Is the performance bottleneck GPU ?

ImmortalCX

The new expansion runs reasonably well 45+ except in Solitude where fps drops to 15-20. (Sadly, Solitude doesn't even look that great; its like a different style of graphic with harsh outlines of everything.) This also happens in boss fights / dolmens when there are many adds or other players.

The computer is an i7 OC to 4.6G, with 16G. The GPU is a 7850HD. Latest drives.

It may be time to upgrade, however, if the game is not GPU bound, there would be little reason to upgrade the graphics card. Trying to decide if a new graphics card would be a meaningful upgrade or if memory is the culprit, or the game is just unable to cope with these scenarios, even on top of the line machine.

ArchMikem

I think it's a CPU bottleneck. ESO is a Single threaded game last I heard, and the processor has to handle all the information your Client is sending to and receiving from the Server.

ImmortalCX

ArchMikem wrote: »

I think it's a CPU bottleneck. ESO is a Single threaded game last I heard, and the processor has to handle all the information your Client is sending to and receiving from the Server.

But its an i7 @ 4.6.

Some of the newer ones have more cores, but if its only using a single core, I can't really get a much faster CPU.

Masel

ImmortalCX wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

I think it's a CPU bottleneck. ESO is a Single threaded game last I heard, and the processor has to handle all the information your Client is sending to and receiving from the Server.

But its an i7 @ 4.6.

Some of the newer ones have more cores, but if its only using a single core, I can't really get a much faster CPU.

Yep, for ESO the CPU is the bottleneck. Graphics are fine on a lot of cards, but yours may be a bit too low in performance for the game, at least on higher settings. My PC still has a GTX 1060 though and i can run the game on high/ultra settings fine, but the focus on single-core limits the framerate. I bought a 5 GHZ cpu just for ESO and it basically doubled my framerate...

ESO was a single-core game up until a while ago, and then only some features have been shifted towards multi-core support .

Katlefiya

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The computer is an i7 OC to 4.6G, with 16G. The GPU is a 7850HD. Latest drives.

That GPU is your bottleneck, not the i7 CPU.

The Radeon HD 7850 is eight years old by now and came with 1GB or 2GB of VRAM.

Sarousse

Yep, the GPU is the bottleneck.

And about solitude being "not that great", I mean yeah, maybe on your low end graphic card.

To me it's just the nicest town : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22M7XohoKgM

Noggin_the_Nog

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The new expansion runs reasonably well 45+ except in Solitude where fps drops to 15-20.

The computer is an i7 OC to 4.6G, with 16G. The GPU is a 7850HD. Latest drives.

It may be time to upgrade, however

Firstly, I feel that FPS is connected to ping. If you have a poor connection your frame rates will never be good. Others may disagree.

In busy cities - doing writs - my fps is 90 to 100 with pings of 120 to 250. Dungeons it's better, although in PvP land it does drop alot. NA server is better than EU although 3000 miles further away. I still get red ping spikes with corresponding FPS drops occasionally but it does seem to stablise quickly.

Had an i7 OC to 3.9, 16Gb and a GTX780 - 11 years old and similar to yours. Upgraded last Christmas to an i7 OC to 4.9, 32Gb and GTX2080i. Saw a big performance increase. Even better now with a 34" G-sync monitor.

So an upgrade should improve your fps.

But it can be expensive. You could keep your CPU, double your ram - if you have space, and look at your GPU - it's 12 years old. People say ESO likes nVidia. An SSD or a M2(only for newer boards) will help loading times. It might be possible to find secondhand components.

In my case I decided that with a system over 10 years old it was time to upgrade - over 3k cost.

Have fun out there and stay safe.

JinMori

Noggin_the_Nog wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The new expansion runs reasonably well 45+ except in Solitude where fps drops to 15-20.

The computer is an i7 OC to 4.6G, with 16G. The GPU is a 7850HD. Latest drives.

It may be time to upgrade, however

Firstly, I feel that FPS is connected to ping. If you have a poor connection your frame rates will never be good. Others may disagree.

In busy cities - doing writs - my fps is 90 to 100 with pings of 120 to 250. Dungeons it's better, although in PvP land it does drop alot. NA server is better than EU although 3000 miles further away. I still get red ping spikes with corresponding FPS drops occasionally but it does seem to stablise quickly.

Had an i7 OC to 3.9, 16Gb and a GTX780 - 11 years old and similar to yours. Upgraded last Christmas to an i7 OC to 4.9, 32Gb and GTX2080i. Saw a big performance increase. Even better now with a 34" G-sync monitor.

So an upgrade should improve your fps.

But it can be expensive. You could keep your CPU, double your ram - if you have space, and look at your GPU - it's 12 years old. People say ESO likes nVidia. An SSD or a M2(only for newer boards) will help loading times. It might be possible to find secondhand components.

In my case I decided that with a system over 10 years old it was time to upgrade - over 3k cost.

Have fun out there and stay safe.

It's not that, that's just because when ping is bad there usually are a lot of people around and things going on.

Your argument is based on a wrong assumption basically.

idk

ArchMikem wrote: »

I think it's a CPU bottleneck. ESO is a Single threaded game last I heard, and the processor has to handle all the information your Client is sending to and receiving from the Server.

Pretty much this. CPU has always been the bottleneck.

ZeroXFF

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The new expansion runs reasonably well 45+ except in Solitude where fps drops to 15-20. (Sadly, Solitude doesn't even look that great; its like a different style of graphic with harsh outlines of everything.) This also happens in boss fights / dolmens when there are many adds or other players.

The computer is an i7 OC to 4.6G, with 16G. The GPU is a 7850HD. Latest drives.

It may be time to upgrade, however, if the game is not GPU bound, there would be little reason to upgrade the graphics card. Trying to decide if a new graphics card would be a meaningful upgrade or if memory is the culprit, or the game is just unable to cope with these scenarios, even on top of the line machine.

What i7 is it? If it's Sandy Bridge (gen 2, around the same age as the GPU), and you're playing at 1080p, it's the CPU. If you're playing at a higher resolution, or your CPU is new (gen 8+), it might be a GPU bottleneck.

I've had the exact same GPU until about a year ago, and in ESO it was never a bottleneck with an R7 1700@3.85 GHz at 1080p. But I know someone who was playing with an HD7970 at 1440p, and his GPU was always pegged at 100%.

With a modern mid-range GPU though, unless you play at 4k, there will definitely be a CPU bottleneck.

Darkstorne

Sadly the engine is the bottleneck.

Thank Talos for all these performance updates though, right?

ImmortalCX

ZeroXFF wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

The new expansion runs reasonably well 45+ except in Solitude where fps drops to 15-20. (Sadly, Solitude doesn't even look that great; its like a different style of graphic with harsh outlines of everything.) This also happens in boss fights / dolmens when there are many adds or other players.

The computer is an i7 OC to 4.6G, with 16G. The GPU is a 7850HD. Latest drives.

It may be time to upgrade, however, if the game is not GPU bound, there would be little reason to upgrade the graphics card. Trying to decide if a new graphics card would be a meaningful upgrade or if memory is the culprit, or the game is just unable to cope with these scenarios, even on top of the line machine.

What i7 is it? If it's Sandy Bridge (gen 2, around the same age as the GPU), and you're playing at 1080p, it's the CPU. If you're playing at a higher resolution, or your CPU is new (gen 8+), it might be a GPU bottleneck.

I've had the exact same GPU until about a year ago, and in ESO it was never a bottleneck with an R7 1700@3.85 GHz at 1080p. But I know someone who was playing with an HD7970 at 1440p, and his GPU was always pegged at 100%.

With a modern mid-range GPU though, unless you play at 4k, there will definitely be a CPU bottleneck.

Its a water cooled Devils Canyon 4790K. It will pass benchmarks at 4.7, but I run it at 4.6.

The thing is though, that is very close in speed to current day fast i7. Unless the cache is limited and needs to be larger, I don't see how a 4.6G i7 would be significantly slower than a new one.

Or perhaps only having 2G VRAM on the graphics card is not enough?

IOW, its very likely not the clock speed. It may have something to do with too little cache or Vram; I would buy that explanation.

I would also easily accept that its the GPU, but most people here are saying its not.

zergbase_ESO

4th gen i7 not bottle necking eso. Like lol no.


That GPU is the bottle neck. Like its an old as heck GPU at this point. The middle numbers de-note it was mid-tier gpu as well from what I recall of AMD back then. Time to toss a new gpu in and have at it.

ImmortalCX

zergbase_ESO wrote: »

4th gen i7 not bottle necking eso. Like lol no.


That GPU is the bottle neck. Like its an old as heck GPU at this point. The middle numbers de-note it was mid-tier gpu as well from what I recall of AMD back then. Time to toss a new gpu in and have at it.

Can you recommend a good "sweet spot" GPU for around $150?

I haven't followed cards for a long time.

Ragnarock41

You can learn it by simply installing MSI afterburner and using the built-in RTSS software during gameplay.

ZeroXFF

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

You can learn it by simply installing MSI afterburner and using the built-in RTSS software during gameplay.

This. I usually use other tools, but the general idea is, if you see ANY core at or close to 100%, the CPU is the bottleneck. If you see the GPU at or close to 100%, the GPU is the bottleneck. If neither is the case, then it is possibly some kind of memory issue. There are tools to show you how much VRAM is used, so that you can analyze that too. But generally I'm pretty sure 2GB is sufficient, if you have that model of the 7850 (there used to be a model with 1GB too, if you have that one, it is definitely the bottleneck).

That means that with a gen 4 i7 if you see 12.5% total CPU load (4 cores * 2 threads each), it could already be the bottleneck, depending on whether that load is on one core or distributed among multiple cores.

To analyze the load per thread on the CPU I recommend to use Process Explorer (free tool from Microsoft). With it you can investigate CPU load of individual threads of an application rather than the load of logical cores. This might be relevant if the scheduler switches the core a thread is run on, resulting in seemingly lower per core CPU load due to that being averaged over time when in reality it is always maxed out wherever the given thread is running.

OmniDo

From my own experiments, I can also confirm that CPU is the bottle-neck.
A simple test of the graphics settings and a firmware-controlled Maximum CPU usage setting (mostly for laptops under Power settings) will allow for a quick comparison.

At 2.6GHz (98% Maximum Processor State), I will average about 45fps (presuming max FPS setting for my RTX 2070) inside a building or other small instanced zone. When in the open world at maximum View Distance and turning the camera towards a large area (Blackreach for example), the FPS will drop sharply to around 18-20.

Enabling 99-100% Maximum Processor State (there is no difference between 99 and 100 in Windows 10 due to throttle stepping), my CPU clock ramps up to 4GHz (and consequently generates extremely more heat, updwards of 90C which is unsafe for extended periods), and the frame rate will increase to around 30-35 in large, open areas. Inside dungeons or Trials, it will max itself out at 45 FPS (due to GPU FPS-Limiter).

Since the maximum FPS can be locked via the GPU-limiter settings, and there is a noticeable decrease in FPS performance between CPU clock-settings, then incontrovertible conclusion is that the CPU is the bottleneck.

Why ESO would require 4GHz+ to calculate information that is then dumped to the GPU for rendering is either due to extremely poor engine performance (likely), or poor optimization of said engine, both of which are developer/programmer concerns.

No MMO, especially considering the quality of Graphics available today, should require a 4GHz CPU running at 50-75% in order to maintain 45FPS.

Their engine is dated, obsolete, and poorly optimized, plain and simple.

Katlefiya

People, really? All this advice about the CPU being the bottleneck? We are talking about an overclocked i7 4790K here paired with an ancient 2GB GPU from 2012. That processor was quite a beast back in the day, and it still is a very capable performer.

Funny enough I use the exact same CPU (but not overclocked) and have zero problems playing ESO with it. But of course my GPU has is not 8 years old and has a reasonable amount of VRAM (6GB).

Katlefiya

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Can you recommend a good "sweet spot" GPU for around $150?

I haven't followed cards for a long time.

A GTX 1660 SUPER would be my recommendation, maybe a GTX 1650 if you are on a tight budget.

ImmortalCX

Katlefiya wrote: »

People, really? All this advice about the CPU being the bottleneck? We are talking about an overclocked i7 4790K here paired with an ancient 2GB GPU from 2012. That processor was quite a beast back in the day, and it still is a very capable performer.

Funny enough I use the exact same CPU (but not overclocked) and have zero problems playing ESO with it. But of course my GPU has is not 8 years old and has a reasonable amount of VRAM (6GB).

This sounds reasonable to me. I just can't believe my CPU is the bottleneck based on specs, unless it needs a larger cache or some secondary attribute, not clock speed.

I will get a new graphics card. With so many people saying its the CPU, it does make me wonder. Do they actually believe a 4.6G i7 is the bottleneck, or are they just trolling to confuse the issue?

I looked at the latest batch of i7s on newegg and while they have more cores, the clock speed hasn't gotten much faster.

The other question though, is there a specific rendering technique that is used in Solitude that can be turned off to make it perform like the other zones? For instance, Alinor seems to have as much detail as solitude, and it runs fine (and looks better imo). What specifically is it about Solitude that causes problems?

Is it a "fixed" issue like it requires more than 2G vram for more texture memory, or is it something that can be turned off in the settings menu?

Katlefiya

Katlefiya wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Can you recommend a good "sweet spot" GPU for around $150?

I haven't followed cards for a long time.

A GTX 1660 SUPER would be my recommendation, maybe a GTX 1650 if you are on a tight budget.

Sorry, had a typo. I meant the GTX 1650 SUPER.

ImmortalCX

Katlefiya wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Can you recommend a good "sweet spot" GPU for around $150?

I haven't followed cards for a long time.

A GTX 1660 SUPER would be my recommendation, maybe a GTX 1650 if you are on a tight budget.

Sorry, had a typo. I meant the GTX 1650 SUPER.

Thanks for the tip. I just looked up that card and it seems to be a capable performer, but more importantly uses much less wattage than equivalent radeon.

If I get this card, it would be the first non-radeon card I've ever bought.

ZeroXFF

.

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

People, really? All this advice about the CPU being the bottleneck? We are talking about an overclocked i7 4790K here paired with an ancient 2GB GPU from 2012. That processor was quite a beast back in the day, and it still is a very capable performer.

Funny enough I use the exact same CPU (but not overclocked) and have zero problems playing ESO with it. But of course my GPU has is not 8 years old and has a reasonable amount of VRAM (6GB).

This sounds reasonable to me. I just can't believe my CPU is the bottleneck based on specs, unless it needs a larger cache or some secondary attribute, not clock speed.

I will get a new graphics card. With so many people saying its the CPU, it does make me wonder. Do they actually believe a 4.6G i7 is the bottleneck, or are they just trolling to confuse the issue?

I looked at the latest batch of i7s on newegg and while they have more cores, the clock speed hasn't gotten much faster.

The other question though, is there a specific rendering technique that is used in Solitude that can be turned off to make it perform like the other zones? For instance, Alinor seems to have as much detail as solitude, and it runs fine (and looks better imo). What specifically is it about Solitude that causes problems?

Is it a "fixed" issue like it requires more than 2G vram for more texture memory, or is it something that can be turned off in the settings menu?

It's not just about clock speed. IPC (instructions per clock) have increased a lot since. A modern 3.5 GHz CPU will run circles around a 6 years old 4.6 GHz CPU. Otherwise the FX-9590 would still be among the best CPUs out there with its 4.7GHz base and 5GHz boost out of the box.

Your CPU, 8k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4790K+@+4.00GHz&id=2275

A modern low end entry level quad core, 12k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+3100&id=3715

An 8 core, 5GHz FX-9590, 6k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014

These synthetic benchmarks will not be 100% reflective of real world performance, but they do illustrate the point quite well.

Ragnarock41

ZeroXFF wrote: »

.

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

People, really? All this advice about the CPU being the bottleneck? We are talking about an overclocked i7 4790K here paired with an ancient 2GB GPU from 2012. That processor was quite a beast back in the day, and it still is a very capable performer.

Funny enough I use the exact same CPU (but not overclocked) and have zero problems playing ESO with it. But of course my GPU has is not 8 years old and has a reasonable amount of VRAM (6GB).

This sounds reasonable to me. I just can't believe my CPU is the bottleneck based on specs, unless it needs a larger cache or some secondary attribute, not clock speed.

I will get a new graphics card. With so many people saying its the CPU, it does make me wonder. Do they actually believe a 4.6G i7 is the bottleneck, or are they just trolling to confuse the issue?

I looked at the latest batch of i7s on newegg and while they have more cores, the clock speed hasn't gotten much faster.

The other question though, is there a specific rendering technique that is used in Solitude that can be turned off to make it perform like the other zones? For instance, Alinor seems to have as much detail as solitude, and it runs fine (and looks better imo). What specifically is it about Solitude that causes problems?

Is it a "fixed" issue like it requires more than 2G vram for more texture memory, or is it something that can be turned off in the settings menu?

It's not just about clock speed. IPC (instructions per clock) have increased a lot since. A modern 3.5 GHz CPU will run circles around a 6 years old 4.6 GHz CPU. Otherwise the FX-9590 would still be among the best CPUs out there with its 4.7GHz base and 5GHz boost out of the box.

Your CPU, 8k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4790K+@+4.00GHz&id=2275

A modern low end entry level quad core, 12k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+3100&id=3715

An 8 core, 5GHz FX-9590, 6k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014

These synthetic benchmarks will not be 100% reflective of real world performance, but they do illustrate the point quite well.

I'm pretty sure a 6700K clocked at 4.5 Will beat , lets say, 9600K clocked at 3.5. IPC has improved, but not by that much and IPC and clock speeds are not the only factor for gaming performance. Compare R3 3100 to 3300X and clock to clock, 3300X wins because of lower latency between cores. FX CPUs have ALWAYS had bad IPC even when they were first released. They are a bad example for any kind of comparission since an FX is a poor man's CPU no matter how you look at it.

Edit: this video is what I based my post on. The R3 3100 and R3 3300X are compared at the same clock speeds in here and there is a clear performance difference that comes not from better IPC but less latency. I felt like I needed to add that in because IPC is often regarded as the only thing that matters for gaming performance while its a little more complicated than that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2fFpzPKPg

ImmortalCX

ZeroXFF wrote: »

.

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

People, really? All this advice about the CPU being the bottleneck? We are talking about an overclocked i7 4790K here paired with an ancient 2GB GPU from 2012. That processor was quite a beast back in the day, and it still is a very capable performer.

Funny enough I use the exact same CPU (but not overclocked) and have zero problems playing ESO with it. But of course my GPU has is not 8 years old and has a reasonable amount of VRAM (6GB).

This sounds reasonable to me. I just can't believe my CPU is the bottleneck based on specs, unless it needs a larger cache or some secondary attribute, not clock speed.

I will get a new graphics card. With so many people saying its the CPU, it does make me wonder. Do they actually believe a 4.6G i7 is the bottleneck, or are they just trolling to confuse the issue?

I looked at the latest batch of i7s on newegg and while they have more cores, the clock speed hasn't gotten much faster.

The other question though, is there a specific rendering technique that is used in Solitude that can be turned off to make it perform like the other zones? For instance, Alinor seems to have as much detail as solitude, and it runs fine (and looks better imo). What specifically is it about Solitude that causes problems?

Is it a "fixed" issue like it requires more than 2G vram for more texture memory, or is it something that can be turned off in the settings menu?

It's not just about clock speed. IPC (instructions per clock) have increased a lot since. A modern 3.5 GHz CPU will run circles around a 6 years old 4.6 GHz CPU. Otherwise the FX-9590 would still be among the best CPUs out there with its 4.7GHz base and 5GHz boost out of the box.

Your CPU, 8k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4790K+@+4.00GHz&id=2275

A modern low end entry level quad core, 12k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+3100&id=3715

An 8 core, 5GHz FX-9590, 6k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014

These synthetic benchmarks will not be 100% reflective of real world performance, but they do illustrate the point quite well.

Of course new CPUs will have much better benchmarks on multi threaded tests. They have more cores, more threads.

ZeroXFF

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

ZeroXFF wrote: »

.

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

People, really? All this advice about the CPU being the bottleneck? We are talking about an overclocked i7 4790K here paired with an ancient 2GB GPU from 2012. That processor was quite a beast back in the day, and it still is a very capable performer.

Funny enough I use the exact same CPU (but not overclocked) and have zero problems playing ESO with it. But of course my GPU has is not 8 years old and has a reasonable amount of VRAM (6GB).

This sounds reasonable to me. I just can't believe my CPU is the bottleneck based on specs, unless it needs a larger cache or some secondary attribute, not clock speed.

I will get a new graphics card. With so many people saying its the CPU, it does make me wonder. Do they actually believe a 4.6G i7 is the bottleneck, or are they just trolling to confuse the issue?

I looked at the latest batch of i7s on newegg and while they have more cores, the clock speed hasn't gotten much faster.

The other question though, is there a specific rendering technique that is used in Solitude that can be turned off to make it perform like the other zones? For instance, Alinor seems to have as much detail as solitude, and it runs fine (and looks better imo). What specifically is it about Solitude that causes problems?

Is it a "fixed" issue like it requires more than 2G vram for more texture memory, or is it something that can be turned off in the settings menu?

It's not just about clock speed. IPC (instructions per clock) have increased a lot since. A modern 3.5 GHz CPU will run circles around a 6 years old 4.6 GHz CPU. Otherwise the FX-9590 would still be among the best CPUs out there with its 4.7GHz base and 5GHz boost out of the box.

Your CPU, 8k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4790K+@+4.00GHz&id=2275

A modern low end entry level quad core, 12k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+3100&id=3715

An 8 core, 5GHz FX-9590, 6k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014

These synthetic benchmarks will not be 100% reflective of real world performance, but they do illustrate the point quite well.

I'm pretty sure a 6700K clocked at 4.5 Will beat a 9600K clocked at 3.5. IPC has improved, but not by that much. FX CPUs have ALWAYS had bad IPC even when they were first released. They are a bad example for any kind of comparission since an FX is a poor man's CPU no matter how you look at it.

Look at the Ryzen 3100. I only used the FX to illustrate that clock speed isn't everything. And there are 2 problems with you using the 6700k/9600k comparison:

1. 6700k is not 6 years old, but 5 and I was talking about 6 years old (i.e. 4th gen refresh time, like the 4790k). 9600k is 2 years old already too, so you're talking about half the age difference that I was.

2. 6th gen was the last generation where Intel made any improvements to IPC. Using any Intel CPU as an example of what "modern" CPUs are capable of in terms of IPC is a fallacy. "Modern" Intel CPUs are basically what FX was back in 2013 to AMD.

idk

Sarousse wrote: »

Yep, the GPU is the bottleneck.

And about solitude being "not that great", I mean yeah, maybe on your low end graphic card.

To me it's just the nicest town :

It is well known that the CPU has always been the bottleneck of this game. Sure, if someone has an extremely bad GPU, minimum specs, and/or something is wrong with their card it might be the bottleneck.

Katlefiya

ZeroXFF wrote: »

It's not just about clock speed. IPC (instructions per clock) have increased a lot since. A modern 3.5 GHz CPU will run circles around a 6 years old 4.6 GHz CPU. Otherwise the FX-9590 would still be among the best CPUs out there with its 4.7GHz base and 5GHz boost out of the box.

Of course, if we are just comparing CPU power while ignoring the context of this thread, then there is no denying that a modern day Ryzen CPU will be much faster than any overclocked Haswell i7. But the latter is by no means incapable of running ESO and all the advice given in this thread, where people simply ignored the ancient GPU and just talked about GHz and the game's "poor engine performance", etc. etc... highly irritating to me and bad advice for the OP.

Ragnarock41

ZeroXFF wrote: »

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

ZeroXFF wrote: »

.

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

People, really? All this advice about the CPU being the bottleneck? We are talking about an overclocked i7 4790K here paired with an ancient 2GB GPU from 2012. That processor was quite a beast back in the day, and it still is a very capable performer.

Funny enough I use the exact same CPU (but not overclocked) and have zero problems playing ESO with it. But of course my GPU has is not 8 years old and has a reasonable amount of VRAM (6GB).

This sounds reasonable to me. I just can't believe my CPU is the bottleneck based on specs, unless it needs a larger cache or some secondary attribute, not clock speed.

I will get a new graphics card. With so many people saying its the CPU, it does make me wonder. Do they actually believe a 4.6G i7 is the bottleneck, or are they just trolling to confuse the issue?

I looked at the latest batch of i7s on newegg and while they have more cores, the clock speed hasn't gotten much faster.

The other question though, is there a specific rendering technique that is used in Solitude that can be turned off to make it perform like the other zones? For instance, Alinor seems to have as much detail as solitude, and it runs fine (and looks better imo). What specifically is it about Solitude that causes problems?

Is it a "fixed" issue like it requires more than 2G vram for more texture memory, or is it something that can be turned off in the settings menu?

It's not just about clock speed. IPC (instructions per clock) have increased a lot since. A modern 3.5 GHz CPU will run circles around a 6 years old 4.6 GHz CPU. Otherwise the FX-9590 would still be among the best CPUs out there with its 4.7GHz base and 5GHz boost out of the box.

Your CPU, 8k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4790K+@+4.00GHz&id=2275

A modern low end entry level quad core, 12k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+3100&id=3715

An 8 core, 5GHz FX-9590, 6k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014

These synthetic benchmarks will not be 100% reflective of real world performance, but they do illustrate the point quite well.

I'm pretty sure a 6700K clocked at 4.5 Will beat a 9600K clocked at 3.5. IPC has improved, but not by that much. FX CPUs have ALWAYS had bad IPC even when they were first released. They are a bad example for any kind of comparission since an FX is a poor man's CPU no matter how you look at it.

Look at the Ryzen 3100. I only used the FX to illustrate that clock speed isn't everything. And there are 2 problems with you using the 6700k/9600k comparison:

1. 6700k is not 6 years old, but 5 and I was talking about 6 years old (i.e. 4th gen refresh time, like the 4790k). 9600k is 2 years old already too, so you're talking about half the age difference that I was.

2. 6th gen was the last generation where Intel made any improvements to IPC. Using any Intel CPU as an example of what "modern" CPUs are capable of in terms of IPC is a fallacy. "Modern" Intel CPUs are basically what FX was back in 2013 to AMD.

Well except modern Intel CPUs are actually very damn good at gaming, FX never was good at anything really.

Katlefiya

ImmortalCX wrote: »

[
If I get this card, it would be the first non-radeon card I've ever bought.

AFAIK all the radeon cards in your price range of $150 are based on older generations of hardware (GCN). The newer AMD cards featuring the RDNA/Navi stuff still sell for considerably more $ unfortunately.

ImmortalCX

ZeroXFF wrote: »

.

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

People, really? All this advice about the CPU being the bottleneck? We are talking about an overclocked i7 4790K here paired with an ancient 2GB GPU from 2012. That processor was quite a beast back in the day, and it still is a very capable performer.

Funny enough I use the exact same CPU (but not overclocked) and have zero problems playing ESO with it. But of course my GPU has is not 8 years old and has a reasonable amount of VRAM (6GB).

This sounds reasonable to me. I just can't believe my CPU is the bottleneck based on specs, unless it needs a larger cache or some secondary attribute, not clock speed.

I will get a new graphics card. With so many people saying its the CPU, it does make me wonder. Do they actually believe a 4.6G i7 is the bottleneck, or are they just trolling to confuse the issue?

I looked at the latest batch of i7s on newegg and while they have more cores, the clock speed hasn't gotten much faster.

The other question though, is there a specific rendering technique that is used in Solitude that can be turned off to make it perform like the other zones? For instance, Alinor seems to have as much detail as solitude, and it runs fine (and looks better imo). What specifically is it about Solitude that causes problems?

Is it a "fixed" issue like it requires more than 2G vram for more texture memory, or is it something that can be turned off in the settings menu?

It's not just about clock speed. IPC (instructions per clock) have increased a lot since. A modern 3.5 GHz CPU will run circles around a 6 years old 4.6 GHz CPU. Otherwise the FX-9590 would still be among the best CPUs out there with its 4.7GHz base and 5GHz boost out of the box.

Your CPU, 8k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4790K+@+4.00GHz&id=2275

A modern low end entry level quad core, 12k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+3+3100&id=3715

An 8 core, 5GHz FX-9590, 6k score:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014

These synthetic benchmarks will not be 100% reflective of real world performance, but they do illustrate the point quite well.

I think you guys must be trolling. Here are current benchmark results for this cpu. And this is at base clock speed; mine is OC about 20%.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Intel-Core-i7-4790K/Rating/2384

Katlefiya wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

[
If I get this card, it would be the first non-radeon card I've ever bought.

AFAIK all the radeon cards in your price range of $150 are based on older generations of hardware (GCN). The newer AMD cards featuring the RDNA/Navi stuff still sell for considerably more $ unfortunately.

What is the next sweet spot, up from the 1650 Super?

For instance, is there a high-value card in the $250 range, that would be more future proof?