Performance just feels.. meh..

CapuchinSeven · August 2014

Armianlee wrote: »

Further, the usage we see at 25% on the other cores may, in fact, have nothing to do with ESO at all. I've not bothered to actually check to see what is running on those cores, I just see it ticking away through Afterburner on my G19s. It could be very possible that Windows is running ESO on C0T0 and then allocating it's background tasks and basic functioning to the "dormant" cores.

I think this is likely the case.

I dialled my CPU strap a little tonight and I've got a stable and cool overclock running pretty nicely now, large zergs don't seem to drop my FPS to below 30FPS which isn't really what I'd expect but is playable.

A small overclock made a huge difference so thank you for the heads up to those that suggested it.

SweetRollBandit · August 2014

Something has been happening to me that didn't happen before the patch. I use to be able to fight well in large groups but lately I've been crashing in the middle of every fight. My internet is running good, I've checked it while in battle but I still end up dead with out seeing what hit me and get stuck in the blue death scene with out being able to respawn causing me to either force close the window or crash before I can do that.

Armianlee · August 2014

SweetRollBandit wrote: »

Something has been happening to me that didn't happen before the patch. I use to be able to fight well in large groups but lately I've been crashing in the middle of every fight. My internet is running good, I've checked it while in battle but I still end up dead with out seeing what hit me and get stuck in the blue death scene with out being able to respawn causing me to either force close the window or crash before I can do that.

Now that you mention it, I have been having a hell of a lot more crashes since the last patch. Really fun ones where the game freezes but you can still hear the action in the background, right up until you die and you hear the death screen FXs. A few straight CTDs and one reset. Before this patch I've been pretty lucky and avoided most of the issues that have plagued other users, seems my uppance has come.

jrgray93 · August 2014

Yep, I've had 3-4 crashes in Cyrodiil since the patch. Never had any except the memory leak prior to it. Sigh...

deepseamk20b14_ESO · August 2014

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

It's not like my performance is bad, in PVE in fact it's fine. But drop into a large PVP fight and performance is just meh, again not unplayable but just really not what I expect.

I can play the game and sit at 100 FPS most of the time, but large big PVP battles get very stuttery and fall to 20 FPS, sometimes 15.

This is on a Haswell i7, 16GB RAM with twin 290X-X2's, if I run the game in Eyefinity or single screen the game will perform the same. If I change the settings to low, I still get the same 20FPS in large PVP battles.

It just feels... meh...

I can't complain that it's unplayable, it's just not how I would expect it. Does anyone else suffer from performance like this? Right now it feels like the game is in need of some major optimizing.

I have a great computer and during huge PvP battles with a couple hundred people on screen my FPS drops to 15-20. Then again, I haven't played a game that didn't stutter like that when that many people are on the screen. To many people came from single player Elder Scrolls games thinking this would be the exact same thing. EVERY MMO I have ever played does this when you get a few hundred people on the screen. Happened in Aion during sieges, happened in Tera with a dozen sorc's spamming magic, and it will happen with most every game until we all have quantum computers in our houses. I'm still interested how Star Citizen will handle everything having the graphics it does.

smeeprocketnub19_ESO · August 2014

Armianlee wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

poodlemasterb16_ESO wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

jrgray93 wrote: »

poodlemasterb16_ESO wrote: »

Don't forget to turn off core parking. Made a difference to my perfmon but not much to the game. I think a bit though, so it's probably worth doing.

A good suggestion for Windows 7 but it won't help within the game. Windows 8-8.1 disables it by default. One of the many ways Windows 8 is superior once you've adapted to the new interface.

Also the massive security risk.

Huh?

you have to use an MSN account for windows 8. From there you have all your information for various sites and accounts in your system. My dad, when we got him his new computer, quickly found out his account, which he had signed up for but never used, had been hacked to distribute ***. While some of that might be bad password making, it's a liability. And you have all your eggs in one basket with windows 8.

It is tied into your MSN account for signing in only and automatically syncing your desktop and cloud with your other PCs. If someone hacks your account you can easily swap over and still access your files. Also the person who steals your account has NO access to your PC or it's files (except those in the cloud and they would have access to that if they guessed it regardless) if they do figure out your password. There is no vulnerability with it at all. Further you can use an offline account like Windows 7 (still have network access and what not) and not have to sign in with your MS account. Still, any of your online stuff is vulnerable regardless what OS you're using.

Besides just being an awful OS in general.

Now you're just trolling. It is everything Windows 7 is with a bunch of tweaks, enhancements and features. (and if you don't like Metro you do not ever have to see it) Unlike Vista which overly bloated your system, performed like a haggard dog, and dragged everything down horribly.

While, I may be incorrect about security (I am still skeptical due to the ease of hacking an msn account and therefore being able to get a lot more from remote accessing the computer,) I am very much not trolling about it being a crap OS.

I am not using a tablet, and I do not want an interface designed specifically for a tablet. The start menu, one of the most useful features of the OS, was turned into complete garbage.

The majority of people using Windows 8 and actually preferring it are people that are fairly lacking when it comes to knowing their way around a computer, because for anyone who knows what they are doing, the interface is awkward and clunky. Those people are the ones that need as few security risks as possible, such as my dad.

But I will not argue that Vista was pretty horrible, as well. 8 certainly uses resources more effectively.

smeeprocketnub19_ESO · August 2014

jrgray93 wrote: »

You can use local accounts on Windows 8 / 8.1. Also, the security risk you speak of? There's no difference there than with any other account ever. Hell, you can turn off a lot of the cloud features if that scares you.

I would actually like to do that. Like I said, my dad and mother in law use it, and I'd really prefer they had minimal security risks.

To give you an idea of how bad my parents are with security, someone called my mom on the phone and told her they were with windows and her computer was on the verge of crashing, so they needed access to it to prevent that. She gave it to them... I have no idea how she scraped out of that with the minimal damage she got from it.

Armianlee · August 2014

deepseamk20b14_ESO wrote: »

EVERY MMO I have ever played does this when you get a few hundred people on the screen. Happened in Aion during sieges, happened in Tera with a dozen sorc's spamming magic, and it will happen with most every game until we all have quantum computers in our houses. I'm still interested how Star Citizen will handle everything having the graphics it does.

It isn't even waiting for quantum computing. It comes down to waiting for programmers of MMOs to finally take advantage of the hardware we have. Aion, Tera, Rift, WoW, SWTOR, AoC and ESO all use a single core so when there is a ton of action on screen the CPU slows down what it is sending to the GPU to deal with more physics, netcode, math, clipping... Et cetera, et cetera.

If ZOS, and other MMO devs, spent a little time* and programmed the engine to utilise additional threads/cores we wouldn't see that slow down on 8 threaded/cored systems with dual 290X or 780ti, there would be more than enough processing power to feed the cards constantly. Not to mention a nice 64bit executable so those of us with a bunch of RAM can use it, would be welcomed.

Again, I point to Battlefield, while the game isn't the best for story, DICE got the multicore/thread usage and 64bit exe, perfect. In heavy battles RAM use spikes well over 6GB, all cores run at 90-100% and both my GPUs are pushing 100%. Never do I see any slow down or choppy frames, and that game is far more graphic and network intensive than ESO.

Star Citizen will employ not only multicore/thread usage, but also Mantle for AMD users to squeeze everything they can out of the hardware available to it. It will be a game that will shine on multicore/thread, multiGPU systems. Let's just hope it is fun as well.

* I do realise that it isn't really a small amount of time, and would actually require quite a bit of work, but in the grand scheme of things it qualifies as "a little" time.

Rune_Relic · August 2014

deepseamk20b14_ESO wrote: »

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

It's not like my performance is bad, in PVE in fact it's fine. But drop into a large PVP fight and performance is just meh, again not unplayable but just really not what I expect.

I can play the game and sit at 100 FPS most of the time, but large big PVP battles get very stuttery and fall to 20 FPS, sometimes 15.

This is on a Haswell i7, 16GB RAM with twin 290X-X2's, if I run the game in Eyefinity or single screen the game will perform the same. If I change the settings to low, I still get the same 20FPS in large PVP battles.

It just feels... meh...

I can't complain that it's unplayable, it's just not how I would expect it. Does anyone else suffer from performance like this? Right now it feels like the game is in need of some major optimizing.

I have a great computer and during huge PvP battles with a couple hundred people on screen my FPS drops to 15-20. Then again, I haven't played a game that didn't stutter like that when that many people are on the screen. To many people came from single player Elder Scrolls games thinking this would be the exact same thing. EVERY MMO I have ever played does this when you get a few hundred people on the screen. Happened in Aion during sieges, happened in Tera with a dozen sorc's spamming magic, and it will happen with most every game until we all have quantum computers in our houses. I'm still interested how Star Citizen will handle everything having the graphics it does.

Because zos advertised the fact there would be 100s in PVP battle without problems

Audigy · August 2014

The rendering for the graphics is on that single thread, everyth

Armianlee wrote: »

SweetRollBandit wrote: »

Something has been happening to me that didn't happen before the patch. I use to be able to fight well in large groups but lately I've been crashing in the middle of every fight. My internet is running good, I've checked it while in battle but I still end up dead with out seeing what hit me and get stuck in the blue death scene with out being able to respawn causing me to either force close the window or crash before I can do that.

Now that you mention it, I have been having a hell of a lot more crashes since the last patch. Really fun ones where the game freezes but you can still hear the action in the background, right up until you die and you hear the death screen FXs. A few straight CTDs and one reset. Before this patch I've been pretty lucky and avoided most of the issues that have plagued other users, seems my uppance has come.

I experienced similar things, three crashes since the patch while I only crashed once or twice since early Beta days before.

cf398ub17_ESO · August 2014

Because zos advertised the fact there would be 100s in PVP battle without problems

[/quote]
yeah i remember reading this and thinking this is going to be great and now i am getting 10-15 fps on low settings

Armianlee · August 2014

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

The majority of people using Windows 8 and actually preferring it are people that are fairly lacking when it comes to knowing their way around a computer, because for anyone who knows what they are doing, the interface is awkward and clunky. Those people are the ones that need as few security risks as possible, such as my dad.

But I will not argue that Vista was pretty horrible, as well. 8 certainly uses resources more effectively.

Like I said in my previous post. You can completely avoid the Metro interface (like I do) and have it so that the start menu is EXACTLY like WIndows. You don't have to use the "tablet" interface at all. Though, I love it when I do jump on my tablet and have EVERYTHING that is shared on my main system, in the same spot with the same settings right there, and love that I can use the Metro Interface on the tablet because it is far nicer for that.

My opinion is, and this isn't a stab at you, the majority of gamers who are holding on to Windows 7 are the regular gamers that really cannot figure their way around or feel comfortable tweaking their OS. Ever since day one these "fixes" to make it like 7 have been available to everyone, for free. The only real complaint has ever been the Metro Interface, and if that is completely avoidable... there is nothing left to complain about.

Rune_Relic · August 2014

Armianlee wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

The majority of people using Windows 8 and actually preferring it are people that are fairly lacking when it comes to knowing their way around a computer, because for anyone who knows what they are doing, the interface is awkward and clunky. Those people are the ones that need as few security risks as possible, such as my dad.

But I will not argue that Vista was pretty horrible, as well. 8 certainly uses resources more effectively.

Like I said in my previous post. You can completely avoid the Metro interface (like I do) and have it so that the start menu is EXACTLY like WIndows. You don't have to use the "tablet" interface at all. Though, I love it when I do jump on my tablet and have EVERYTHING that is shared on my main system, in the same spot with the same settings right there, and love that I can use the Metro Interface on the tablet because it is far nicer for that.

My opinion is, and this isn't a stab at you, the majority of gamers who are holding on to Windows 7 are the regular gamers that really cannot figure their way around or feel comfortable tweaking their OS. Ever since day one these "fixes" to make it like 7 have been available to everyone, for free. The only real complaint has ever been the Metro Interface, and if that is completely avoidable... there is nothing left to complain about.

aside form the many 'wont work with 8.1' issues. Why there are issues I never looked into. But it made my mind up pretty sharp that its just another vista.

95
98
milllemium
2000
xp
vista
7
8

They do seem to take it in turns with good OS bad OS.
I'll wait for 9.

Armianlee · August 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Armianlee wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

The majority of people using Windows 8 and actually preferring it are people that are fairly lacking when it comes to knowing their way around a computer, because for anyone who knows what they are doing, the interface is awkward and clunky. Those people are the ones that need as few security risks as possible, such as my dad.

But I will not argue that Vista was pretty horrible, as well. 8 certainly uses resources more effectively.

Like I said in my previous post. You can completely avoid the Metro interface (like I do) and have it so that the start menu is EXACTLY like WIndows. You don't have to use the "tablet" interface at all. Though, I love it when I do jump on my tablet and have EVERYTHING that is shared on my main system, in the same spot with the same settings right there, and love that I can use the Metro Interface on the tablet because it is far nicer for that.

My opinion is, and this isn't a stab at you, the majority of gamers who are holding on to Windows 7 are the regular gamers that really cannot figure their way around or feel comfortable tweaking their OS. Ever since day one these "fixes" to make it like 7 have been available to everyone, for free. The only real complaint has ever been the Metro Interface, and if that is completely avoidable... there is nothing left to complain about.

aside form the many 'wont work with 8.1' issues. Why there are issues I never looked into. But it made my mind up pretty sharp that its just another vista.

95
98
milllemium
2000
xp
vista
7
8

They do seem to take it in turns with good OS bad OS.
I'll wait for 9.

Hmm, I can only assume it was either you or smeep that graced me with an, "LOL" for my post. Though there is nothing funny about it. What is funny, is coming from two guys who aren't even using the OS, all you are putting forth is speculation.

MSN sign in, is not a threat. Period. You can wear your tinfoil hats if you wish, but that is your own thoughts with no basis in fact.

I've never had a single game not run on 8 so far. I've had to tweak some of my older ones with "Run as Administrator" and "Run in Window XP Mode", or change a line in the ini or cfgs, but they've all worked. 8 doesn't really have issues like the "bad" windows before it... that is what the whole point of that post was. Aside from Metro, which is completely avoidable, it is a better OS than 7. It doesn't fall anywhere near the atrocities that Vista or Millennium were, it takes Windows 7 and improves on it in every way aside from their stupid Metro start menu (which in case you've missed it the past 4 times I've said it in this thread, you can completely avoid).

I do suggest you wait for 9... will be easier for you to figure out it seems. Preview of it should be coming out end of September early October. If you're the kind to play around with preview versions, that is. Just for the record, it will still have Metro as well, it will just be like Windows 8.1 with the free addons. Also from what I've read there really isn't going to be anything different really, aside from things that will more than likely make it as SP3 for 8.1. Pretty much Windows 8.2, but since there are so many people with a bad taste with the name 8 they are calling it 9. With the jump to the 9 name to it allows them to have their two version support scheme they've seemed to keep... as of January 13, 2015, Windows 7 loses mainstream support.
Anyways, we have gone completely off track here. Let's try and get it back to ESO's performance in general.

CapuchinSeven · September 2014

My performance is still pretty meh to be honest, even with my turbo boost over clocked. The game really doesn't seem to want to take advantage of any sort of decent hardware in any shape or form.

I do get it to an extent, software complexity keeps growing and the development costs grow with them, most software doesn't really take true advantage of multicores let alone the huge floating power of modern GPUs. All that said though, the performance is shockingly "meh" given the hardware I'm running it on.

raglau · September 2014

Just been discussing this in another thread. Anyone on AMD should ensure they have the hotfixes for AMD specific thread scheduling and core parking on Win7 installed (Win8 has these native). It really does help in a lightly threaded game like ESO.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594/en-gb

Anu_Saukko_Tutkija · September 2014

Paske wrote: »

1. ctrl+alt+del and go to task manager.
2. Find ESO ( not launcher mind you, ESO ). Right click on ESO and set priority HIGH
3. Right click on ESO again and Set affinity, turn off Core 0
This will enable the game to use other cores.

While it wont do wonders, it will make the game a lot more gamer friendly.

EDIT: Fix is not mine BTW. But it works. For me at least.

???????????? what is this??

raglau · September 2014

killerintheline9 wrote: »

Paske wrote: »

1. ctrl+alt+del and go to task manager.
2. Find ESO ( not launcher mind you, ESO ). Right click on ESO and set priority HIGH
3. Right click on ESO again and Set affinity, turn off Core 0
This will enable the game to use other cores.

While it wont do wonders, it will make the game a lot more gamer friendly.

EDIT: Fix is not mine BTW. But it works. For me at least.

???????????? what is this??

Indeed, I'd not suggest anyone follows this, as turning off Core0 will deprive ESO of a core. Being as it is multi-threaded, that's not a good idea. The ESO process needs affinity for all cores, and that is how it will be set by default.

The priority change may help but it can be detrimental as it can deprive other services of timely CPU access, and that can have a knock on effect to application performance.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

Dont see the problem asigning cores.
When stress testing I would run 4 instance....each on its own core to make sure I was using 100% of every core.
Even though the app was in fact multithreaded.

I fail to see how it does any harm by limiting the cores.
Out of 8 available ESO only ever uses 4 of mine anyway.
Why compete for cycles on thread 0 when you can have no competition on the other 7 threads ?

raglau · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

I fail to see how it does any harm by limiting the cores.
Out of 8 available ESO only ever uses 4 of mine anyway.
Why compete for cycles on thread 0 when you can have no competition on the other 7 threads ?

Because the Windows Executive can and does make these decisions on a dynamic basis every few milliseconds, you cannot do this.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

I assure you I can.
1. Start ESO.
2. start task manager
3. right click eso and select affinity.
4. disable cpu0 and leave the other remaining ticked.

There done ? The kernel will run ESO in cores 1-7

raglau · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

I assure you I can.
1. Start ESO.
2. start task manager
3. right click eso and select affinity.
4. disable cpu0 and leave the other remaining ticked.

There done ? The kernel will run ESO in cores 1-7

Well done, you have deprived ESO of a core until you correctly set affinity once more.

Yes, you and any other fool can of course make a permanent decision about what cores a process might use, but my point is that you cannot make an ongoing and dynamic decision about how to schedule threads every millisecond. The Exec will exclude Core 0 from it's assignments if that core is overloaded anyway, so your action is pointless.

I'd advise anyone reading to ignore this poster's example, it is a classic case of a little knowledge being dangerous\futile.

cromica81_ESO · September 2014

I don't know what the problem is but I almost always get 60-80 fps in pvp even in big battles, but the other night after I was hit with a knock down it dropped my fps down to 10 and it was stuck there until I restarted my computer

Rune_Relic · September 2014

Yes I have deprived ESO of a 'heavily used' core where 4 are not even used.
Your point ?

raglau · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Yes I have deprived ESO of a 'heavily used' core where 4 are not even used.
Your point ?

My point is the Windows Exec will do this anyway, but in a far more intelligent way than you or I, and at a rate a human can never achieve.

Remember, Windows schedules THREADS not processes and you have denied an entire process access to a core in an arbitrary fashion. The Exec does this by assessing core load, synergies with other threads (which you cannot do).

Also, if core 0 is heavily used right now, it does not mean it will be in 5 minutes. Example, earlier I was rendering some video and audio and Core 6 was the most heavily used. I then rendered some more about 10 mins ago and Core 0 got most heavily used. The whole scheduling process is completely dynamic and you cannot second guess it.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

squicker wrote: »

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Yes I have deprived ESO of a 'heavily used' core where 4 are not even used.
Your point ?

My point is the Windows Exec will do this anyway, but in a far more intelligent way than you or I, and at a rate a human can never achieve.

Remember, Windows schedules THREADS not processes and you have denied an entire process access to a core in an arbitrary fashion. The Exec does this by assessing core load, synergies with other threads (which you cannot do).

Also, if core 0 is heavily used right now, it does not mean it will be in 5 minutes. Example, earlier I was rendering some video and audio and Core 6 was the most heavily used. I then rendered some more about 10 mins ago and Core 0 got most heavily used. The whole scheduling process is completely dynamic and you cannot second guess it.

So one core has 5 procesesses on it that will go best as a round robin.
At best I will get 1/5 of the potoential of a core with 0 processes running on it.
Thats why I dont see the problem with tell windows not to use core 0 for ESO....as most programs do get chucked on core 0. My core 0 is always heavily used and the others hardly touched.

Windows really doesnt give a damn if the code uses cores 0-7 or cores 1-7 it will still optimise it over the 7 cores instead of the 8 cores.

raglau · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

So one core has 5 procesesses on it that will go best as a round robin.
At best I will get 1/5 of the potoential of a core with 0 processes running on it.
Thats why I dont see the problem with tell windows not to use core 0 for ESO....as most programs do get chucked on core 0. My core 0 is always heavily used and the others hardly touched.

Cores do not run (execute) processes, they run threads. I think this is where you fundamental mis-understanding starts. Windows executes threads, not processes. This is very important. |

At the end of the day, if it makes you happy, then do it. I am merely telling you how it works and why you won't see a benefit and for most people, there will actually be a dis-benefit, hence why I say people should not use this example because it is very specific to your environment (my Core 0 is lightly used as we speak, and Core 2 and 4 are now heavily used (doing a large encrypted file copy), and is at best a placebo.

It's a bit like this: If I were to disable ABS in my car, some of the time I may brake in the dry as well as ABS can. But I will NEVER out-perform ABS braking because the braking computer modulates brake pressure to changing grip levels 50 times a second or more, and I cannot ever match that as a human because I am too slow, even if I were as good at assessing grip levels as the ABS computer. And when it comes to complex circumstances (wet weather braking) I will never even match ABS.

And perhaps in your curren situation you have worked out that Core 0 is usually most heavily used and therefore you don't want ESO to use it. Fine, until something changes in the order of launch, or a new version of your AV is released that contains more threads and therefore the whole scheduling algorithm is changed and suddenly Core 5 is most heavily used.

Also, whilst threads are round-robin scheduled (priority permitting) core assignment is not round-robin due to the inequalities caused by differing thread priority levels, core parking etc. Windows tries to keep a thread on its ideal core to avoid cache degradation or foreign memory controller access (NUMA system) and we as humans cannot understand these synergies.

Trust me, you can't do a better job than the OS at this, and that goes for any multi-threading OS.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms684251(v=vs.85).aspx

"Setting thread affinity should generally be avoided, because it can interfere with the scheduler's ability to schedule threads effectively across processors. This can decrease the performance gains produced by parallel processing. An appropriate use of thread affinity is testing each processor."

http://www.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp/edu/training/ss/lecture/new-documents/Lectures/03-ThreadScheduling/ThreadScheduling.pdf

That last one explains it far better than I can be bothered to!

Rune_Relic · September 2014

If it was such a perfect system I would have all 8 cores with almost identical % usage. That never ever happens.

raglau · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

If it was such a perfect system I would have all 8 cores with almost identical % usage. That never ever happens.

No it would not because it's not about even balancing of cores. It's about the fastest way to execute threads. And there maybe synergies with some threads that mean they should all run on the same core: cache is the usual one, the Exec will attempt to make threads that share the same memory data run on the same core so those threads both get access to the same on-chip cache and therefore perform far faster than having to fetch non-cached data from memory or possibly even a foreign memory controller (NUMA).

Power is another consideration. For an Intel CPU maximum boost speed is dependant on active core count so heat and power limits are not breached.

So long as a core does not hit 100% the Exec can keep on chucking threads onto it. Once it pre-emptively sees that 100 might get hit, it can shuffle them off.

You cannot pre-emptively do this.

EDIT: Plus you get processes like ESO, which are highly multi-threaded but actually only have one main thread that saturates a core. Because this thread is non-divisible into smaller units of execution, this type of process skews the core load; even though it may be the only thread executing on a given core, because of it's nature it saturates that core.

Neither Windows or any other OS can do anything about this because a thread is the smallest divisible unit of execution.

Durham · September 2014

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

It's not like my performance is bad, in PVE in fact it's fine. But drop into a large PVP fight and performance is just meh, again not unplayable but just really not what I expect.

I can play the game and sit at 100 FPS most of the time, but large big PVP battles get very stuttery and fall to 20 FPS, sometimes 15.

This is on a Haswell i7, 16GB RAM with twin 290X-X2's, if I run the game in Eyefinity or single screen the game will perform the same. If I change the settings to low, I still get the same 20FPS in large PVP battles.

It just feels... meh...

I can't complain that it's unplayable, it's just not how I would expect it. Does anyone else suffer from performance like this? Right now it feels like the game is in need of some major optimizing.

When you get into huge battles it really works your processor.. In PvP i will list the cpus and performance in our group....

I7 Haswell 4.0 -4.4 mhz. 24fps
I5 Haswell 3.5- 3.9. mhz 20fps
AMD 965 OC. 3.7.mhz. 12fps
AMD tricore 3.0 mhz. 6 fps

The top 3 are running same video cards... bottom is running a 560gtx....