Performance issues poll based on video card and processor.

james_vestbergb16_ESO

i5 3570K, gtx 780, 1920x1080. All settings maxed except: draw distance down to 75, shadows set to high, particles set to high, water reflections set to medium.

Dropping to 15 fps in large pvp battles, 60-100 FPS is small battles in the wilderness, this is an issue, ppl with the same setup saying ALL maxed no issues, please be more specific, cause i honestly dont think you guys PvP and understand what issues ppl are talking about or know much about your pc, so please prove me wrong.

Rubberbanding when campaigns are locked out, skill delays u name it.

james_vestbergb16_ESO

SirAndy wrote: »

c0rp wrote: »

Are the people saying "no issues" claiming that they dont drop down to 20 FPS in huge keep siege battles?

Yes, that's my claim ...

Pics or it didnt happen.

Armianlee

james_vestbergb16_ESO wrote: »

i5 3570K, gtx 780, 1920x1080. All settings maxed except: draw distance down to 75, shadows set to high, particles set to high, water reflections set to medium.

Dropping to 15 fps in large pvp battles, 60-100 FPS is small battles in the wilderness, this is an issue, ppl with the same setup saying ALL maxed no issues, please be more specific, cause i honestly dont think you guys PvP and understand what issues ppl are talking about or know much about your pc, so please prove me wrong.

Rubberbanding when campaigns are locked out, skill delays u name it.

Well to be fair, this poll would only be complete and shed any light if it had FULL system specs. Including motherboard types etc. People need to face it that cheap motherboards do not perform (or communicate with components) as well as higher end ones. Nor do low end components... Not all RAM is equal. We also need to know of overclocks, sometimes an overclock can be stable on everything else, but crash out on one or two games. This goes not only for CPU overclocks but GPU overclocks. In the case of GPU overclocks you can actually hinder performance if RAM speed and GPU clock don't play nicely, or if it causes the card to overheat and throttle. (Get MSI Afterburner to watch for that) Further, wifi or hardlined... how far is your wifi'd system from the router? How much other interference is in the way (ACs, cordless phones, TVs) What programs are running in the background, is someone streaming with netflix or hulu in the house? What about torrenting? Cable, DSL? What speed? How far from the nearest DSLAM, HUB or CO are you? How many people are on utilising the bandwidth in your area? There are far too many variables to check for than just CPU/GPU combos.

I've never had issues with most of what people are saying, except during super peak use times, while downloading I have some skill delays. This is completely on my end though and I know it.

jrgray93

Armianlee wrote: »

*snip*

A lot of good points in what you said. About memory, I just said for gaming purposes with standard background applications. Additional applications generally aren't going to be running while gaming. At least not with the average user who knows better.

As for how you've never gone below 30 FPS, I can believe that if you haven't been in PVP lately. I almost never go below 30, but when a siege gets large enough, the absolute lowest I've seen was 17. That is a rare occurrence, but it happened.

As for my exact system specifications, they are...

Windows 8.1 Pro (latest release as of this post + updates)
ASUS Z87 Pro Motherboard
i7-4770k @ 4.6 GHz / 4.4 GHz cache
16GB 2x8 Corsair Vengeance Pro @‌ MHz
EVGA GTX 770 Classified 4GB, currently @‌ EVGA stock clocks
ESO / OS on Samsung 840 EVO 500GB SSD

All drivers are up to date. No throttling due to temperatures (CPU always under 65 in gaming, GPU always under 80). Running 1920x1080 maximum settings, 100 view distance.

Also, I have a Micro Center near me and I paid $199 for my CPU and $100 for the motherboard.

Anyway, a lot of people say multithreading is the future and more cores is the way to go, but we don't live in the future. We live here, where IPC dominates in the vast majority of current releases. In most cases, I'd say FX with a powerful GPU is good enough, but minimum framerates are simply better with the Intel options. I've seen much more than a 5-6 frame difference in some titles, ESO included, but that was with a stock 8350. Still, even 5-6 is a big difference to me when those arguably few frames dip it below certain thresholds.

Armianlee

jrgray93 wrote: »

Armianlee wrote: »

*snip*

A lot of good points in what you said. About memory, I just said for gaming purposes with standard background applications. Additional applications generally aren't going to be running while gaming. At least not with the average user who knows better.

As for how you've never gone below 30 FPS, I can believe that if you haven't been in PVP lately. I almost never go below 30, but when a siege gets large enough, the absolute lowest I've seen was 17. That is a rare occurrence, but it happened.

As for my exact system specifications, they are...

Windows 8.1 Pro (latest release as of this post + updates)
ASUS Z87 Pro Motherboard
i7-4770k @ 4.6 GHz / 4.4 GHz cache
16GB 2x8 Corsair Vengeance Pro @‌ MHz
EVGA GTX 770 Classified 4GB, currently @‌ EVGA stock clocks
ESO / OS on Samsung 840 EVO 500GB SSD

All drivers are up to date. No throttling due to temperatures (CPU always under 65 in gaming, GPU always under 80). Running 1920x1080 maximum settings, 100 view distance.

Also, I have a Micro Center near me and I paid $199 for my CPU and $100 for the motherboard.

Anyway, a lot of people say multithreading is the future and more cores is the way to go, but we don't live in the future. We live here, where IPC dominates in the vast majority of current releases. In most cases, I'd say FX with a powerful GPU is good enough, but minimum framerates are simply better with the Intel options. I've seen much more than a 5-6 frame difference in some titles, ESO included, but that was with a stock 8350. Still, even 5-6 is a big difference to me when those arguably few frames dip it below certain thresholds.

Got to love Microcentre for their deals. Though, that board doesn't have what I needed and runs $200 here in Canuckistan, it is a good board.

The post about throttling and what not wasn't really directed at you. You seem to know what you are talking about and I wasn't thinking you'd have those problems. It is more meant to say that this poll is pretty much pointless.

I haven't played on my 8350 since I "upgraded" a couple months ago, so I do not know how it would run now in sieges, but it was fine at the beginning and never dropped that low, so if it does now it would be more to coding than to the system itself.

Yes we live in the here and now, but does that mean that you shouldn't be future proofed? Having more people with more cores will push devs to use them, I heard the same arguments when AMD introduced 64bit... there was only a few games that supported it, and 64bit processors were few and far between, now you cannot even get a 32bit desktop that I am aware of. We are not far off from devs utlilising every last core, DICE does it very efficiently, Crytek (if they survive) does as well, and is getting better.

Intel would have you purchase every new chip they make and doesn't future proof. They feel like Apple to me, in the sense they would rather have you shell out yearly for the latest and greatest instead of including it with the last iteration (even though it was available). There isn't really anything wrong with the per se, but I really don't see why. The performance difference between the 2700k to the 3770k to the 4770k was very incremental at best and really doesn't warrant it. In the case of the 3770k to 4770k, I wished I bought the 3770k. It overclocks far better than the hit and miss 4770k. (no matter what I do it will not go above 4.5Ghz, even when I drop the Ring down low to compensate)

In games that use it the gap between Intel and AMD is closed, and in ones that don't it isn't such a massive win. Honestly, after spending the money I would have loved to have found a reason to be head over heels for my 4770k, in fact I was pretty giddy on the ride home looking at my shiny blue box and my black and yellow mobo box. Explained to the wife that I spent the money to make sure my dual 290Xs were not being bottlenecked... and since she had allowed me to spend the $1300 on those she did not want me to have one of them not working all the way. Between you and I, the bottleneck was imagined by me. I bought too much into the FX chips bottlenecking highend cards BS. Guess what? The performance use on the cards between the FX and the i7 was... identical.

Agreed that 5-6 is major if you drop down low, but I find that my lowend frames runs close to the same with nothing making it a slideshow, it is only in the highend I see the difference. The difference between 80 and 86fps is pointless to get excited about.

In the end, it is really a slight difference and the fanboyism (not calling you one) from both sides really makes my wonder what the hell is wrong with people. Bottomline is we're better suited than the console players in every way shape and form, and in all honesty... the only reason we need these higher end systems is because devs refuse to optimise better. Oh, and cause we like to have HUGE EPEENS!!

For the record:

Windows 8.1
i7-4770k @4.5Ghz
MSI MPOWER MAX AC Z87 (*** released the Z97 9 days later and my store wouldn't swap because it was past the 7 days )
16GB (8x2) GSkill Ripjawz 1866Mhz running @‌ 2100Mhz
Dual Asus Direct CU2 R9 290X in crossfire @‌ 1050Mhz
System drive: 240GB HyperX SSD, ESO drive is 120GB V300 SSD. Various other drives in system as well, and yes ESO has it's very own drive as do Battlefield 3 and 4.

the 8350 is still running too... but nerfed a bit.

FX-8350 @4.7Ghz
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7
16GB (4x4) Corsair Vengeance LP @‌ 1600Mhz
Gigabyte R9 280X
240GB V300 SSD for system drive and 1TB 7200RPM Seagate for whatever else.


I love both these systems, I really do. I wouldn't call someone out and say that they HAVE to be dropping below because they're on an AMD system, because chances are they aren't. I've seen people with similar specs to yours saying it is nothing but a slideshow, while others are boasting a solid 30fps in PvP on lesser machines (and postings vids of it on youtube) I point straight to the games coding.

There is something very wrong with the coding of this game. <tinfoil hat on> While Matt and his crew swear they completely did away with the HERO Engine I have a feeling they are slowly converting an already heavily modified version of it, and causing issues on the way. It would explain the HUGE patch sizes for seemingly small changes and the sudden drop in performance in certain areas, while increasing graphical fidelity in other areas. Not to mention many other little things that point to it, poor multithreading, the way the physics work in world etc etc. <tinfoil hat off>

GamerzElite

Suddenly FPS drop after patch 1.2.4. AMD FX 8350, R9 280x, 20 Gb Ram, Cooler Master Seidon 120V Cpu Cooler.

jrgray93

All good points again. Perhaps there is something going on that I am unaware of, but I also believe the different game situations we've all experienced are factoring in. There's just too many variables to account for.

But yeah, we're all on the same team, AMD or Intel. I just always assume by the time that future tech will be in place, there will be some other reason to upgrade to the latest and greatest. In this case, I feel like by the time enough games use those cores to warrant cores over IPC, there will be a much better option for me to buy into than what I have today. I'm actually more curious to see how the whole heterogeneous systems and reduced overhead thing plays out for AMD. They are heavily invested in their APUs these days. Some of the HSA-optimized benches I've seen have been really impressive, and Mantle is another interesting development that just isn't there yet.

We'll see. For now, I just hope they sort out ESO performance, but that seems like a massive undertaking, if not an impossible one. I don't know the specifics of their coding issues, but it is apparent that this game could run better than it currently does.

Until then, I enjoy discussions like this. I'm always out to learn more. It's something I really love doing. I have no formal IT education, but I am looking into changing that and moving into a career path that suits my interests. Being 21, I'd say it's a good time to get on that.

Oh, by the way, I know your motherboard as "Metro: Last Light; The Motherboard."

Armianlee

jrgray93 wrote: »

All good points again. Perhaps there is something going on that I am unaware of, but I also believe the different game situations we've all experienced are factoring in. There's just too many variables to account for.

But yeah, we're all on the same team, AMD or Intel. I just always assume by the time that future tech will be in place, there will be some other reason to upgrade to the latest and greatest. In this case, I feel like by the time enough games use those cores to warrant cores over IPC, there will be a much better option for me to buy into than what I have today. I'm actually more curious to see how the whole heterogeneous systems and reduced overhead thing plays out for AMD. They are heavily invested in their APUs these days. Some of the HSA-optimized benches I've seen have been really impressive, and Mantle is another interesting development that just isn't there yet.

We'll see. For now, I just hope they sort out ESO performance, but that seems like a massive undertaking, if not an impossible one. I don't know the specifics of their coding issues, but it is apparent that this game could run better than it currently does.

Until then, I enjoy discussions like this. I'm always out to learn more. It's something I really love doing. I have no formal IT education, but I am looking into changing that and moving into a career path that suits my interests. Being 21, I'd say it's a good time to get on that.

Oh, by the way, I know your motherboard as "Metro: Last Light; The Motherboard."

Well then... I guess I have a Metro Board. :P

I personally dislike the whole HSA approach that AMD is taking. It is also one of the reasons I switched (aside from the bottleneck theory). They need to get out the next generation of FX with improved IPC. (regardless of what I said about IPC vs Cores, both is better. Period.) It is what they need to force Intel into actually doing something instead of this stupid refresh they did, you can bet your ass that Broadwell would be out today if AMD was pushing themselves. Intel will be more than happy to keep things at a snails pace and crank prices up or slightly tweak existing chips, if AMD cannot (or in this case it seems like will not) keep producing in the Enthusiast market. The whole bloody market will be come either stagnant or vastly overpriced.

APU's are well and good... but we enthusiasts hardly use inferior graphics. :P

reggielee

Processor: AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1100T Processor (6 CPUs), ~3.3GH
Memory: 8192MB RAM
Card name: AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series


occasional combat hangups and freezing, otherwise smooth sailing on ultra settings

ggray3ub17_ESO

It has been awesome in 3D using 2 SLI'd GTX980s into a 84" LG 4KTV I was getting 60fps with 4K over HDMI 2.0 (and YUV 4:4:4 color). However since the V6 update to ESO last week it just crashes in 3D ... so bummed. I tried going back to 2D but it's not the same.

Paulington

I am running:

Windows 8.1 64-bit with 144Hz monitor at 1920 x 1080.
Intel i7-4930k @ 4.65GHz (all six cores).
2x GTX780 in SLi on stock clocks.
16GB G.Skill DDR3 1833 MHz RAM.
Game is installed on a 1TB Samsung 840 EVO.

In the world solo questing I am almost always at my 144 FPS cap, very rarely do I drop below 100 FPS. Maintain 60-100 FPS in cities depending on how busy it is. I have all video settings in game set to maximum.

The issue I have is bloody BSODs with overclock errors (WHEA timeouts). Thing is it is not a problem with my overclock as my overclock is 100% stable for hours and days on P95/LinX with not a single issue at all on any other game but if I run my CPU over 4.5GHz and play ESO I get OC-related BSODs almost every 15-30 minutes. For now I just drop my overclock using AXTU to 4.5GHz when playing ESO and that essentially solves the issue entirely but I would really like to not have to do that. There's no reason for it in my setup so there must be something unique in the way ESO utilises the CPU (Terribly, I might add. A hex-core CPU with twelve (12) logical cores and ESO utilises one at ~70% and another at ~25%, nothing else essentially, really.) that causes it to hate high overclocks especially on Ivy-E CPUs.

For what it's worth other than the above the game runs great but my setup isn't exactly average. My girlfriend runs an old i7-860 with a GTX770 and 16GB of 1833 MHz DDR3 off a Crucial SSD and with settings on maximum still averages ~45-55 FPS so the game really isn't that demanding on either CPU or GPU(s).

Cyrodiil though? Man, all bets are off there.

Kuro1n

Intel i5 4690k, 16gb ram and Sapphire R9 290x Tri-x.

Running minimum I get down to maybe 30fps in mass pvp, on high settings 25fps in mass pvp.

starkerealm

I7 920 @ 2.7ghz.
NVidia GTX 650 Ti 2gb

On Minimum settings, I see framerates as low as 7, with a normal framerate of 40. On High (with shadows and reflections on low, and some settings disabled) I have a normal framerate of about 28, and see periodic drops to around 3.

Garbrac

I7 3770k OC to 4.2Ghz
GeForce 680

No issues, on Ultra i run at a cap of 60 frames with Vsync on. Without vSync I run at 100. When streaming I still have 60 FPS

Troneon

i5-3570k @ 3.4ghz
250GB SSD
8GB 1600 DDR3
2GB GTX 670

Max settings at 1080p, no issues at all, I even run an ESO enhanced graphics launcher and sweet FX on top of that and still no performance issues.

AlayneStone

i5 and dual 980's, playing on highest settings in 4k.... play's great in Pve but not so good in large battles in pvp

Inactive Account

Running EVGA 690 (Overclocked with PrecisionX) and Intel 1-7 2600k @ 4.8Ghz overclock. Custom water cooled. 16GB of ram

5990 x 1200 Resolution. Custom settings in game (like one tick below Ultra High settings, but with full field of view and max distance of view and max particle density). Average Fps in open areas 60, in busy towns 50

I "Unlocked/Unparked all cores" previous to 1.6 because I had issues with game play where I would encounter delays in rendering while traveling. There would be a short but noticeable studer going from area to area. (unlocking/unparking all cores fixed that issue). Pretty sure ESO only utilizes one core.

Since 1.6 I have had more Gpu Black screen issues than ever before. I have lowered the Overclock on my Gpu and it does seem to of slowed the crash frequency, but not eliminated it.