Performance just feels.. meh..

Durham · September 2014

Durham 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.

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....

Away from the large battles the difference is not that much... i thought i would add that... for example the i7 would be getting 70fps and the amd would be just under it... however in large battles be prepared!

smeeprocketnub19_ESO · September 2014

Durham 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.

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....

I have an i5, and an nvidia geforce 550, and I get min 20 fps in most pvp situations including heavy sieges.

raglau · September 2014

Durham wrote: »

Durham 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.

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....

Away from the large battles the difference is not that much... i thought i would add that... for example the i7 would be getting 70fps and the amd would be just under it... however in large battles be prepared!

So in your experiment, once the CPU starts to work hard, those virtual cores really make a difference.

What GPUs are the Intel guys running?

guybrushtb16_ESO · September 2014

Armianlee wrote: »

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.

Because that is oh so incredibly easy. If it were such a miniscule task, believe me, they'd do it. What you are writing is akin to saying "if only those stupid scientists spent a little time and just cured cancer alright".

I'm not trying to whiteknight them, but I do think compared to their competition in the mmo segment ESO's performance is quite good actually. I'm coming from rift mind you, but I have yet to see any mmo pulling off perfect performance in big pvp scenes.

raglau · September 2014

guybrushtb16_ESO wrote: »

Armianlee wrote: »

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.

Because that is oh so incredibly easy. If it were such a miniscule task, believe me, they'd do it. What you are writing is akin to saying "if only those stupid scientists spent a little time and just cured cancer alright".

I'm not trying to whiteknight them, but I do think compared to their competition in the mmo segment ESO's performance is quite good actually. I'm coming from rift mind you, but I have yet to see any mmo pulling off perfect performance in big pvp scenes.

I am not a coder, I am solution\infrastructure architect so I am used to business technology solutions all being highly multi-threaded and I naively expected a game to be the same.

But I was chatting to another gamer on here who does code games and he explained to me how it's a little trickier for games to work well as multi-threaded apps. Essentially everything in the game always resolves back to the main game loop, which is rather event driven.

I actually looked at this in ESO using Perfmon and pretty much all the other 34 odd threads wait for the main thread (I think it's thread0) and this thread is usually waiting for user input according to its state in Perfmon.

Unpicking multi-threaded code is hard and introducing bugs is easy. Now the game is out it's a cost\risk vs reward thing, and that means it won't happen overnight if it does happen...

All that said, I am an Elite Dangerous backer and that is totally multi-threaded and uses all cores in earnest, including hyper-threading. So it can be done in some cases.

Armianlee · September 2014

guybrushtb16_ESO wrote: »

Armianlee wrote: »

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.

Because that is oh so incredibly easy. If it were such a miniscule task, believe me, they'd do it. What you are writing is akin to saying "if only those stupid scientists spent a little time and just cured cancer alright".

I'm not trying to whiteknight them, but I do think compared to their competition in the mmo segment ESO's performance is quite good actually. I'm coming from rift mind you, but I have yet to see any mmo pulling off perfect performance in big pvp scenes.

Seems someone didn't read the whole post I made there. I clearly say that it isn't an easy task.