like bf4 with max settings and 64 players running around the map, yet not great fps in this game.

Also eso is first game my rig has struggled with.

So I don't agree with your amd comments sorry.

I'm not an Intel fanboy. I used AMD exclusively for years. I would love to have an AMD machine again, but it is not possible at this time if you want to keep up. As for your question about BF4...BF4 is generally limited by the GPU, rather than the CPU. Crysis 3 is the same way.

A game that can run LOTS of concurrent threads will only run a little bit faster on Intel than AMD. A game that has 1 or 2 primary threads (this is very common in MMO's because of all the extra stuff they have to do) will run about 25-40% faster on an Intel. It's just a fact.

The issue isn't clock speed, it's IPC. Read here for why Intel is (at this time) so much better. Interestingly enough, during the Pentium 4 days, it was the opposite. AMD absolutely *creamed* Intel in IPC (Athlon vs Pentium 4). They actually creamed Intel worse than Intel is creaming AMD now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html

That review compares with the 3770k, but the 4770k is similar enough. It also shows BF3 instead of BF4...you'll notice that the Intel and AMD perform similarly there, because that game is GPU-bound rather than CPU-bound.

WylieCoyote1511

Saerydoth wrote: »

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

Saerydoth wrote: »

The reason you only got 5fps improvement is because the FX processors are not an improvement in per-core performance over the Phenom II's. They actually have LESS performance than the Phenom II's, only compensated for by a higher clock speed. The Intel CPU's at this point in time are 25-40% faster in IPC than the AMD's.

Also, the FX-8350 is nearly 2 years old now. It is not a current processor, and the platform it runs on (AM3+) is extremely outdated and does not support a lot of modern features (PCI-e 3.0, USB 3.0, etc).

I do NOT recommend AMD for a new build at this time, for a gaming computer. If you are making a budget or media machine, this is where AMD's APU's shine (FM2+ is a modern platform unlike AM3+). And AMD's integrated graphics (on the APU's) are so much faster than Intel's that adequate comparisons can't be made. But for a gaming machine with a dedicated GPU, right now Intel is the ONLY option. AMD is still competitive with Nvidia in the dedicated GPU area.

When I upgraded from an FX-8350 to an i7-4770k, my FPS increased by about 15-20. JUST from the CPU change.

Since you are an Amd genius (Intel fan boy) cough

How is it I get 100 fps on game like bf4 with max settings and 64 players running around the map, yet not great fps in this game.

Also eso is first game my rig has struggled with.

So I don't agree with your amd comments sorry.

I'm not an Intel fanboy. I used AMD exclusively for years. I would love to have an AMD machine again, but it is not possible at this time if you want to keep up. As for your question about BF4...BF4 is generally limited by the GPU, rather than the CPU. Crysis 3 is the same way.

A game that can run LOTS of concurrent threads will only run a little bit faster on Intel than AMD. A game that has 1 or 2 primary threads (this is very common in MMO's because of all the extra stuff they have to do) will run about 25-40% faster on an Intel. It's just a fact.

The issue isn't clock speed, it's IPC. Read here for why Intel is (at this time) so much better. Interestingly enough, during the Pentium 4 days, it was the opposite. AMD absolutely *creamed* Intel in IPC (Athlon vs Pentium 4). They actually creamed Intel worse than Intel is creaming AMD now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html

That review compares with the 3770k, but the 4770k is similar enough. It also shows BF3 instead of BF4...you'll notice that the Intel and AMD perform similarly there, because that game is GPU-bound rather than CPU-bound.

Yes but other MMO's run fine!!

tomiffseb17_ESO

Before the cpu swap i could not get 15 fps in games like bf4, after the swap almost everything on max and game runs smooth. I am not trying to compare the two games, but no one should state that the fx is a bad cpu. Also you can aay and read that the game development started pre 2010 and it was obvious they optimized for dual core, but cmon everyone knows that making an mmo from nothing is not gonna happen in a year, anyway, i am not trying to argue with anyone, lets just stay to topic, thanks for the responses so far

misiolin

Playing on maxed details with 60 dps all the time.

I use AMD FX 6300 (4,8Ghz), 8GB Ram (OC as well) and GTX 660 (stock).

tomiffseb17_ESO

misiolin wrote: »

Playing on maxed details with 60 dps all the time.
This includes cyrodiil with huge zergs then.. time to grab a new cooler for oc....
I use AMD FX 6300 (4,8Ghz), 8GB Ram (OC as well) and GTX 660 (stock).

tragikzombie

I'm using an Asus mobo, AMD FX 8350 black edition, Gigabyte HD Radeon 7870 2gig video card, 16 gig ram, OS/game on SSD. I had to make sure I had PC set to high performance/no core parking (in OS and in ESO , Google it) amongst other issues, BUT, now I have had 0 problems. I usually always have 60ish FPS and have even gotten in 70s/80's FPS (although not consistant). That's in most PVE and world even with other players... I haven't really done Cyrodil PVP as much but I had 40-60ish FPS (I can try running again to verify on Monday) . I typically play at times 8 hours at a time except in a few times of network issues.
SO, as a full AMD user (not fan boy, I only bought cause it was what I could afford at time) I haven't had the same problems running the same processor as you.
Try pulling up task manager and finding ESO.exe ,click properties and click set priority to highest setting (I haven't done real time setting), I noticed smoother game play after trying that ( sucks but you have to do that every time because doesn't save the setting permanently)
Good luck!
P.S. I also play on high with shadow low/med. Sometimes Ultra

tomiffseb17_ESO

I am absolutely fine with pve, never had any issues, only pvp, attack/def castles with small/med/large groups. Or just running anywhere pvp facing a big group cuts my fps from 60 to 20-30..

tragikzombie

Does it do it in PVE areas that have a lot of people too?
I'll try Sunday PvP and let you know if I have similar problems with my 8350.

tomiffseb17_ESO

in Big and crowded town its not 60 but jumps between 60 - 45, but mostly higher then 50. This tragic drop only happens in pvp. Thank you for your feedbback if you will reply on sunday.

tragikzombie

Btw, I meant to respond to this and forgot to. Got busy with work , sorry. I was having some unknown error issues, but managed to fix... I played in Cyrodil PVP and was at times getting as low as 19 fps... but I was also playing on high settings. That was during MAJOR battles, about 50-70 in PVP in major areas/towns not doing battle. Been getting up to 100 in PVE. I just honestly think PVP battles are going to drain your s### LOL... no matter what CPU you use, but using the AMD FX 8350 that was my results ( also using a 7870 2 gig vid card) I for the most part have no complaints with my CPU. Im also not OC'ing either.

tomiffseb17_ESO

Ty for the feedback, i am already gave up all my hopes for now.. tried everything, managed to make the game using more then 1 cores but soon as one pegged the drop comes. Ill just watch silently, maybe sooner or later it gets sorted...

Audigy

tomiffseb17_ESO wrote: »

Hello everyone!
Lets start with my story, it will be really short, if you do not interested in this, please just jump to the point "B"
I participated in 3 beta before the release, and i had my old config with a real old Phenom xII amd cpu, which was ok, as long as i didnt do any pvp. In cyrodiil, the fps was bad, real bad, which did not suprise me, afterall i knew my cpu was that bad for this. As launch came i decided to upgrade, but sadly(?) i stayed loyal to AMD, so my choice was the fx8350, and a compatible motherboard. Rest of my system is:
hd7850 slightly overclocked, 8Gb ram, and windows8,1, game is not on SSD.

I was happy, other games finally ran fine at max settings, so i was really interested to see how Eso will perform. Then the facepalm. Basically my fps improved like what, 5 max? Changing graphic from the real minimum to ultra makes like a few fps difference if makes any at all. Since that day whenever i decided to play i end up checking all the forums to see for a miracle, but nothing so far. Low scale or large, whenever pvp happens my fps is under 30, which is "playable" but far from the experience i could actually enjoy.

"B" As reading almost every forum and topic related to this issue i found some strange things. Most people running on AMD config and got this bad fps is running on the new Fx Series of CPUs, more specifically the Fx8*** line. I have seen posts where people said they have 40~ fps with AMD hardware, cant recall which ones, but certeanly not The Fx8*** line.

So afterall i just want feedback here from you guys, running on AMD hardware,
what kind of performance/fps you got, i am only concerned about pvp in cyrodiil, pve is smooth 60fps almost all the time. Im scared to say so, but i really think its something with the Fx8350.

Oh and sorry for my bad english and grammar, also thank you for any helpful feedback. Oh and CPU is not overheating btw

First of all,

AMD is not bad. Don't let anyone tell you this, it very often shows fanboyism towards Nvidia or Intel.

Still and this is very important to know, an AMD system has huge issue´s if the software does not support the amount of cores (many threads) which the CPU offers.

The reason behind this is, that the single core / threading power of AMD is not made for gaming in general, especially MMO´s. AMD made a statement a few years ago that they don't focus on PC gaming CPU´s right now, but workstations and console stuff.

Intel has a huge design advantage which AMD obviously can not catch up in regards of gaming power right now. Their Bulldozer was a huge "fake" in regards of what it should actually do. Even a simple duo core by intel outperformed it - but AMD for some reason had benchmarks that didn't show this pre release.

Therefore you will have low FPS in any game that you play on an AMD system if the game itself does not utilize all cores and runs on many threads. ESO as example has 1 thread only, WS has 2 now after a patch ...

There are however some tweaks to squeeze out a bit more performance, FX CPU´s can be overclocked pretty easy and if you manage to run an AMD on a stable 4.5 GHz or more then you should see quite a decent performance boost.

Another alternative is Mantle, weaker CPU´s profit a lot from it - that said you need a software that supports it and an AMD GPU which in my opinion are the future in gaming unless Nvidia manages to get Mantle working on their GPU´s and lowers their production cost´s in general. Why spend 300 bucks if you get the same performance for 250? PhysX besides there is none


Besides that, @saerydoth explained it well and I can confirm his statement.

tomiffseb17_ESO

Yea, basically everyone is right, Intel is no doubt better for gaming, but still we AMD owners should be able to play without a problem aswell.. Rest is on the devs from now. Ty everyone

Saerydoth

tomiffseb17_ESO wrote: »

Yea, basically everyone is right, Intel is no doubt better for gaming, but still we AMD owners should be able to play without a problem aswell.. Rest is on the devs from now. Ty everyone

Actually, it's on AMD at this point. They need to have an updated product that actually delivers on performance. The Piledriver series (FX-x3xx) were released in 2012. Intel has had a couple of major releases since then. The most notable of which is the i7-4790k which outperforms the 4770k by a good 10-15%. So the gap is widening. Putting any AMD processor next to the 4790k makes AMD look like a joke.

For AMD to have a chance in the performance market, they need to do one of two things. 1) Introduce a new platform to replace AM3+ (with modern features), and at the same time a new CPU platform to go with it, or 2) Standardize on FM2+ for everything, and create a performance oriented CPU for it that has L3 cache.

Note: I am only referring to CPU's here. On GPU's AMD is perfectly competitive. The R9-290 beats the GTX 780. The 290x does not beat the 780ti, but it's not too far behind, and it's significantly cheaper.

Audigy

I agree with what @Saerydoth said. AMD is responsible for their weak CPU´s, but as mentioned before, they said that the PC gaming CPU market is not their focus right now so I am unsure if they have anything in the works?

GPU wise I am a huge supporter of AMD, not only because of the fair price management, but also the performance and stability. My top recommendation is the 280x by MSI (updated model) and I am very curious about the next generation of cards coming around winter, spring 2015.

Still, the ZO Dev´s can improve ESO and I believe they will. I am sure it would help already if they could go to a 2 or 3 threading client. That said, for whatever reason games are often not using the full potential of our CPU´s - which I don't really have an explanation for, maybe Saerydoth has?