Maintenance for the week of December 15:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Is the performance bottleneck GPU ?
-
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭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.
I've given context. I built my PC back during the crypto mining hype, so I decided to hold off on the GPU upgrade at those exorbitant prices, and I had the very same GPU that OP has, and the only place where it was the bottleneck and not the CPU was inside of March of Sacrifices (don't ask me why, but I was basically playing the game with monitoring tools on the 2nd screen open all the time back then). Everywhere else, when there was an FPS drop, one CPU core was pegged, while GPU usage went down.
And when I was running at the 60Hz fps cap (v-synch on), the GPU rarely went over 80% load.
So with hands-on experience I can say that I consider a general GPU bottleneck unlikely, unless you play at anything >1080p.
And note, I suggested previously for OP to find out by himself. 4th gen Intel + HD7850 is too close to call for me. With 2nd gen I said it would be CPU, with 8th gen+ the GPU.
It could quite frankly go either way depending on game settings.0 -
ItsJustHashtag✭✭✭✭8700k 2080ti 32gigs or ram at 3600 speed and google fiber internet doesn’t fix the game. It’s obviously a server side issue, not a user side. Literally quit blaming hardware on user side for this games issues.Edited by ItsJustHashtag on June 18, 2020 4:38PM2
-
ImmortalCX✭✭✭✭✭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.
I've given context. I built my PC back during the crypto mining hype, so I decided to hold off on the GPU upgrade at those exorbitant prices, and I had the very same GPU that OP has, and the only place where it was the bottleneck and not the CPU was inside of March of Sacrifices (don't ask me why, but I was basically playing the game with monitoring tools on the 2nd screen open all the time back then). Everywhere else, when there was an FPS drop, one CPU core was pegged, while GPU usage went down.
And when I was running at the 60Hz fps cap (v-synch on), the GPU rarely went over 80% load.
So with hands-on experience I can say that I consider a general GPU bottleneck unlikely, unless you play at anything >1080p.
And note, I suggested previously for OP to find out by himself. 4th gen Intel + HD7850 is too close to call for me. With 2nd gen I said it would be CPU, with 8th gen+ the GPU.
It could quite frankly go either way depending on game settings.
Did you run that setup with Greymoor?
The reason I ask is that everyhing else in the game runs just fine, its only the latest area (solitude) that causes noticeable slowdown (besides the insane WB fights with 40+ players and 20+ adds.)
My guess is that you upgraded your machine before the Greymoor patch, so don't have any direct experience with the current state of game running on your old machine. There is something about Greymoor that causes it to slow down.0 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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.
Dude, take a closer look, it's 4c/8t vs. 4c/8t.0 -
ImmortalCX✭✭✭✭✭ItsJustHashtag wrote: »8700k 2080ti 32gigs or ram at 3600 speed and google fiber internet doesn’t fix the game. It’s obviously a server side issue, not a user side. Literally quit blaming hardware on user side for this games issues.
Maybe the reason I'm having issues in the new zone has something to do with current player load in that area, not the increased graphic detail?
0 -
Ragnarock41✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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/2384ImmortalCX 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?
FYI userbenchmark is a horrible place to look for objective info.0 -
ImmortalCX✭✭✭✭✭ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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.
Dude, take a closer look, it's 4c/8t vs. 4c/8t.
Even that said, the 4790K runs the benchmark at 85% of the best in class. So a stock clock 4-gen is only 15% slower than current best on 1-2 core benchmarks. And mine is overclocked.
Do you really think that will make/break the gaming experience? Does ESO require a $600 new cpu to play?
0 -
Katlefiya✭✭✭✭✭ImmortalCX wrote: »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?
Tough...
AMD: Radeon 5600XT
Nvidia: GTX 1660 Super
Both are good, but with "only" 6GB RAM they might not be the most future-proof cards out there.
The Radeon 5500XT has 8 GB, but is slower. The GTX 2060 Super also features 8GB, but is more expensive, as is the Radeon 5700XT.
2 -
ZeroXFF✭✭✭✭✭
✭ImmortalCX 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.
I've given context. I built my PC back during the crypto mining hype, so I decided to hold off on the GPU upgrade at those exorbitant prices, and I had the very same GPU that OP has, and the only place where it was the bottleneck and not the CPU was inside of March of Sacrifices (don't ask me why, but I was basically playing the game with monitoring tools on the 2nd screen open all the time back then). Everywhere else, when there was an FPS drop, one CPU core was pegged, while GPU usage went down.
And when I was running at the 60Hz fps cap (v-synch on), the GPU rarely went over 80% load.
So with hands-on experience I can say that I consider a general GPU bottleneck unlikely, unless you play at anything >1080p.
And note, I suggested previously for OP to find out by himself. 4th gen Intel + HD7850 is too close to call for me. With 2nd gen I said it would be CPU, with 8th gen+ the GPU.
It could quite frankly go either way depending on game settings.
Did you run that setup with Greymoor?
The reason I ask is that everyhing else in the game runs just fine, its only the latest area (solitude) that causes noticeable slowdown (besides the insane WB fights with 40+ players and 20+ adds.)
My guess is that you upgraded your machine before the Greymoor patch, so don't have any direct experience with the current state of game running on your old machine. There is something about Greymoor that causes it to slow down.
Yeah, I upgraded to an RX580 about a year or two ago to play Far Cry 5. I suppose it's possible that it's the GPU, which is why you should monitor your CPU per core load and GPU load to figure out. But based on my experience with the game it's usually the CPU, no matter how bad the GPU or how good the CPU. The only exception I ever noticed before was vMoS.0 -
ImmortalCX✭✭✭✭✭Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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/2384ImmortalCX 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?
FYI userbenchmark is a horrible place to look for objective info.
According to that site, the newest i7 is about 17% faster than a stock 4790k. We are not talking an order of magnitude difference, and ESO does not take advantage of all the cores, so the difference is probably less than that.
Im 100% confident that ESO is not in the upper echelon of games that requires the latest and greatest CPU to play.
0 -
Ragnarock41✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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.
Dude, take a closer look, it's 4c/8t vs. 4c/8t.
Even that said, the 4790K runs the benchmark at 85% of the best in class. So a stock clock 4-gen is only 15% slower than current best on 1-2 core benchmarks. And mine is overclocked.
Do you really think that will make/break the gaming experience? Does ESO require a $600 new cpu to play?
Benchmark the game using Afterburner. Do you seriously expect people to read a few articles from some random website and then give you a %100 accurate result? Its always best to measure things yourself instead of believing in what some random blog says.
Set up afterburner to show your GPU VRAM usage, RAM usage, CPU usage(include all cores), clock speeds, and lastly heat.
When you set it up nicely open the game and play, then post some screenshots during crowded areas like towns with lots of players around, dolmens or cyrodiil. A video record would be better honestly but screenshots should do.
And if you can't at least do this much, I don't think you're in a position to question others and ridicule their advice either. You're given a way to solve your issue, its up to you if you want to bother and do it.Edited by Ragnarock41 on June 18, 2020 5:03PM1 -
ImmortalCX✭✭✭✭✭ImmortalCX wrote: »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?
Tough...
AMD: Radeon 5600XT
Nvidia: GTX 1660 Super
Both are good, but with "only" 6GB RAM they might not be the most future-proof cards out there.
The Radeon 5500XT has 8 GB, but is slower. The GTX 2060 Super also features 8GB, but is more expensive, as is the Radeon 5700XT.
Thanks. I will look into those. Ive watched some reviews and the 1650 super looks like the best option, but I want to make sure there isn't another obvious candidate in a higher tier that will have a tangible benefit. For instance, would a 2060 super give the ability to run a higher resolution than 1080p (assuming I upgrade monitor later?)1 -
ImmortalCX✭✭✭✭✭Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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.
Dude, take a closer look, it's 4c/8t vs. 4c/8t.
Even that said, the 4790K runs the benchmark at 85% of the best in class. So a stock clock 4-gen is only 15% slower than current best on 1-2 core benchmarks. And mine is overclocked.
Do you really think that will make/break the gaming experience? Does ESO require a $600 new cpu to play?
Benchmark the game using Afterburner. Do you seriously expect people to read a few articles from some random website and then give you a %100 accurate result? Its always best to measure things yourself instead of believing in what some random blog says.
Set up afterburner to show your GPU VRAM usage, RAM usage, CPU usage(include all cores), clock speeds, and lastly heat.
When you set it up nicely open the game and play, then post some screenshots during crowded areas like towns with lots of players around, dolmens or cyrodiil. A video record would be better honestly but screenshots should do.
And if you can't at least do this much, I don't think you're in a position to question others and ridicule their advice either. You're given a way to solve your issue, its up to you if you want to bother and do it.
I did not ridicule anyone's advice. I'm just collecting more information, and advice that a cpu running at 85% of the best in class is the bottleneck does not pass the sniff test, when the GPU is only running at 33% of a modern equivalent.
Your same advice could be applied to everyone else. Unless they have run those instruments on my machine, how could they know the issue? If you want to keep it fact based, the only advice that matters on either side of the debate is to instrument the machine.
It has been suggested that server side issues are to blame. If the CPU is blocking for input from the server, it could appear that the CPU is at 100%, when technically CPU speed is not the issue.
Thats why running Afterburner is not going to be the final word on this. As the issue is only in Solitude and when there are tons of players on screen, that suggests that its not a cpu issue.
0 -
Ragnarock41✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭ImmortalCX wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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.
Dude, take a closer look, it's 4c/8t vs. 4c/8t.
Even that said, the 4790K runs the benchmark at 85% of the best in class. So a stock clock 4-gen is only 15% slower than current best on 1-2 core benchmarks. And mine is overclocked.
Do you really think that will make/break the gaming experience? Does ESO require a $600 new cpu to play?
Benchmark the game using Afterburner. Do you seriously expect people to read a few articles from some random website and then give you a %100 accurate result? Its always best to measure things yourself instead of believing in what some random blog says.
Set up afterburner to show your GPU VRAM usage, RAM usage, CPU usage(include all cores), clock speeds, and lastly heat.
When you set it up nicely open the game and play, then post some screenshots during crowded areas like towns with lots of players around, dolmens or cyrodiil. A video record would be better honestly but screenshots should do.
And if you can't at least do this much, I don't think you're in a position to question others and ridicule their advice either. You're given a way to solve your issue, its up to you if you want to bother and do it.
I did not ridicule anyone's advice. I'm just collecting more information, and advice that a cpu running at 85% of the best in class is the bottleneck does not pass the sniff test, when the GPU is only running at 33% of a modern equivalent.
Your same advice could be applied to everyone else. Unless they have run those instruments on my machine, how could they know the issue? If you want to keep it fact based, the only advice that matters on either side of the debate is to instrument the machine.
It has been suggested that server side issues are to blame. If the CPU is blocking for input from the server, it could appear that the CPU is at 100%, when technically CPU speed is not the issue.
Thats why running Afterburner is not going to be the final word on this. As the issue is only in Solitude and when there are tons of players on screen, that suggests that its not a cpu issue.
Ah yes, %85 speed of the best of the best. Truly a fine wine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6RsDyMn2gY
Is your CPU good enough for this game? Yeah it should be more than plenty. Can I know without seeing some results that if your CPU is really performing properly or really enough for the job? I can not.
Edit: And YES the game is poorly optimized its not an illuminati secret.Edited by Ragnarock41 on June 18, 2020 5:23PM1 -
ImmortalCX✭✭✭✭✭Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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.
Dude, take a closer look, it's 4c/8t vs. 4c/8t.
Even that said, the 4790K runs the benchmark at 85% of the best in class. So a stock clock 4-gen is only 15% slower than current best on 1-2 core benchmarks. And mine is overclocked.
Do you really think that will make/break the gaming experience? Does ESO require a $600 new cpu to play?
Benchmark the game using Afterburner. Do you seriously expect people to read a few articles from some random website and then give you a %100 accurate result? Its always best to measure things yourself instead of believing in what some random blog says.
Set up afterburner to show your GPU VRAM usage, RAM usage, CPU usage(include all cores), clock speeds, and lastly heat.
When you set it up nicely open the game and play, then post some screenshots during crowded areas like towns with lots of players around, dolmens or cyrodiil. A video record would be better honestly but screenshots should do.
And if you can't at least do this much, I don't think you're in a position to question others and ridicule their advice either. You're given a way to solve your issue, its up to you if you want to bother and do it.
I did not ridicule anyone's advice. I'm just collecting more information, and advice that a cpu running at 85% of the best in class is the bottleneck does not pass the sniff test, when the GPU is only running at 33% of a modern equivalent.
Your same advice could be applied to everyone else. Unless they have run those instruments on my machine, how could they know the issue? If you want to keep it fact based, the only advice that matters on either side of the debate is to instrument the machine.
It has been suggested that server side issues are to blame. If the CPU is blocking for input from the server, it could appear that the CPU is at 100%, when technically CPU speed is not the issue.
Thats why running Afterburner is not going to be the final word on this. As the issue is only in Solitude and when there are tons of players on screen, that suggests that its not a cpu issue.
Ah yes, %85 speed of the best of the best. Truly a fine wine.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6RsDyMn2gY
Is your CPU good enough for this game? Yeah it should be more than plenty. Can I know without seeing some results that if your CPU is really performing properly? I can not.
The problem with your afterburner suggestion, is that running a CPU with 1000% processing power may still be at 100% utilization because its blocking for input from the server.
I hope you can see its more nuanced than just running Afterburner.
0 -
Ragnarock41✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭ImmortalCX wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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.
Dude, take a closer look, it's 4c/8t vs. 4c/8t.
Even that said, the 4790K runs the benchmark at 85% of the best in class. So a stock clock 4-gen is only 15% slower than current best on 1-2 core benchmarks. And mine is overclocked.
Do you really think that will make/break the gaming experience? Does ESO require a $600 new cpu to play?
Benchmark the game using Afterburner. Do you seriously expect people to read a few articles from some random website and then give you a %100 accurate result? Its always best to measure things yourself instead of believing in what some random blog says.
Set up afterburner to show your GPU VRAM usage, RAM usage, CPU usage(include all cores), clock speeds, and lastly heat.
When you set it up nicely open the game and play, then post some screenshots during crowded areas like towns with lots of players around, dolmens or cyrodiil. A video record would be better honestly but screenshots should do.
And if you can't at least do this much, I don't think you're in a position to question others and ridicule their advice either. You're given a way to solve your issue, its up to you if you want to bother and do it.
I did not ridicule anyone's advice. I'm just collecting more information, and advice that a cpu running at 85% of the best in class is the bottleneck does not pass the sniff test, when the GPU is only running at 33% of a modern equivalent.
Your same advice could be applied to everyone else. Unless they have run those instruments on my machine, how could they know the issue? If you want to keep it fact based, the only advice that matters on either side of the debate is to instrument the machine.
It has been suggested that server side issues are to blame. If the CPU is blocking for input from the server, it could appear that the CPU is at 100%, when technically CPU speed is not the issue.
Thats why running Afterburner is not going to be the final word on this. As the issue is only in Solitude and when there are tons of players on screen, that suggests that its not a cpu issue.
Ah yes, %85 speed of the best of the best. Truly a fine wine.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6RsDyMn2gY
Is your CPU good enough for this game? Yeah it should be more than plenty. Can I know without seeing some results that if your CPU is really performing properly? I can not.
The problem with your afterburner suggestion, is that running a CPU with 1000% processing power may still be at 100% utilization because its blocking for input from the server.
I hope you can see its more nuanced than just running Afterburner.
If your issue is really server related then it would affect everyone else aswell. However client performance should not be affected by server performance.(and even if it was you'd still see it on afterburner cause it would be a strain on your CPU) When the servers are struggling people will start rubberbanding, abilities won't fire, bar swapping will have a horrible delay and your ping to the server will go up, which is what happens literally every evening on primetime cyrodiil.1 -
ImmortalCX✭✭✭✭✭Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: ».ImmortalCX 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.
Dude, take a closer look, it's 4c/8t vs. 4c/8t.
Even that said, the 4790K runs the benchmark at 85% of the best in class. So a stock clock 4-gen is only 15% slower than current best on 1-2 core benchmarks. And mine is overclocked.
Do you really think that will make/break the gaming experience? Does ESO require a $600 new cpu to play?
Benchmark the game using Afterburner. Do you seriously expect people to read a few articles from some random website and then give you a %100 accurate result? Its always best to measure things yourself instead of believing in what some random blog says.
Set up afterburner to show your GPU VRAM usage, RAM usage, CPU usage(include all cores), clock speeds, and lastly heat.
When you set it up nicely open the game and play, then post some screenshots during crowded areas like towns with lots of players around, dolmens or cyrodiil. A video record would be better honestly but screenshots should do.
And if you can't at least do this much, I don't think you're in a position to question others and ridicule their advice either. You're given a way to solve your issue, its up to you if you want to bother and do it.
I did not ridicule anyone's advice. I'm just collecting more information, and advice that a cpu running at 85% of the best in class is the bottleneck does not pass the sniff test, when the GPU is only running at 33% of a modern equivalent.
Your same advice could be applied to everyone else. Unless they have run those instruments on my machine, how could they know the issue? If you want to keep it fact based, the only advice that matters on either side of the debate is to instrument the machine.
It has been suggested that server side issues are to blame. If the CPU is blocking for input from the server, it could appear that the CPU is at 100%, when technically CPU speed is not the issue.
Thats why running Afterburner is not going to be the final word on this. As the issue is only in Solitude and when there are tons of players on screen, that suggests that its not a cpu issue.
Ah yes, %85 speed of the best of the best. Truly a fine wine.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6RsDyMn2gY
Is your CPU good enough for this game? Yeah it should be more than plenty. Can I know without seeing some results that if your CPU is really performing properly? I can not.
The problem with your afterburner suggestion, is that running a CPU with 1000% processing power may still be at 100% utilization because its blocking for input from the server.
I hope you can see its more nuanced than just running Afterburner.
If your issue is really server related then it would affect everyone else aswell. However client performance should not be affected by server performance.(and even if it was you'd still see it on afterburner cause it would be a strain on your CPU) When the servers are struggling people will start rubberbanding, abilities won't fire, bar swapping will have a horrible delay and your ping to the server will go up, which is what happens literally every evening on primetime cyrodiil.
Thats a pretty good description of the issues. Except in solitude there isn't any combat.
Furthermore, there has been no explanation why solitude would require more cpu than other cities, unless its solely because of player load...
Its my belief that it could be possible to mischaracterize the issues as CPU. Its probably a software optimization issue or server issue. My guess is that in solitude there are probably 2-3x as many players as normal, and even though they don't appear to be in the immediate vicinity, the game is still blocking for their input or performing calculations for them, even though they don't need to be rendered.
I watched that video you linked. The consensus from most people in the comments was that the 4790K was still excellent for 60fps 1080p. For single thread, it still runs at 85% of the 9700K. Obviously, for an optimized game using multiple cores, the performance is only half the 9700K.
0