Game doesn't utilize full system resources.

raglau

Here, it can use 4GB RAM:

"FILE HEADER VALUES
14C machine (x86)
7 number of sections
533C5DB9 time date stamp Wed Apr 02 19:58:01 2014
0 file pointer to symbol table
0 number of symbols
E0 size of optional header
122 characteristics
Executable
Application can handle large (>2GB) addresses
32 bit word machine"

doncornelius

Ah yeah well I guess I didn't modify anything, so I'm not in violation of anything. In any case, I did what you advised Felix and I have no tangible results.

raglau

SMW1980b14a_ESO wrote: »

That makes me wonder, if a program CAN use more than 4GB as the result of a patch, do you really know that it WILL use more? I'm no programmer, but one would think it would need to been designed to tell it to use more. Unless such a thing is dynamic and it isn't explicitly told how much to request, but simply to always ask for more if it's needed... Who knows. Not me.

So it can use 4GB, I just dumped the headers. I have it on SSD with a RAMdrive for temps and the game is fast. I run everything maxed out and I get over 100FPS at times, I've not done any PvP however...

But the game is very beautiful regardless of any possible issues with the resource usage, it's miles better than my last MMO - Rift - which ran like a dog and looked like dog-s***!

LjMjollnir

darkkterror_ESO wrote: »

The game executable is already large address aware by default. This means that it can use up to 4GB of memory on a 64-bit operating system.

Yep and ive noticed a Memory leak in the game.. i have 16Gb of ram and when the game gets to the 4GB limit my frame rates drop dramatically.. i usually start at 50+ on ultra.. by the time it hits the 4Gb limit im sitting at 6fps..

the game is not clearing memory resources correctly.

doncornelius

I agree the game is great overall, but I did not buy it to PvE. I bought it to PvP as advertised. I did not intend to leave Cyrodiil after level 10 as its advertised that you can level completely within the pvp zone. But I can't do anything with this FPS, so my aspirations within the game are put on hold.

raglau

It would be interesting to see what the developer says. It might be one of those things where they could not truly test the scale of PvP until live and now there are things at the backend holding the game up...

doncornelius wrote: »

I agree the game is great overall, but I did not buy it to PvE. I bought it to PvP as advertised. I did not intend to leave Cyrodiil after level 10 as its advertised that you can level completely within the pvp zone. But I can't do anything with this FPS, so my aspirations within the game are put on hold.

Saerydoth

...seriously, people are using i7's and complaining that the game isn't making full use of 8 cores, and not making full use of video cards like the 780 and 780ti? You have to be realistic here. Games that support 4 cores are REALLY rare, and the only game I am aware of that is capable of using more than 4 cores, and is capable of pushing a 780ti to the limit is Crysis 3. We aren't using CryEngine here. The ESO engine seems to be very good, but to use "full system resources" on some of these high end machines would require an engine that would not run on lesser hardware at all.

The game is performing reasonably well considering it JUST came out and video card drivers haven't been optimized/etc. Nvidia in particular has said that their drivers are not performing as well as they should with ESO, and that this will be corrected with the next driver release, which will be within April.

Personally, on my i7-4770k, I have seen ESO use consistently 3 cores, with some on a 4th. I'd say it's pretty well optimized so far.

felixgamingx1

SMW1980b14a_ESO wrote: »

That makes me wonder, if a program CAN use more than 4GB as the result of a patch, do you really know that it WILL use more? I'm no programmer, but one would think it would need to been designed to tell it to use more. Unless such a thing is dynamic and it isn't explicitly told how much to request, but simply to always ask for more if it's needed... Who knows. Not me.

I know the last game I tried one of those patches on it didn't help. It had a problem (that has since been fixed by the developer) where the moment memory usage hit a certain amount, the game would crash. Even if you used a LAA patcher on the EXE, it could use more, but it still crashed once it reached the very same limit it had previously.

Now I wonder what would happen if you had like 64GB of RAM and loaded the entire game onto a RAM drive... Probably not much though, I bet. If it can't utilize cores very well, memory probably isn't where the bottleneck is.

The game doesn't run/load much different on a high speed SSD than it does on a much slower conventional hard drive, so there are a lot of other barriers before memory usage.

So my money is on any 4gb patcher not doing anything other than making you have a modified EXE.

X64 Ram cap is 32gb

seangcxqb14_ESO

felixgamingx1 wrote: »

SMW1980b14a_ESO wrote: »

That makes me wonder, if a program CAN use more than 4GB as the result of a patch, do you really know that it WILL use more? I'm no programmer, but one would think it would need to been designed to tell it to use more. Unless such a thing is dynamic and it isn't explicitly told how much to request, but simply to always ask for more if it's needed... Who knows. Not me.

I know the last game I tried one of those patches on it didn't help. It had a problem (that has since been fixed by the developer) where the moment memory usage hit a certain amount, the game would crash. Even if you used a LAA patcher on the EXE, it could use more, but it still crashed once it reached the very same limit it had previously.

Now I wonder what would happen if you had like 64GB of RAM and loaded the entire game onto a RAM drive... Probably not much though, I bet. If it can't utilize cores very well, memory probably isn't where the bottleneck is.

The game doesn't run/load much different on a high speed SSD than it does on a much slower conventional hard drive, so there are a lot of other barriers before memory usage.

So my money is on any 4gb patcher not doing anything other than making you have a modified EXE.

X64 Ram cap is 32gb

No, it's not. 64-bit allows for 16 exbibytes

raglau

If you read the OP he is saying he's getting low FPS and the game is not using all resources. Which is of course rather different to what you are saying.

Saerydoth wrote: »

...seriously, people are using i7's and complaining that the game isn't making full use of 8 cores, and not making full use of video cards like the 780 and 780ti? You have to be realistic here. Games that support 4 cores are REALLY rare, and the only game I am aware of that is

seangcxqb14_ESO

squicker wrote: »

If you read the OP he is saying he's getting low FPS and the game is not using all resources. Which is of course rather different to what you are saying.

Saerydoth wrote: »

...seriously, people are using i7's and complaining that the game isn't making full use of 8 cores, and not making full use of video cards like the 780 and 780ti? You have to be realistic here. Games that support 4 cores are REALLY rare, and the only game I am aware of that is

Obviously the game should be able to utilize enough resources to run at a reasonable framerate on maximum settings if such hardware is available. If it is not, that is clearly a problem.

doncornelius

Saerydoth wrote: »

...seriously, people are using i7's and complaining that the game isn't making full use of 8 cores, and not making full use of video cards like the 780 and 780ti? You have to be realistic here. Games that support 4 cores are REALLY rare, and the only game I am aware of that is capable of using more than 4 cores, and is capable of pushing a 780ti to the limit is Crysis 3. We aren't using CryEngine here. The ESO engine seems to be very good, but to use "full system resources" on some of these high end machines would require an engine that would not run on lesser hardware at all.

The game is performing reasonably well considering it JUST came out and video card drivers haven't been optimized/etc. Nvidia in particular has said that their drivers are not performing as well as they should with ESO, and that this will be corrected with the next driver release, which will be within April.

Personally, on my i7-4770k, I have seen ESO use consistently 3 cores, with some on a 4th. I'd say it's pretty well optimized so far.

Interesting. What graphics card do you have?

raglau

Interestingly, in PvE just doing an anchor so a lot going on, I was only seeing one core run to about 80%, even though I had 32 threads running. My GPU was running about 58% and I was getting 58 to 100 FPS. I run Ultra in the game with the water turned up to max, plus 16xQX AA in Nvidia control panel and supersampling 8x. I have 8x Anisotropic as well plus High Quality textures set in Nvidia control panel.

The game flies along and looks great, even thought it doesn't seem to stress anything at all.

I have a core i7 3770K at 4.4GHz and a GTX780 EVGA Superclocked with the ACX coolers, so 1098 or something.

With figures like that, the game is crying out to take advantage of my Nvidia 3DVision as it easily has the overhead for both renders! In PvE anyway...

seangcxqb14_ESO wrote: »

Obviously the game should be able to utilize enough resources to run at a reasonable framerate on maximum settings if such hardware is available. If it is not, that is clearly a problem.

Saerydoth

seangcxqb14_ESO wrote: »

felixgamingx1 wrote: »

SMW1980b14a_ESO wrote: »

That makes me wonder, if a program CAN use more than 4GB as the result of a patch, do you really know that it WILL use more? I'm no programmer, but one would think it would need to been designed to tell it to use more. Unless such a thing is dynamic and it isn't explicitly told how much to request, but simply to always ask for more if it's needed... Who knows. Not me.

I know the last game I tried one of those patches on it didn't help. It had a problem (that has since been fixed by the developer) where the moment memory usage hit a certain amount, the game would crash. Even if you used a LAA patcher on the EXE, it could use more, but it still crashed once it reached the very same limit it had previously.

Now I wonder what would happen if you had like 64GB of RAM and loaded the entire game onto a RAM drive... Probably not much though, I bet. If it can't utilize cores very well, memory probably isn't where the bottleneck is.

The game doesn't run/load much different on a high speed SSD than it does on a much slower conventional hard drive, so there are a lot of other barriers before memory usage.

So my money is on any 4gb patcher not doing anything other than making you have a modified EXE.

X64 Ram cap is 32gb

No, it's not. 64-bit allows for 16 exbibytes

Most current consumer motherboards are limited to 32GB though - hardware limitation, due to them not supporting memory modules larger than 8GB.

Saerydoth

doncornelius wrote: »

Saerydoth wrote: »

...seriously, people are using i7's and complaining that the game isn't making full use of 8 cores, and not making full use of video cards like the 780 and 780ti? You have to be realistic here. Games that support 4 cores are REALLY rare, and the only game I am aware of that is capable of using more than 4 cores, and is capable of pushing a 780ti to the limit is Crysis 3. We aren't using CryEngine here. The ESO engine seems to be very good, but to use "full system resources" on some of these high end machines would require an engine that would not run on lesser hardware at all.

The game is performing reasonably well considering it JUST came out and video card drivers haven't been optimized/etc. Nvidia in particular has said that their drivers are not performing as well as they should with ESO, and that this will be corrected with the next driver release, which will be within April.

Personally, on my i7-4770k, I have seen ESO use consistently 3 cores, with some on a 4th. I'd say it's pretty well optimized so far.

Interesting. What graphics card do you have?

EVGA GTX 780ti SC (the one with the ACX cooler). I get 60fps most places (vsync), in places with very heavy activity I've seen it drop to 40 or so. I don't expect this game to stress my GPU though - like I said, it takes Crysis 3 to stress my GPU.

doncornelius

Saerydoth wrote: »

doncornelius wrote: »

Saerydoth wrote: »

...seriously, people are using i7's and complaining that the game isn't making full use of 8 cores, and not making full use of video cards like the 780 and 780ti? You have to be realistic here. Games that support 4 cores are REALLY rare, and the only game I am aware of that is capable of using more than 4 cores, and is capable of pushing a 780ti to the limit is Crysis 3. We aren't using CryEngine here. The ESO engine seems to be very good, but to use "full system resources" on some of these high end machines would require an engine that would not run on lesser hardware at all.

The game is performing reasonably well considering it JUST came out and video card drivers haven't been optimized/etc. Nvidia in particular has said that their drivers are not performing as well as they should with ESO, and that this will be corrected with the next driver release, which will be within April.

Personally, on my i7-4770k, I have seen ESO use consistently 3 cores, with some on a 4th. I'd say it's pretty well optimized so far.

Interesting. What graphics card do you have?

EVGA GTX 780ti SC (the one with the ACX cooler). I get 60fps most places (vsync), in places with very heavy activity I've seen it drop to 40 or so. I don't expect this game to stress my GPU though - like I said, it takes Crysis 3 to stress my GPU.

Have you done any PvP with hundreds of people yet? Cause up until I went to Cyrodiil I had immaculate FPS as well. And yes CryEngine games (not Crysis 3 cuz thats just an expensive benchmark tool, so I won't pay for it) without a hiccup as well.

Stormchaser

Weighing in here to add another data point:
I run the game consistently between 45-65-ish fps depending on if I'm indoors or not - max settings @ 2560-1440, and view distance about 80. I have not done a big battle in Cyrodiil yet. I'm running the latest NVidia drivers (checked for updates 2 days ago).

Specs: i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz, 8GB 2400, eVGA GTX 480 2GB OC'd a bit.

I had a similar problem where GPU wasn't fully used, and there seemed to be a fps cap. I updated the drivers and problem persisted. I uninstalled all drivers completely and reinstalled fresh... my problem was fixed after that.

Sharakor

There's no real drivers for ESO from Nvidia (or AMD) as of yet. That is probably the biggest issue right now. I have a 780 Ti, the GPU usage has never gone above 30% and I have everything maxxed as well as FOD. In Cyrodil I had the exact same problem where I went as low as 5 FPS (on a friggin 780 ti people lol). Although weirdly enough 2 or 3 days ago this changed. It might have been a patch by ESO or something but now my fps is capped out, it will stay at the limit of 100 and rarely go to 99.

raglau

doncornelius wrote: »

Have you done any PvP with hundreds of people yet? Cause up until I went to Cyrodiil I had immaculate FPS as well. And yes CryEngine games (not Crysis 3 cuz thats just an expensive benchmark tool, so I won't pay for it) without a hiccup as well.

I am going to have a look at this today because, if it's slowing down with hundreds of people BUT your GPU, CPU, RAM etc are not bottlenecking it, then it might be the back-end not sending data quickly enough to be processed (or it could be network latency but most modern broadband it good enough to handle such a game), so the CPU (and hence GPU) is left waiting. We can check this with Perfmon to see if threads are busy or waiting; i.e. is it a local bottleneck or server-side. It will be interesting to know.

Stormchaser wrote: »

I had a similar problem where GPU wasn't fully used, and there seemed to be a fps cap. I updated the drivers and problem persisted. I uninstalled all drivers completely and reinstalled fresh... my problem was fixed after that.

For me that's not an issue as, co-incidentally, a few days before release I totally re-installed Win8.1 as I stuck a couple of RAID0 sets in there. So everything is a fresh install from late last week.

prabab

felixgamingx1 wrote: »

Btw the human eye can only process 20 frames per second so don't get crazy about getting 100fps

As far as we know from experiments subjects were able to differentiate between even 1/600 and 1/800 of second (600 and 800 fps) and that's probably not the upper limit of our perception, scientists simply weren't able to test faster reaction times due to technological limitations. Can we get it over with this myth?

raglau

I agree, this 'eye perception thing' is a complete myth. Whilst I agree that 100fps vs 60fps is probably not that noticeable, 60fps vs 20fps is a VERY noticeable improvement. Certainly in a game with FPS elements you will be at a disadvantage for high resolution and accurate rotations if FPS is down at 20.

prabab wrote: »

felixgamingx1 wrote: »

Btw the human eye can only process 20 frames per second so don't get crazy about getting 100fps

As far as we know from experiments subjects were able to differentiate between even 1/600 and 1/800 of second (600 and 800 fps) and that's probably not the upper limit of our perception, scientists simply weren't able to test faster reaction times due to technological limitations. Can we get it over with this myth?

doncornelius

squicker wrote: »

I am going to have a look at this today because, if it's slowing down with hundreds of people BUT your GPU, CPU, RAM etc are not bottlenecking it, then it might be the back-end not sending data quickly enough to be processed (or it could be network latency but most modern broadband it good enough to handle such a game), so the CPU (and hence GPU) is left waiting. We can check this with Perfmon to see if threads are busy or waiting; i.e. is it a local bottleneck or server-side. It will be interesting to know.

Did you ever get around to testing this?

asonkin

One thing to remember is that it IS MMO and your connection speed can affect the game. We all see that the servers been overloaded with players and patches lately.

Is there a way to see or test the connection speed and how it can affect the gameplay?

ced

squicker wrote: »

I agree, this 'eye perception thing' is a complete myth. Whilst I agree that 100fps vs 60fps is probably not that noticeable, 60fps vs 20fps is a VERY noticeable improvement. Certainly in a game with FPS elements you will be at a disadvantage for high resolution and accurate rotations if FPS is down at 20.

prabab wrote: »

felixgamingx1 wrote: »

Btw the human eye can only process 20 frames per second so don't get crazy about getting 100fps

As far as we know from experiments subjects were able to differentiate between even 1/600 and 1/800 of second (600 and 800 fps) and that's probably not the upper limit of our perception, scientists simply weren't able to test faster reaction times due to technological limitations. Can we get it over with this myth?

lets fully get over the misinformation shall we (shooter players can take note also)

at about 30 fps, the human eye stops differentiating between still frames and moving frames. therefore at less than 30 the brain feels it is still being shown many images, like a light bulb switching on and off. obviously fps lower than say 20 is discernible by the human eye when it is rendered on a screen but the only reason to have more than 30 is that it is less tiring to our eyes.

i believe the game has been capped to 60 fps also.
edit: it is 100fps thanks squicker

Rek

squicker wrote: »

I agree, this 'eye perception thing' is a complete myth. Whilst I agree that 100fps vs 60fps is probably not that noticeable, 60fps vs 20fps is a VERY noticeable improvement. Certainly in a game with FPS elements you will be at a disadvantage for high resolution and accurate rotations if FPS is down at 20.

prabab wrote: »

felixgamingx1 wrote: »

Btw the human eye can only process 20 frames per second so don't get crazy about getting 100fps

As far as we know from experiments subjects were able to differentiate between even 1/600 and 1/800 of second (600 and 800 fps) and that's probably not the upper limit of our perception, scientists simply weren't able to test faster reaction times due to technological limitations. Can we get it over with this myth?

Yeah I use to believe that myth, I must of heard in that age where I believed everything I read on the internet (damn you, young me). But here's a great link to compare 15 fps, 30fps and 60 fps. You can certainly still see a difference between 30 & 60fps. Available here.

raglau

Sadly no because, every time I enter PvP I get kicked out and I cannot get back in for ages to move my char from Cyrodiil. I then became wary of losing or damaging my char in some way, so am waiting on the game to become more stable.

Some of the people in my group - for the short spurts I was in there - complained of big lag spikes, but I did not experience any.

In normal play, the game is most definitely CPU bound. I have watched it many times now:

30-32 threads spawned
These are distributed fairly evenly but load up one of my 'real' cores (I have hyper-threading)
This core tops out at about 85% while the others around 30%
The GPU, despite throwing every option I can at the game maxes at 70% usage maximum
In PvE the game uses about 1.2GB of RAM, perhaps PvP would be more

I have a 120Hz monitor but I can only get 100fps, even with Vsync off, seems something is artificially holding back the FPS.

The game is very light in PvE mode. If I compare it to Rift, which is a real CPU hog and looks like crap, this is a fine looking game that doesn't tax a PC at all, in PvE mode that is...

I'll try PvP again once we've had some meaningful patches, but right now it's far too unstable for me.

doncornelius wrote: »

Did you ever get around to testing this?

raglau

No it's capped at 100FPS. I have a 120Hz monitor and I get to 100FPS and it tops out (Vsync on and off), despite my PC being relatively unused. Outdoors I get lower FPS as we'd imagine, that's more in the region of 60-70.

"ced wrote: »

i believe the game has been capped to 60 fps also.

Saerydoth

Sharakor wrote: »

There's no real drivers for ESO from Nvidia (or AMD) as of yet. That is probably the biggest issue right now. I have a 780 Ti, the GPU usage has never gone above 30% and I have everything maxxed as well as FOD. In Cyrodil I had the exact same problem where I went as low as 5 FPS (on a friggin 780 ti people lol). Although weirdly enough 2 or 3 days ago this changed. It might have been a patch by ESO or something but now my fps is capped out, it will stay at the limit of 100 and rarely go to 99.

To be fair, this game is NOT going to push a 780ti very hard (I have one too). When you get in a PVP heavy area with a lot of players, the game is going to be limited by the CPU LONG before it ever gets to a high usage on the GPU. It's just the nature of MMO's. This isn't Crysis 3.

That said, some of the ideas Nvidia has to help take some of the workload off of the CPU will definitely help.

Dorado

Lincolnshire_Poacher wrote: »

You think running it in xp compat or even in a vm would help?

Absolutely not.

raglau

"Saerydoth wrote: »

To be fair, this game is NOT going to push a 780ti very hard (I have one too). When you get in a PVP heavy area with a lot of players, the game is going to be limited by the CPU LONG before it ever gets to a high usage on the GPU. It's

I think that's likely to be the case. We buy these cards for future proofing also, so it's nice to see that they have headroom for later games.

I was playing last night and I think the game looks stunning, I've never seen an MMO this good looking. Despite all the misgivings I have about how it's being run right now, it's a really atmospheric game with fantastic art design.