PTS and multicore?

profundidob16_ESO

personman_145 wrote: »

From the 4.0.1 notes:

Improved issues with framerate hitching when running through larger areas (such as cities) on quad-core or better PCs and consoles.
Improved multithreading usage on quad-core PCs.
Improved the framerate stability when spending a lot of time in the same zone.

Now that you mention this...I recreated my 2 chars yesterday and took one for a trip overland and indeed I didn't experience that stalling bug (massive fps drop and game hangs for 1-2 sec) so far. looks like the patch might have fixed that

framerate was pretty stable and good. 85-100 fps steady in the start area of summerset where all new chars spawn and an effortless 140-165fps in places with no people.

That's with max settings for all settings except "water reflection" which I set to low (helps boost fps as the dev suggested) and view distance I set to 60

personman_145

I don't know if it's mostly in my head, but Shimerene seems a lot smoother FPS wise. With water reflection on low (which I set since the dev posted before), most of the time I get over 60fps, often over 70. Just started testing now though. I might test some areas that gave me trouble before.

This is on a fairly old system too, i5-3570k.

infraction2008b16_ESO

Wondering what's the verdict after the patch as I've killed my Ryzen 1600 (broke some pins on it while performing maintenance new 2600 arriving tomorrow though).

Can someone do a video run through of some towns like I did with the overlay showing core usage?

HuawaSepp

infraction2008b16_ESO wrote: »

Wondering what's the verdict after the patch as I've killed my Ryzen 1600 (broke some pins on it while performing maintenance new 2600 arriving tomorrow though).

Can someone do a video run through of some towns like I did with the overlay showing core usage?

and all the people that are in the towns?
where should i pick them up

without all the people the cpu usage is low

infraction2008b16_ESO

HuawaSepp wrote: »

infraction2008b16_ESO wrote: »

Wondering what's the verdict after the patch as I've killed my Ryzen 1600 (broke some pins on it while performing maintenance new 2600 arriving tomorrow though).

Can someone do a video run through of some towns like I did with the overlay showing core usage?

and all the people that are in the towns?
where should i pick them up

without all the people the cpu usage is low

A place where people are is obviously preferred but not necessary, a lot of towns will be a bottleneck by themselves due to buildings, objects & NPC's.

Abah's Landing is a good place if the Summerset towns are empty.

personman_145

infraction2008b16_ESO wrote: »

HuawaSepp wrote: »

infraction2008b16_ESO wrote: »

Wondering what's the verdict after the patch as I've killed my Ryzen 1600 (broke some pins on it while performing maintenance new 2600 arriving tomorrow though).

Can someone do a video run through of some towns like I did with the overlay showing core usage?

and all the people that are in the towns?
where should i pick them up

without all the people the cpu usage is low

A place where people are is obviously preferred but not necessary, a lot of towns will be a bottleneck by themselves due to buildings, objects & NPC's.

Abah's Landing is a good place if the Summerset towns are empty.

Wouldn't videos of towns in summerset violate the NDA?

I modified my frame cap, because now I hit the 100fps cap in dungeons it seems.

Mystrius_Archaion

ZOS_AlexTardif wrote: »

PS: Pro tip, if you have a good GPU and have all your settings maxed but want higher performance, change your Reflection Quality to Low instead of Medium or High. "Low" reflections are actually using screen-space reflections, rather than heavy-duty planar reflections. Planar reflections are more accurate, but they're far harder on the CPU, whereas screen space reflections are almost entirely a GPU operation and should lighten the load on your CPU quite a bit.

Now this is something I can't remember any other developer ever telling us players for their game, but I really really like it!
This is something we could use for all settings that have behind the scenes quirks. Tell us how they work to let us optimize better on our systems.

Thank you @ZOS_AlexTardif

Mystrius_Archaion

radiostar wrote: »

Now that I see what AlexT wrote, I'm waiting for the next iteration of the PTS. I only had one crash with the current one
(I used the crash report for Z to see it). But it seemed like the game was running worse than live. Could be my cpu though
(i7-6700, which is an older chip).

I'm on a 5 year old plus Core i3. Your CPU is fine. The crashes are not that common even for me.

Mystrius_Archaion

profundidob16_ESO wrote: »

personman_145 wrote: »

From the 4.0.1 notes:

Improved issues with framerate hitching when running through larger areas (such as cities) on quad-core or better PCs and consoles.
Improved multithreading usage on quad-core PCs.
Improved the framerate stability when spending a lot of time in the same zone.

Now that you mention this...I recreated my 2 chars yesterday and took one for a trip overland and indeed I didn't experience that stalling bug (massive fps drop and game hangs for 1-2 sec) so far. looks like the patch might have fixed that

framerate was pretty stable and good. 85-100 fps steady in the start area of summerset where all new chars spawn and an effortless 140-165fps in places with no people.

That's with max settings for all settings except "water reflection" which I set to low (helps boost fps as the dev suggested) and view distance I set to 60

I find it funny that anybody describes 140-165fps as "effortless".

I honestly, if I had the PC power you do, would limit it to 60fps hard limit if I can.
Why? You're pushing the graphics card harder than it needs to be pushed because you can't visually see that many frames per second. If it was constantly smooth, the human eye couldn't determine any difference between 45 of 60fps and anything above. I would link the study if I could but I read it years ago so I have no clue where the link is or even if it is on this same PC.
FYI, movies tend to be around 30fps, even those super HDBluRay ones, but nobody notices issues with them. We only notice issues if the fps drops by 15fps or more, from the above mentioned study, which actually happens much more often when you push them as high as you possibly can.

I've had overheated graphics cards before, mainly when I had a laptop for gaming years ago, and it just kept dropping lower and lower in fps. You're just asking for shorter life to your hardware.

Everybody just wants higher numbers, but what if you literally had 1000fps? Your eye takes something like 0.2 seconds to blink. That means you would lose 200 frames in the blink of an eye, literally. Magicians move their hands "faster than the eye can see" to perform many tricks.
We're just not built for the frames per second you're running at.


Edit:
Also, you want your fps setting to match your tv/monitor refresh rate to avoid any potential tearing. Even with Gsync and Freesync monitors, you want the fps capped at the max refresh rate of the monitor. Anything above is completely wasted anyway and anything below can result in blank screen frames for non-Gsync/non-Freesync monitors.

Mystrius_Archaion

personman_145 wrote: »

infraction2008b16_ESO wrote: »

HuawaSepp wrote: »

infraction2008b16_ESO wrote: »

Wondering what's the verdict after the patch as I've killed my Ryzen 1600 (broke some pins on it while performing maintenance new 2600 arriving tomorrow though).

Can someone do a video run through of some towns like I did with the overlay showing core usage?

and all the people that are in the towns?
where should i pick them up

without all the people the cpu usage is low

A place where people are is obviously preferred but not necessary, a lot of towns will be a bottleneck by themselves due to buildings, objects & NPC's.

Abah's Landing is a good place if the Summerset towns are empty.

Wouldn't videos of towns in summerset violate the NDA?

I modified my frame cap, because now I hit the 100fps cap in dungeons it seems.

Only the main quest is behind the NDA. Everything else is open.

personman_145

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

radiostar wrote: »

Now that I see what AlexT wrote, I'm waiting for the next iteration of the PTS. I only had one crash with the current one
(I used the crash report for Z to see it). But it seemed like the game was running worse than live. Could be my cpu though
(i7-6700, which is an older chip).

I'm on a 5 year old plus Core i3. Your CPU is fine. The crashes are not that common even for me.

I'm on a 5+ year old i5-3570k, and my CPU is (or at least was) the bottleneck. They improved multicore, I use less CPU intensive reflections, and my frames went through the roof as did my perception of smoothness. Once I perform my cpu upgrade, I'll probably switch reflections back to high.

Also the idea that we can't differentiate higher than 60fps went out the window long ago. I switched from a 60hz to a 144hz monitor, and the difference is obvious just minimizing and maximizing a window, let alone actually playing a game.

I hit 144fps easily in Doom w/ Vulkan. Maybe the difference isn't obvious for the average user, but enthusiast gamers can probably tell, we know what to look for.

If a graphics card can't handle being pushed, then it shouldn't be purchased, imo. I wouldn't buy a gaming laptop. I game on my desktop. I use my laptop for surfing and some web work.

Just some thoughts.

MLGProPlayer

profundidob16_ESO wrote: »

personman_145 wrote: »

From the 4.0.1 notes:

Improved issues with framerate hitching when running through larger areas (such as cities) on quad-core or better PCs and consoles.
Improved multithreading usage on quad-core PCs.
Improved the framerate stability when spending a lot of time in the same zone.

Now that you mention this...I recreated my 2 chars yesterday and took one for a trip overland and indeed I didn't experience that stalling bug (massive fps drop and game hangs for 1-2 sec) so far. looks like the patch might have fixed that

framerate was pretty stable and good. 85-100 fps steady in the start area of summerset where all new chars spawn and an effortless 140-165fps in places with no people.

That's with max settings for all settings except "water reflection" which I set to low (helps boost fps as the dev suggested) and view distance I set to 60

60 view distance is very low and won't give you an accurate idea of any performance improvements with this patch. You could lower view distance on live right now to 60 and get the same FPS (it's always been the biggest FPS killer).

Mystrius_Archaion

personman_145 wrote: »

Also the idea that we can't differentiate higher than 60fps went out the window long ago. I switched from a 60hz to a 144hz monitor, and the difference is obvious just minimizing and maximizing a window, let alone actually playing a game.

You misunderstoood.

The human eye cannot perceive any gap in frames between smooth uninterrupted video footage at 60fps versus anything higher.

You notice a difference on your higher refresh rate monitor, especially when minimizing and maximizing a window, because you are causing a frame rate jump of 15 fps or more, like dropping from 140 to 120 and back up to 140fps.
By the way, super high refresh rates are a scam just like the artificially inflated contrast ratios.

PC Gamer: How many frames per second can the human eye really see?

What framerates can we really see?
“Certainly 60 Hz is better than 30 Hz, demonstrably better,” Busey says. So that’s one internet claim quashed. And since we can perceive motion at a higher rate than we can a 60 Hz flickering light source, the level should be higher than that, but he won’t stand by a number. “Whether that plateaus at 120 Hz or whether you get an additional boost up to 180 Hz, I just don’t know.”

“I think typically, once you get up above 200 fps it just looks like regular, real-life motion,” DeLong says. But in more regular terms he feels that the drop-off in people being able to detect changes in smoothness in a screen lies at around 90Hz. “Sure, aficionados might be able to tell teeny tiny differences, but for the rest of us it’s like red wine is red wine.”

And that's just one expert and a small snippet of the document, but the point stands that as long as the fps is constant we will be highly unlikely to even notice any issues or difference.

Mystrius_Archaion

personman_145 wrote: »

If a graphics card can't handle being pushed, then it shouldn't be purchased, imo.

They all can't handle it at some point. You're running at full tilt.
It's like you running a marathon sprinting the entire way. You're going to drop dead in that marathon before the end, just depends on where. The faster you run the shorter the distance you go. It's about a balance between speed and stamina, which is why marathons aren't actually "run" and instead are almost walking speed at about 4-5mph when Olympic sprinters can do over 20mph.

Graphics cards do suffer heat damage from those high temperatures, which register in degrees celsius FYI, during operation. 70C is pretty damn hot. 100C is boiling water.
You should be trying to aim for the lowest temperature while getting as good visuals as you can to maximize your enjoyment for as long as possible.


But, my point is moot if you have money to blow on a new graphics card every 6 months. You can try to render the actual planet at 500fps with that and it would be ok for you spending $1000 to replace the top end card you have every 6 months.

personman_145

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

personman_145 wrote: »

Also the idea that we can't differentiate higher than 60fps went out the window long ago. I switched from a 60hz to a 144hz monitor, and the difference is obvious just minimizing and maximizing a window, let alone actually playing a game.

You misunderstoood.

The human eye cannot perceive any gap in frames between smooth uninterrupted video footage at 60fps versus anything higher.

You notice a difference on your higher refresh rate monitor, especially when minimizing and maximizing a window, because you are causing a frame rate jump of 15 fps or more, like dropping from 140 to 120 and back up to 140fps.
By the way, super high refresh rates are a scam just like the artificially inflated contrast ratios.

PC Gamer: How many frames per second can the human eye really see?

What framerates can we really see?
“Certainly 60 Hz is better than 30 Hz, demonstrably better,” Busey says. So that’s one internet claim quashed. And since we can perceive motion at a higher rate than we can a 60 Hz flickering light source, the level should be higher than that, but he won’t stand by a number. “Whether that plateaus at 120 Hz or whether you get an additional boost up to 180 Hz, I just don’t know.”

“I think typically, once you get up above 200 fps it just looks like regular, real-life motion,” DeLong says. But in more regular terms he feels that the drop-off in people being able to detect changes in smoothness in a screen lies at around 90Hz. “Sure, aficionados might be able to tell teeny tiny differences, but for the rest of us it’s like red wine is red wine.”

And that's just one expert and a small snippet of the document, but the point stands that as long as the fps is constant we will be highly unlikely to even notice any issues or difference.

Your own expert is saying we can tell up to 200fps. I wouldn't even go that far. It's not about the jump with minimizing and maximizing, it's about perceived smoothness. I doubt I'll look for a monitor above 144hz though.

Also, what jump if I'm constantly at 144hz?

Mystrius_Archaion

personman_145 wrote: »

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

personman_145 wrote: »

Also the idea that we can't differentiate higher than 60fps went out the window long ago. I switched from a 60hz to a 144hz monitor, and the difference is obvious just minimizing and maximizing a window, let alone actually playing a game.

You misunderstoood.

The human eye cannot perceive any gap in frames between smooth uninterrupted video footage at 60fps versus anything higher.

You notice a difference on your higher refresh rate monitor, especially when minimizing and maximizing a window, because you are causing a frame rate jump of 15 fps or more, like dropping from 140 to 120 and back up to 140fps.
By the way, super high refresh rates are a scam just like the artificially inflated contrast ratios.

PC Gamer: How many frames per second can the human eye really see?

What framerates can we really see?
“Certainly 60 Hz is better than 30 Hz, demonstrably better,” Busey says. So that’s one internet claim quashed. And since we can perceive motion at a higher rate than we can a 60 Hz flickering light source, the level should be higher than that, but he won’t stand by a number. “Whether that plateaus at 120 Hz or whether you get an additional boost up to 180 Hz, I just don’t know.”

“I think typically, once you get up above 200 fps it just looks like regular, real-life motion,” DeLong says. But in more regular terms he feels that the drop-off in people being able to detect changes in smoothness in a screen lies at around 90Hz. “Sure, aficionados might be able to tell teeny tiny differences, but for the rest of us it’s like red wine is red wine.”

And that's just one expert and a small snippet of the document, but the point stands that as long as the fps is constant we will be highly unlikely to even notice any issues or difference.

Your own expert is saying we can tell up to 200fps. I wouldn't even go that far. It's not about the jump with minimizing and maximizing, it's about perceived smoothness. I doubt I'll look for a monitor above 144hz though.

Read farther. I suggest you read the source link even.

And you are correct, it is about perceived smoothness. And most people, who aren't trying to inflate their own ego, are incapable of noticing a difference so long as the fps remains constant.

You are also still hard limited by your monitor in how much fps you can get.
Also if you didn't know, there is a reason we have 30 fps and 60fps and 90 and 120 for most monitors and TVs. That is caused by the frequency of US power distribution in hertz. Anything off those multiples will see artifacts, so 144hz is not ideal.

personman_145

My gtx 1060 runs very cool. My old 770 could heat a room by itself. If your card can't handle being maxed, maybe you didn't buy a good card.

Mystrius_Archaion

personman_145 wrote: »

My gtx 1060 runs very cool. My old 770 could heat a room by itself. If your card can't handle being maxed, maybe you didn't buy a good card.

Ok, it's not about "handling it right now".

How long do you expect to have that card last before you replace it?
It may have a shorter life than you expect with it constantly being pushed and heated to the point that the circuit board is physically damaged. And by the way, that point where physical damage occurs is not always higher on newer cards since everything gets smaller with electronics and thus less surface area to dissipate heat.
The effect is also cumulative, not one time only. You may keep it at 60C consistent but it may crash faster than the card that was 40C mostly with short times up to 80C.

I'm just talking about the life of your graphics card. Heat is the enemy of electronics. You want as cool as possible, even at the expense of visuals. Because if it heats too much or for too long then those visuals will degrade due to the physical components of the card degrading. Then you have to replace it to get the visuals back up.

Mystrius_Archaion

personman_145 wrote: »

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

personman_145 wrote: »

Also the idea that we can't differentiate higher than 60fps went out the window long ago. I switched from a 60hz to a 144hz monitor, and the difference is obvious just minimizing and maximizing a window, let alone actually playing a game.

You misunderstoood.

The human eye cannot perceive any gap in frames between smooth uninterrupted video footage at 60fps versus anything higher.

You notice a difference on your higher refresh rate monitor, especially when minimizing and maximizing a window, because you are causing a frame rate jump of 15 fps or more, like dropping from 140 to 120 and back up to 140fps.
By the way, super high refresh rates are a scam just like the artificially inflated contrast ratios.

PC Gamer: How many frames per second can the human eye really see?

What framerates can we really see?
“Certainly 60 Hz is better than 30 Hz, demonstrably better,” Busey says. So that’s one internet claim quashed. And since we can perceive motion at a higher rate than we can a 60 Hz flickering light source, the level should be higher than that, but he won’t stand by a number. “Whether that plateaus at 120 Hz or whether you get an additional boost up to 180 Hz, I just don’t know.”

“I think typically, once you get up above 200 fps it just looks like regular, real-life motion,” DeLong says. But in more regular terms he feels that the drop-off in people being able to detect changes in smoothness in a screen lies at around 90Hz. “Sure, aficionados might be able to tell teeny tiny differences, but for the rest of us it’s like red wine is red wine.”

And that's just one expert and a small snippet of the document, but the point stands that as long as the fps is constant we will be highly unlikely to even notice any issues or difference.

Also, what jump if I'm constantly at 144hz?

It's not constant 144hz when you minimize the game and maximize it.

1) You're causing a total screen refresh, nothing the GPU can just pull from RAM. It has to re-render so momentary load is higher causing FPS to drop until load stabilizes when you have the game back up.

2) The desktop renders different than the game. In fact, every program uses the CPU and GPU differently and uses different frame rates. So dropping to desktop and back or to another program and back can cause issues.
This is one reason why many graphics card driver programs allow you to determine if the rendering settings are "application controlled" or set for all applications in that driver software.


And everything I have said is why console players are unable to change most graphics settings. The developers optimized it to run the smoothest possible with the least damage to the hardware, because nobody wants to have a crap game performance or have to buy a new console.

personman_145

I wasn't talking about minimizing and maximizing the game, I was talking about firefox, or explorer, any window. I can clearly see a difference between 60hz and 144hz. How about we just end this? We're spamming up what was a good thread.

Mystrius_Archaion

Well, think of it like shifting gears in your car, or the automatic transmission doing it for you. Also, if you have the tachometer pegged in the red for long enough the engine will blow.
That's what you are doing to your graphics card if you have it being used at 100% and temps get high.

But I am done after this post because you won't see it until you have to replace your graphics card because of performance getting worse, especially if it is sooner than you expected to need to.

personman_145

If you are running ANY game, and getting less fps than your refresh rate, you are either maxing your CPU or GPU. The good ones are made to handle it. My 770 works still after several years and ran hot like it was a fermi. Your explanations just come off as kinda condescending. I'm not new to the tech game. I don't need to think of it as redlining an engine, I can think of it as a gfx card. There are a lot things wrong with that analogy. Redlining an engine would be more like overclocking the card too far.

Zymcio

Hello,

i maded some test and with patch 4.0.1 it is better.

First what i saw in most places with some people my GPU is using 90-99% what gives me like 85 FPS stabel before was like 50-60 fps and GPU was max 65% it is a boost.

Ofc it is hard to say cuz most ppl are in summerset city. I will need to wait for live client.

Summary
- City looks like boost is ok 60+ fps
- Open world / solo play 60+ fps
- Dungeons most time 60+ fps
- PvP no idea
- Trails no idea

Notebook spec
i7-7700hq @2.8 GHz
GTX 1050Ti

profundidob16_ESO

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

profundidob16_ESO wrote: »

personman_145 wrote: »

From the 4.0.1 notes:

Improved issues with framerate hitching when running through larger areas (such as cities) on quad-core or better PCs and consoles.
Improved multithreading usage on quad-core PCs.
Improved the framerate stability when spending a lot of time in the same zone.

Now that you mention this...I recreated my 2 chars yesterday and took one for a trip overland and indeed I didn't experience that stalling bug (massive fps drop and game hangs for 1-2 sec) so far. looks like the patch might have fixed that

framerate was pretty stable and good. 85-100 fps steady in the start area of summerset where all new chars spawn and an effortless 140-165fps in places with no people.

That's with max settings for all settings except "water reflection" which I set to low (helps boost fps as the dev suggested) and view distance I set to 60

60 view distance is very low and won't give you an accurate idea of any performance improvements with this patch. You could lower view distance on live right now to 60 and get the same FPS (it's always been the biggest FPS killer).

good point, it was my automatic response from live that kicked in. I'll put it back to max and test that way. Thx for the reminder

profundidob16_ESO

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

profundidob16_ESO wrote: »

personman_145 wrote: »

From the 4.0.1 notes:

Improved issues with framerate hitching when running through larger areas (such as cities) on quad-core or better PCs and consoles.
Improved multithreading usage on quad-core PCs.
Improved the framerate stability when spending a lot of time in the same zone.

Now that you mention this...I recreated my 2 chars yesterday and took one for a trip overland and indeed I didn't experience that stalling bug (massive fps drop and game hangs for 1-2 sec) so far. looks like the patch might have fixed that

framerate was pretty stable and good. 85-100 fps steady in the start area of summerset where all new chars spawn and an effortless 140-165fps in places with no people.

That's with max settings for all settings except "water reflection" which I set to low (helps boost fps as the dev suggested) and view distance I set to 60

I find it funny that anybody describes 140-165fps as "effortless".

I honestly, if I had the PC power you do, would limit it to 60fps hard limit if I can.
Why? You're pushing the graphics card harder than it needs to be pushed because you can't visually see that many frames per second. If it was constantly smooth, the human eye couldn't determine any difference between 45 of 60fps and anything above. I would link the study if I could but I read it years ago so I have no clue where the link is or even if it is on this same PC.
FYI, movies tend to be around 30fps, even those super HDBluRay ones, but nobody notices issues with them. We only notice issues if the fps drops by 15fps or more, from the above mentioned study, which actually happens much more often when you push them as high as you possibly can.

I've had overheated graphics cards before, mainly when I had a laptop for gaming years ago, and it just kept dropping lower and lower in fps. You're just asking for shorter life to your hardware.

Everybody just wants higher numbers, but what if you literally had 1000fps? Your eye takes something like 0.2 seconds to blink. That means you would lose 200 frames in the blink of an eye, literally. Magicians move their hands "faster than the eye can see" to perform many tricks.
We're just not built for the frames per second you're running at.


Edit:
Also, you want your fps setting to match your tv/monitor refresh rate to avoid any potential tearing. Even with Gsync and Freesync monitors, you want the fps capped at the max refresh rate of the monitor. Anything above is completely wasted anyway and anything below can result in blank screen frames for non-Gsync/non-Freesync monitors.

sorry but I'm not taking the bait This dead horse has been beaten over and over in the past years in many games on numerous forums in debates. That party is long over though and if the fps gaming community would read your comment they would have a field day I assure you.

In short:

-yes my monitor supports 165hz g-sync
-yes I clearly see, notice and FEEL a difference above 60fps that makes it impossible to go back to my 4K 60hz monitor
-no my graphics card during 165fps doesn't go any higher than 70% load at it's highest peak and mostly hovers around 50% usage all the time
-no I have no interest in meaningless higher numbers
-no my custom watercooled graphics card never exceeds 49° celsius (fyi it idles at 28° celsius) gpu temperature during 165fps which is a joke considering they can handle up to 90°
-no I don't have any tearing at all since the g-sync module in my monitor supports up to 165hz. It's buttersmooth in fact
-yes I'm lucky enough to have a bleeding edge machine and apologize if that offended you somehow or triggered you into your reponse
-yes I have a clue of what I'm saying and doing after over 20 years professional experience in custom hardware and performance testing
-no I don't mean you any harm or disrepect. Just trying to stop this derailing which is irrelevant to the devs and other people reading this thread


please guys let's not derail and litter this informational thread by dragging the irrelevant dead horse subject into it. If you can't resist the urge, please take it into a separate thread or private discussion. In other words @Mystrius_Archaion please don't start the derail as it's clickbait and @personman_145 please don't take the bait, even when you're right and correct on the subject.

I invite you both to get back on track and keep this thread about multicore experiences and feedback on pts

HuawaSepp

I think the average fps we could see are 500 and peaks go up to 1000, so you're all fine with heating up your cards
And btw you can't destroy your card if you know what you're doing.
I can say that as an owner of an aircooled powercolor radeon rx vega 64 with powertarget at +50% and a tdp of 390 watts

danno8

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

Also if you didn't know, there is a reason we have 30 fps and 60fps and 90 and 120 for most monitors and TVs. That is caused by the frequency of US power distribution in hertz. Anything off those multiples will see artifacts, so 144hz is not ideal.

Electronic equipment typically convert that AC power to a smooth DC current using a power supply. Otherwise your computer would simply not function at all since your CPU (amongst other components) wouldn't do so well with a gap in power 60 times per second.

I am actually one of only a few people I know that when LED light bulbs first came out I had a strange feeling that the whole room was "strobing" when I would move my eyes from side to side, or just pan my head. The reason was LED bulbs are so responsive to turn off and on compared to the slow burn of old tungsten bulbs that I could actually see the 60HZ strobing pattern.

LED Christmas light also always looked fuzzy, like they were vibrating to me. Most people thought I was crazy.

Fortunately today the better bulbs have a built in little buffer circuit to bridge the current gap between AC pulses at 60HZ.

I wonder at what point I wouldn't be able to see that strobing anymore with a cheap LED bulb?

Sicsoo

seriously we're now to "led christmas lights"?

this thread is about giving feedbak about the cpu improvements, if you didn't test the latest build or wanna share your opinion on THAT, leave the thread.

Zymcio wrote: »

Summary
- City looks like boost is ok 60+ fps
- Open world / solo play 60+ fps
- Dungeons most time 60+ fps
- PvP no idea
- Trails no idea

Notebook spec
i7-7700hq @2.8 GHz
GTX 1050Ti

what's your usual graphics settings for shadows and stuff?

Zymcio

@Sicsoo

I have same settings live and PTS

1. In ini file i only changed:

SET MinFrameTime.2 "0.00000000"
SET MaxCoresToUse "4" (PTS name is a little different)
SET RequestedNumJobThreads "4"
SET RequestedNumWorkerThreads "4"
SET HIGH_RESOLUTION_SHADOWS "0"

2. In game

Display Mode (Windowed Fullscreen)
Vertical Sync - OFF
Anti-Aliasing - ON

Texture - High
SubS - High
Shadow - low
Water - off

Max Par Sys - left it will be like 768
Par supp - left will be like 35
View Distance - 50

below u have some options all on except last one with effect from others players

I am not at home can post later my config.

All test i maded with msi afterburn - best case is to run dungeon in PTS and same dungeon on live.

infraction2008b16_ESO

Meh maybe next patch: