60% more FPS with a Nvidia GPU

Vapirko

LeagueTroll wrote: »

Yet i get 30 fps with a gtx1070, gpu never even reached 30% load playing eso.

@LeagueTroll Sounds like your power settings aren’t set to performance or something. I’ve got a 1070 in a laptop and do about 60-80fps normally. Only gets down to 25-30 in PvP battles. Or maybe your user settings file is screwy or you need to rebuild the shaded file.

SirAndy

NocturnalSonata wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

NocturnalSonata wrote: »

eso is single thread cpu bound

ESO is *not* single thread. That's just plain wrong ...

Yeah, poor choice of word order for me... what i meant to indicate is that your Cpu clock is far more important than number of cores/threads e.g having 8 cores at 4.2 is not as good as 4 cores at 5.0. Th eonly way to see any performance increase in eso is through higher single core speed. My Gpu is hardly doing any of the heavy lifting.

That i can get behind ...

NewBlacksmurf

There’s an old official comment from staff pointing out GPU isn’t going to change much. This was maybe just a year back.

Focus on CPU , SSD HD and ram instead

Mordors

Merlight wrote: »

Mordors wrote: »

SET MinFrameTime.2 "0.00000001"

Wouldn't setting it to "0.008" be a better advice? What good is rendering frames that noone will see?

i did not make the calculation tbh i only know the lower that number is more the limit becomes so i was like meh 1 is enough ....

i really doubt any1 will get over 300+ FPS unless people running their first core in 7.5 Ghz with liquid nitrogen paired with 2080 Ti

Merlight

kojou wrote: »

I am getting higher frames at a higher resolution, and higher details, but the gpu is showing 40% and my CPU never goes above 30%.

It would be interesting to know what the bottleneck actually is.

It's CPU. GPU runs small pieces of code in thousands of threads in parallel. CPU has only a handful of active threads, and the tasks they perform are not as easily parallelizable.

Simplified example using silly numbers for illustration:

Let's say the client needs to do some work that would take 100ms on a single core, and we have four cores. That doesn't immediately translate to the ability to complete that work in 25ms real time, with 100% CPU utilization.

Game client needs to do a bunch of different tasks on the CPU, and it's difficult to distribute the work evenly among how many cores you have. For example all Lua UI handlers run in sequence. Drawing UI elements can only start after all the handlers have finished. It's a sequence of dependent tasks, which cannot run in parallel (unless you rewrite the whole thing to not be sequential). You usually end up with one sequence of tasks that's longer than any of the sequences you've off-loaded to other threads.

Continuing with the example, let's say from that 100ms work we off-loaded 30ms worth evenly to 3 other threads. So we end up with 1 thread running for 70ms, and 3 threads running for 10ms and idling for 60ms. If these 4 threads were directly mapped to CPU cores, we would see 100% load on one core, and 14% load on three other cores (running 10ms out of 70ms).

Here's where the operating system steps in, and migrates the busy thread to idling cores to help with cooling -- so for the first 10ms all four threads run in parallel, collectively doing 40ms of work, but the remaining 60ms of work is a sequence running in 1 thread; although not on a single core, they take turns, like each one doing 15ms work and 45ms idling. So the whole 100ms worth of work is completed in 70ms, and you'll see about 35% CPU load because each core was running for 25ms out of those 70ms. Seeing CPU load evenly distributed among all cores doesn't mean the application itself distributes its work among threads evenly.

Drachenfier

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

skiidzman wrote: »

HuawaSepp wrote: »

I did a lot of testing with a friend and only the use of a nvidia card instead of an amd card was improving fps by 60%.
AMD GPU users are still in a bad spot.
The implementation of Vulcan (not a lazy DX12 implementation) would help a lot.

I'll never buy AMD again, the majority of games do not support it like NVIDIA.

There will be someone who replies to this comment saying "harhar you are wrong, derpyderp, wickywicky" but trust me, I've done my research, built many builds, and tested the crap out of games.

NVIDIA and Intel will win that debate.

One of the most uneducated posts I've ever read on the internet.

I agree with him, been PC gaming since 1999. I'd never take an AMD over Nvidia.

skiidzman

PapaWeeb wrote: »

skiidzman wrote: »

HuawaSepp wrote: »

I did a lot of testing with a friend and only the use of a nvidia card instead of an amd card was improving fps by 60%.
AMD GPU users are still in a bad spot.
The implementation of Vulcan (not a lazy DX12 implementation) would help a lot.

I'll never buy AMD again, the majority of games do not support it like NVIDIA.

There will be someone who replies to this comment saying "harhar you are wrong, derpyderp, wickywicky" but trust me, I've done my research, built many builds, and tested the crap out of games.

NVIDIA and Intel will win that debate.

clueless

Yeah, the guy who posts "clueless" and no rebuttal sure sounds like the clueless one.

You are upset you wasted money on AMD. It's cool, I did too at certain points. But my opinion still stands, overall NVIDIA and Intel are better, more widely supported by game developers, and while more expensive are way more reliable. I went down the cheaper AMD rabbit-hole and after 5 different high-end builds, never again. Nothing says performance like games not supporting your products equivalently to NVIDIA.

Davor

I am not understanding. Is this at full max settings or what? I only have a nVidia 960M. At max settings I get low FPS but changes a few settings and I am getting 30-60 FPS and I don't noticed the loss in quality.

So is this at max settings or what?

HuawaSepp

I

Davor wrote: »

I am not understanding. Is this at full max settings or what? I only have a nVidia 960M. At max settings I get low FPS but changes a few settings and I am getting 30-60 FPS and I don't noticed the loss in quality.

So is this at max settings or what?

I hope no one plays with everything maxed out.
Even with an i9-9900kf@5GHz you will drop below 60 fps in trials.
In other games I always aim for 144 fps.

Jagdkommando

SirAndy wrote: »

NocturnalSonata wrote: »

eso is single thread cpu bound

ESO is *not* single thread. That's just plain wrong ...

Please do your own research and after make a post, on Summerset release they told is game redesigned to use all cores, they lied to us and ZOS sucks as always

LeagueTroll

Vapirko wrote: »

LeagueTroll wrote: »

Yet i get 30 fps with a gtx1070, gpu never even reached 30% load playing eso.

@LeagueTroll Sounds like your power settings aren’t set to performance or something. I’ve got a 1070 in a laptop and do about 60-80fps normally. Only gets down to 25-30 in PvP battles. Or maybe your user settings file is screwy or you need to rebuild the shaded file.

My power supply is 650w, pretty sure it’s nuf. It’s zos’s code doesn’t use gpu much.

deepseamk20b14_ESO

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

I use a Vega 64 having overwritten all the settings, at 2560X1440 monitor, and have the same perf as you are.
With a 8600K @ 5Ghz overclock.

The game is CPU limited.

Definitely seems like the common consensus regarding the CPU.

Hopefully not much longer until I have time to do a good stable OC and see what more I can push. 5.0 is the goal. Later on see if I hit the silicon lottery and can hit 5.2.

I know in certain areas and dungeons I’m beyond 100 FPS but my monitor (Alienware AW3418) only goes to 100hz refresh. I’m actually pretty pissed off about it. I know the overclock to 120hz isn’t guaranteed, but it doesn’t even hit 110hz without screen flicker. The screen overall looks great and all but as soon as that ASUS wide screen with 240hz drops I’m selling the Alienware. Every time I look at it there is slight disappointment lol.

Kadoin

Pretty sure its not an AMD or Nvidia thing, but a CPU shadows, reflections, and lighting thing instead (all floating-point based).

It also seems like the game does not draw frames until it receives data from the server telling it what to draw (otherwise it would not look as smooth). That alone will have a heavy impact on FPS, and then network connectivity (like when many models appear in Cyrodiil), if they really have their thread priority setup that way and might be where they want to start optimization if that is the case.

russelmmendoza

I have a gtx970 256 bit 4gb.
100fps 1080p ultra high setting.

Its enough for me, coz I dont have a 4k tv.

Panomania

Running a 7800K CPU, 64 gig DDR4, fast SSD. Until recently I ran a gigabyte 1080 card, which got me 80 to 100 FPS, occasionally lower in Cyro, but pretty stable in that range. The problem? The card was a piece of crap, RMA'd several times.

Meanwhile a friend deployed overseas let me raid his tower and borrow his Sapphire VEGA 64. I paid 700 bucks for my 1080 when I got it, he got his 2 months after I got mine, paid nearly 300 less. Using his VEGA I got 70 to 90 fps, sometimes down to 40 in cyro, but rare. Only slightly slower, and to be honest not noticeable. But the texture detail on the VEGA? FAR superior to the 1080....noticeably so. In the end I got Giga to give me a credit on the card toward a new motherboard and bought a Sapphire vega 64 for 399 bucks. So far I am way happier with the Radeon.

Wife got a 580 vid card, replaced her 960. The 580 was a better card in every way (its actually on par with the 1060 but at a lower price point), and it was CHEAP (under $200). We also replaced her old I7 with a 1700X Ryzen, and its a damned strong CPU. It benchmarks on par with a I7 7700K (loses only in single core tests) but costs about 100 less.

AMD is fine. The Ryzen CPU's are competitive with the Intel but cost less. Ryzen CPU or AMD GPU dont run hot anymore. I was a DIE HARD Intel/Nvidia guy, but lately AMD has impressed me. If you claim they arent competing, you havent checked out AMD lately. In some categories, and some benchmarks, AMD is actually ahead.

After years of comparing both, and being disappointed with AMD, I have to admit I am impressed with the direction they are headed. If you look at the stats on options for both, without preconceived bias, pretty sure you will be too. I know I am interested in seeing what Zen2 and Navi bring to the table for gaming after game companies eventually optimize for them (which usually is 2 to 3 months after launch).

Sylvermynx

ryzen_gamer_gal wrote: »

Hyperion616 wrote: »

LeagueTroll wrote: »

Yet i get 30 fps with a gtx1070, gpu never even reached 30% load playing eso.

I have a 1080 Ti and Christ man, max settings and my fps jumps from 110 to 27 in some places. My latency sits at a constant 100 to 110 with highs reaching 170. I can't help but keep thinking these ESO servers are not located here in the states.

i believe i have been told previously that the na server is in texas.. and given the better performance i get on the eu server i'm guessing it is in virginia.

IIRC, EU servers are in Frankfurt DE.

HuawaSepp

Merlight wrote: »

kojou wrote: »

I am getting higher frames at a higher resolution, and higher details, but the gpu is showing 40% and my CPU never goes above 30%.

It would be interesting to know what the bottleneck actually is.

It's CPU. GPU runs small pieces of code in thousands of threads in parallel. CPU has only a handful of active threads, and the tasks they perform are not as easily parallelizable.

Simplified example using silly numbers for illustration:

Let's say the client needs to do some work that would take 100ms on a single core, and we have four cores. That doesn't immediately translate to the ability to complete that work in 25ms real time, with 100% CPU utilization.

Game client needs to do a bunch of different tasks on the CPU, and it's difficult to distribute the work evenly among how many cores you have. For example all Lua UI handlers run in sequence. Drawing UI elements can only start after all the handlers have finished. It's a sequence of dependent tasks, which cannot run in parallel (unless you rewrite the whole thing to not be sequential). You usually end up with one sequence of tasks that's longer than any of the sequences you've off-loaded to other threads.

Continuing with the example, let's say from that 100ms work we off-loaded 30ms worth evenly to 3 other threads. So we end up with 1 thread running for 70ms, and 3 threads running for 10ms and idling for 60ms. If these 4 threads were directly mapped to CPU cores, we would see 100% load on one core, and 14% load on three other cores (running 10ms out of 70ms).

Here's where the operating system steps in, and migrates the busy thread to idling cores to help with cooling -- so for the first 10ms all four threads run in parallel, collectively doing 40ms of work, but the remaining 60ms of work is a sequence running in 1 thread; although not on a single core, they take turns, like each one doing 15ms work and 45ms idling. So the whole 100ms worth of work is completed in 70ms, and you'll see about 35% CPU load because each core was running for 25ms out of those 70ms. Seeing CPU load evenly distributed among all cores doesn't mean the application itself distributes its work among threads evenly.

I quote your example in the main post.
I also hear this far too often.

MLGProPlayer

Drachenfier wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

skiidzman wrote: »

HuawaSepp wrote: »

I did a lot of testing with a friend and only the use of a nvidia card instead of an amd card was improving fps by 60%.
AMD GPU users are still in a bad spot.
The implementation of Vulcan (not a lazy DX12 implementation) would help a lot.

I'll never buy AMD again, the majority of games do not support it like NVIDIA.

There will be someone who replies to this comment saying "harhar you are wrong, derpyderp, wickywicky" but trust me, I've done my research, built many builds, and tested the crap out of games.

NVIDIA and Intel will win that debate.

One of the most uneducated posts I've ever read on the internet.

I agree with him, been PC gaming since 1999. I'd never take an AMD over Nvidia.

I've also been PC gaming since 1999 and I will always buy the best value components on the market at any given time. Fanboying for one company or another is how you end up wasting money on builds.

MikaHR

HuawaSepp wrote: »

MikaHR wrote: »

HuawaSepp wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

I'd also be interested to know which GPUs you compared. Were they ones of equivalent power?

(and does ESO have any company-dependant code in it? I know there have been plenty of games programmed to work better on one company's GPU's vs the other's.)



...dislaimer: I don't use high-end cards. I just upgraded my system to an RX 570, from the R9-270X 2GB that I'd been using for years. Never spent more than $175 for a new GPU. 60fps is nice, but not necessary for many games. Let alone 144.

I compared a Vega 64 (undervolted -150mv) and a RTX 2080. No company-dependant code.

Vega 64 $400
RTX2080 $800

Not even same class of GPUs....

My RX580 is 100% faster than GTX1050ti.

Its also 50+% faster than GTX970 i used to have....never nvidia again, soooooooooooooo many driver issues, no thanks.

And now Navi looks like its gonna make new one to nvidia, probably my next upgrade, "RTX" is the worst GPU in a decade, it barely competes with 3 years old GPUs and costs much more, its like someone slapped "stoopid" sticker all over nvidia...

If fps doesn't matter and you go for 4k+ resolution, it makes a difference if you buy a 200$, 400$ or 800$ card.
But if you are like me and always want at least 60+ fps in a trial or pvp, you can buy a GTX1050ti and get the same result as with a Titan Z.

For eso you want something like:

- Intel Core I9-9900KF (https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html)

- Dual channel, dual sided DDR4 RAM with 5000+ Mhz (and very low timings)

- AND a Nvidia GPU because yeah... They got a driver that can put the dx11 draw calls on 2 cpu cores. AND that will result in a 60% fps increase.

9900KF...complete waste of $$. Thats how i know youre just full of it, 8700k will outperform it for cheaper. Even 8600k. And they will otperform AMD RYyzen inly if you OC them over 5 GHz (which requires large investment in cooling, Intel CPUs run as hot as sun, a lot of people have a lot of issues with overheating ever since 7700k), and of course, large increase to your power bill.

And theres no dual sided 5 GHz RAM. So much for THAT. Another one that doesnt have a clue about hardware and just parrot some nonsense he heard from some idiot on youtube.

And GPU is completely irrelevant, as you said, even crap like GTX1050/RX560 will get you 60 FPS, and no, you wont get "60% more FPS" just cuz nvidia, another parroting thing from ole youtube.

p_tsakirisb16_ESO

deepseamk20b14_ESO wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

I use a Vega 64 having overwritten all the settings, at 2560X1440 monitor, and have the same perf as you are.
With a 8600K @ 5Ghz overclock.

The game is CPU limited.

Definitely seems like the common consensus regarding the CPU.

Hopefully not much longer until I have time to do a good stable OC and see what more I can push. 5.0 is the goal. Later on see if I hit the silicon lottery and can hit 5.2.

I know in certain areas and dungeons I’m beyond 100 FPS but my monitor (Alienware AW3418) only goes to 100hz refresh. I’m actually pretty pissed off about it. I know the overclock to 120hz isn’t guaranteed, but it doesn’t even hit 110hz without screen flicker. The screen overall looks great and all but as soon as that ASUS wide screen with 240hz drops I’m selling the Alienware. Every time I look at it there is slight disappointment lol.

Personally found that since the game is CPU limited, why not crack up the graphic settings. (I am not using injectors)
It made no different on my FPS in crowded areas, while the game look far superior with Supersampling 2x EQ AA overwrite on drivers, on top of in-game rendering 4K on 2560x1440 monitor. The only dungeon that fps are an issue is MOS, otherwise I am at 100fps+. With Freesync on everything looks great.

MikaHR

Davor wrote: »

I am not understanding. Is this at full max settings or what? I only have a nVidia 960M. At max settings I get low FPS but changes a few settings and I am getting 30-60 FPS and I don't noticed the loss in quality.

So is this at max settings or what?

Dont pay much attention to people like these, not only he has no clue what he is talking about, its just a troll thread.

Panomania wrote: »

Running a 7800K CPU, 64 gig DDR4, fast SSD. Until recently I ran a gigabyte 1080 card, which got me 80 to 100 FPS, occasionally lower in Cyro, but pretty stable in that range. The problem? The card was a piece of crap, RMA'd several times.

Meanwhile a friend deployed overseas let me raid his tower and borrow his Sapphire VEGA 64. I paid 700 bucks for my 1080 when I got it, he got his 2 months after I got mine, paid nearly 300 less. Using his VEGA I got 70 to 90 fps, sometimes down to 40 in cyro, but rare. Only slightly slower, and to be honest not noticeable. But the texture detail on the VEGA? FAR superior to the 1080....noticeably so. In the end I got Giga to give me a credit on the card toward a new motherboard and bought a Sapphire vega 64 for 399 bucks. So far I am way happier with the Radeon.

Wife got a 580 vid card, replaced her 960. The 580 was a better card in every way (its actually on par with the 1060 but at a lower price point), and it was CHEAP (under $200). We also replaced her old I7 with a 1700X Ryzen, and its a damned strong CPU. It benchmarks on par with a I7 7700K (loses only in single core tests) but costs about 100 less.

AMD is fine. The Ryzen CPU's are competitive with the Intel but cost less. Ryzen CPU or AMD GPU dont run hot anymore. I was a DIE HARD Intel/Nvidia guy, but lately AMD has impressed me. If you claim they arent competing, you havent checked out AMD lately. In some categories, and some benchmarks, AMD is actually ahead.

After years of comparing both, and being disappointed with AMD, I have to admit I am impressed with the direction they are headed. If you look at the stats on options for both, without preconceived bias, pretty sure you will be too. I know I am interested in seeing what Zen2 and Navi bring to the table for gaming after game companies eventually optimize for them (which usually is 2 to 3 months after launch).

Yeah, i was amazed after is switched from nvidia GTX970 to AMD RX580 i had 0 driver issues and picture quality is IMMENSLY better on AMD card.

Best thing i have done PC wise in a decade after being nvidia fanboi for a while, learned my lesson to ignore internet shills and only care about my wallet (this thread seems like its nvidia shill thread, nvidia has been known to pay people to make threads like these all over internet)

And now....what has nvidia offered for upgrade to my now over 2 years old RX580? Nothing, i can buy same performance card for MORE money than i what i paid for RX580 2 years ago....i would rather buy Vega 56 for $250 than half the performance nvidia card for same $$. You have to be ultra blind fanboy to buy nvidia really, otherwise there is 0 objective reasons, especially for ESO, it runs fine on 5 years old cards). And if AMD follows nvidia in making idiots out of ther customers....my money will not leave my wallet, its as simple as that.

Trancestor

Switched recently from a 6700k (4 core 4.2ghz) and a 1080 to a 9900k (8 core 5ghz) and a 2080 ti, got around a 10 fps boost in ESO, well its something i guess. I regret not getting faster ram tho, currently i have 3000mhz but i suspect ram speed is the biggest factor for fps in eso, Alcast has 4000mhz ram and i've seen him getting crazy fps numbers in busy cities.

kaithuzar

Trancestor wrote: »

Switched recently from a 6700k (4 core 4.2ghz) and a 1080 to a 9900k (8 core 5ghz) and a 2080 ti, got around a 10 fps boost in ESO, well its something i guess. I regret not getting faster ram tho, currently i have 3000mhz but i suspect ram speed is the biggest factor for fps in eso, Alcast has 4000mhz ram and i've seen him getting crazy fps numbers in busy cities.

Alcast also has a usersettings.txt optimization reference on his site.
I’m betting some of it is taken from the original DiE (darkness is everywhere/everything?) guild from launch & maybe some from mine or other write ups on it (if you search the forums for triple monitor you’ll find my post). I had started out with what DiE provided & then did my own testing & I’m sure Alcast has tested everything he’s gathered.

As a note, some of the settings may not be 1:1 for all systems/setups so you won’t want to copy all values exactly from another player but I think the couple Alcast mentions is fine for 1:1 copy because he doesn’t list all variables.

p_tsakirisb16_ESO

FYI thats how the game looks with the changes & AMD driver overwrites wrote above. I do not use injectors.



This picture is from Deshaan at 2560x1440 at 85fps constantly with Vega 64 at standard mode with only change the P7 state is the minimum speed. Otherwise the game pulls the card to 500mhz instead of 1600s. Same issue I have with SWG, so is Hero engine related.

ZOS_RogerJ

Greetings! To prevent further spiraling of this thread we've decided to lock it. While we completely understand everyone has their own opinions, thoughts, feelings and even frustrations, we want the forums to be a civil and constructive platform for the game and it's community as a whole.