is CPU important in gw2?

[lilypop.7819]

Most obvious thing about the OP's spec is the Ram Speed, he is running GW2 on Single rather than Dual channel enabled RAM. GW2 will take at least a 50% hit doing this. The memory doesn't get faster when going to Dual, you just get two pipelines to your GPU rather than one, although this is considered double 'speed' i.e. 800 --> 1600Mhz'. You will throttle and stutter GW2 fps if you run Single Channel.

 

I have a i5 4570 and there is no reason at all for the reported low fps being due to the CPU. Best check for GW2 fps comparison is to go into a PvP match and check your fps during the waiting period - this should be the highest possible and be very consistent. ALL MMO type games will yield varying fps rates depending on the local environment - this isn't just due to your PC because the game server will play a part as well.

 

If you go to UserBenchmark website you can check what hundreds of people have reported there GW2 fps to be (as well as other games), they fall into two groups, most are around 30fps (older console levels) with the second most popular being >50fps. These are of course reported fps. However the same site will allow you to compare the performance of your PC component against other toons' PC components - even exact same builds!. This is a good way of detecting if your PC build is crippled in some way.

 

Also note that there is a trend for modern graphics card software suites to individually tune games for the particular card, a non-AAA game like GW2 tends to drop into the default bin. Have a dig around your GTX card software suite and check that something silly is not been done.

 

Regards the performance of Ryzen 1st Gen CPUs, note that two cores of these CPUs will automatically turbo-ed up if temperatures allow (2nd Gen allows all to be turbo-ed). All the Ryzen CPU cores are above Haswell (Intel 4th Gen) levels even without turbo. The older Intel 2-core didn't turbo but had higher base speed than there partner 4-cores, which generally do turbo form a lower base - hence you might think than a two-core would run better than the matching 4-core intel - doubt this would be the case (aside from this GW2 is not fully two-core, there are some things - like WIfi/Ethernet/Audio processing which can be tossed to any additional core. Note, I have ignored the complication of threads here.

[Malediktus.9250]

> @"rank eleven monk.9502" said:

> > @"Julius Seizure.4985" said:

> > The irony is that many of the newer i3 models will play this game better (and cheaper) than i5 models. You just need 2 real cores with a high clock speed— and i3 delivers that better than all but the most expensive i5s.

> >

> > For instance, my i3 4170 is probably running the game better than your i5.

> Well, Coffee Lake (latest gen) i3-s are already 4 cores.

>

> Also, even though high single (read: dual) core speed helps a lot in GW2, it still very much uses 4 physical cores as far as I know. Most likely you will experience a lot less microlag with 4 physical cores too (this is true for most games anyway).

>

> To OP: it seems weird that the RAMs run at 800 mhz. Aren't they supposed to be like 1600mhz or something? I think in reality your ram runs at 1600mhz anyway

>

> If you compare this to DDR4 that mostly run between 2133-2800mhz.. that should be a big difference.

 

DDR means double data rate (GDDR from GPUs is technically quad data rate even). So the RAM only run at 800 MHz to deliver 1600 MT performance. Saying it runs at 1600 MHz is basically a marketing gimmick. Though high end DDR4 memory can run at 2GHz easily (mine for example runs at 2166 MHz CL17 which gets displayed as 4266)

 

>! 

 

[Tekoneiric.6817]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> @Kururu.8140

>

> Sadly Anet prefers blind and spam skilsl with tons of shinny effects over performance.... ._. # no wonder ur getting 20fps

 

I blame it on the engine. It's not built for all the effects they are pushing thru it these days. When player populations rise they disable minis but I also wish they would disable things like backpacks, legendary effects, particle effects from various sources. It gets crazy at events sometimes and the focus of the fights turn into a very bad kaleidoscope on the screen. If no one can see the pretty effects then why have them at high population events?

 

There are lots of things they could do to improve the player experience by giving them more controls to disable things rather than just using bulk quality settings. Things like disabling your own backpack also disables seeing other player's backpacks, option to hide stowed weapons, setting to show basic mount skin for other players, disable seeing other player's legendary and auras, etc. Why should one player's gaming experience suffer from other people's armor/weapon/infusion/mount skin choices? I know we can go to basic skins through the character model quality setting but that degrades the gaming experience too much in the other direction.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @Kururu.8140

> > >

> > > Sadly Anet prefers blind and spam skilsl with tons of shinny effects over performance.... ._. # no wonder ur getting 20fps

> >

> > I have to disagree. WoW has more of a cartoony theme going on, but their spell effects etc are significantly more in number than Gw2, and I was able to easily play in a 25man raid on full settings with max FPS on the same rig.

>

> On this game with just 3-7 players spammking skills it becomes a brigh ligh where u wont see the toons or what skills are being casted.

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/12054/gw2-combat-is-all-about-pay-attention-to-your-enemy#latest

> and other thread

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/160198#Comment_160198

> (last picture theres arround 5 of us)

>

> And dont compare wow graphics with gw2... plz, dont even start.

 

GW2

WoW

 

/shrug

 

We can just agree to disagree.

[Julius Seizure.4985]

> @"Noa.7490" said:

> > @"Julius Seizure.4985" said:

> > The irony is that many of the newer i3 models will play this game better (and cheaper) than i5 models. You just need 2 real cores with a high clock speed— and i3 delivers that better than all but the most expensive i5s.

> >

> > For instance, my i3 4170 is probably running the game better than your i5.

> >

>

> Might want to check that page for an update about your statement.

>

> http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4690-vs-Intel-Core-i3-4170/2311vsm28214

 

CPU Benchmark will show the performance of all cores running optimally. All i5 models will outperform i3 models when all cores and virtual threads are used.

 

This game doesn’t do that. That is the point.

 

For GW2, a processor with 2 cores running higher single/double thread performance will beat 4 cores with a lower single/double thread performance. CPU benchmark is not gospel, and this game is not coded to optimize the multi core performance you get in i5s.

 

On the other hand, i7s have superior single core performance and multiple cores. If you are making a rig specifically for GW2, you go either i3 for budget or i7 for performance. The i5 is not what you want for GW2.

 

Regardless, as was pointed out earlier, OP is having a RAM issue most likely.

 

Statement updated.

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"Julius Seizure.4985" said:

> > @"Noa.7490" said:

> > > @"Julius Seizure.4985" said:

> > > The irony is that many of the newer i3 models will play this game better (and cheaper) than i5 models. You just need 2 real cores with a high clock speed— and i3 delivers that better than all but the most expensive i5s.

> > >

> > > For instance, my i3 4170 is probably running the game better than your i5.

> > >

> >

> > Might want to check that page for an update about your statement.

> >

> > http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4690-vs-Intel-Core-i3-4170/2311vsm28214

>

> CPU Benchmark will show the performance of all cores running optimally. All i5 models will outperform i3 models when all cores and virtual threads are used.

>

> This game doesn’t do that. That is the point.

>

> For GW2, a processor with 2 cores running higher single/double thread performance will beat 4 cores with a lower single/double thread performance. CPU benchmark is not gospel, and this game is not coded to optimize the multi core performance you get in i5s.

>

> On the other hand, i7s have superior single core performance and multiple cores. If you are making a rig specifically for GW2, you go either i3 for budget or i7 for performance. The i5 is not what you want for GW2.

>

> Regardless, as was pointed out earlier, OP is having a RAM issue most likely.

>

> Statement updated.

 

Just no.

 

Gw2 might have an outdated engine, but it's not like mid-2000s games Sim City 4 or Civ 4 where the game truly could not use multiple threads. For those games, your statement would be true. It's not purely single threaded either. It certainly benefits from higher single core speed, but it's not the only factor.

 

I've actually seen the performance on an i3-6100 vs i5-6500, and while both perform about the same normally, the I3 suffers heavily vs the i5 past 50% because, yes, it does use more than 2 threads and the dual core has to use hyperthreading which is never as good as real cores. The i3-6100 is 3.7 ghz and the i5-6500 is 3.2 ghz.

 

The whole "single threaded performance" thing came up when dealing with AMD's old FX ones that had poorer single threaded performance and i7s which really do have more threads than needed.

 

Now, for the wrong reasons, you are right currently, because Coffee Lake I3s are quad cores rendering the whole discussion moot. But if someone should take your suggestion and just get a non-Coffee Lake i3, then they'd be pretty badly off.

 

There is no reason to even consider a dual core these days except maybe super budget computers using that Pentium g4560.

 

As to OP, there is nothing wrong with those specs at all. Besides the fact I have a slightly newer CPU (really no difference) and half your Ram, it's around the same and I don't have anything less than 60 FPS unless in WvW and I'm not sure what kind of computer keeps 60 fps there. It really just looks like the slow Ram.

 

 

 

 

 

[Crinn.7864]

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> The whole "single threaded performance" thing came up when dealing with AMD's old FX ones that had poorer single threaded performance and i7s which really do have more threads than needed.

 

i7 chips have better single core performance than lesser chips. What needs to be understood about CPU chips is that chip manufacture is a imprecise art. When intel produces their CPU cores, some come out really well and some do not. the ones that come out well go into i7s, the ones that don't come out very well go into i3s. Because of this the cores in a i7 are better than the cores in a i3 even on single threaded workloads. And saying that a i3 overclocks farther because it's cooler is likewise folly because heat is something easily solved by a proper cooling solution.

 

[Malediktus.9250]

> @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > The whole "single threaded performance" thing came up when dealing with AMD's old FX ones that had poorer single threaded performance and i7s which really do have more threads than needed.

>

> i7 chips have better single core performance than lesser chips. What needs to be understood about CPU chips is that chip manufacture is a imprecise art. When intel produces their CPU cores, some come out really well and some do not. the ones that come out well go into i7s, the ones that don't come out very well go into i3s. Because of this the cores in a i7 are better than the cores in a i3 even on single threaded workloads. And saying that a i3 overclocks farther because it's cooler is likewise folly because heat is something easily solved by a proper cooling solution.

>

 

The performance per core should be the same. Only the voltage required to reach a specific frequency changes with the quality of the chip. And at the same time of course heat output etc. The power consumption of two equal CPUs can easily differ by 20% on full load and thus reach a lower turbo boosts if you did not disable the TDP limits in the bios. Different parts of the CPU can also vary in quality. Like some CPUs barely need any extra voltage to run AVX or FMA3 instructions. Other quite a lot more. Every chip will scale different with both temperature and voltage (but the performance at the same frequencies should stay the same). This is what people call the silicon lottery and why there a websites where you can buy preselected CPUs at a premium if you want lets say stable 5Ghz on a low voltage.

The reason why an i7 is sometimes faster at the same frequency is because it has 2MB instead of 1.5MB L3 Cache per core. This also makes any test that simulates i5 performance by turning of hyper threading on an i7 off invalid.

[Crinn.7864]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > > The whole "single threaded performance" thing came up when dealing with AMD's old FX ones that had poorer single threaded performance and i7s which really do have more threads than needed.

> >

> > i7 chips have better single core performance than lesser chips. What needs to be understood about CPU chips is that chip manufacture is a imprecise art. When intel produces their CPU cores, some come out really well and some do not. the ones that come out well go into i7s, the ones that don't come out very well go into i3s. Because of this the cores in a i7 are better than the cores in a i3 even on single threaded workloads. And saying that a i3 overclocks farther because it's cooler is likewise folly because heat is something easily solved by a proper cooling solution.

> >

>

> The performance per core should be the same. Only the voltage required to reach a specific frequency changes with the quality of the chip. And at the same time of course heat output etc.

The lower binning quality means that the typical unlocked i3 will take less overclocking before becoming unstable.

 

As an aside I'm not sure why overclocking i3s even came into the discussion, as unlocked i3s are absurdly overpriced and you might as well go for a i5 at that point.

 

[Malediktus.9250]

At the end its still a lottery. It is entirely possible to buy an i7-8700k and get something that overclocks worse than an i3-8350k. Especially since those are an entirely different die and not a cut down 6 core.

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> > The whole "single threaded performance" thing came up when dealing with AMD's old FX ones that had poorer single threaded performance and i7s which really do have more threads than needed.

>

> i7 chips have better single core performance than lesser chips. What needs to be understood about CPU chips is that chip manufacture is a imprecise art. When intel produces their CPU cores, some come out really well and some do not. the ones that come out well go into i7s, the ones that don't come out very well go into i3s. Because of this the cores in a i7 are better than the cores in a i3 even on single threaded workloads. And saying that a i3 overclocks farther because it's cooler is likewise folly because heat is something easily solved by a proper cooling solution.

>

 

Not disagreeing with that. I7s are faster regardless, was mostly talking about 4 threads vs 2 and 8 threads vs 4. It was very common for people to ask why their FX CPUs were having trouble and most people said it had to do with the weak single threaded performance and not all cores were being used. This became simplified over time to make people think that extra cores don't matter at all.

 

 

> As an aside I'm not sure why overclocking i3s even came into the discussion, as unlocked i3s are absurdly overpriced and you might as well go for a i5 at that point.

>

 

I actually don't know either. Then again the whole 2 core vs 4 core discussion is of no use to OP either since there's no way telling someone to replace their i5 with a dual core just to play Gw2 would make sense in any universe now that $120 is a quad core already. And yea unlocked I3 is just a weird gimmick.

[dace.8019]

OP, you mentioned that your CPU isn't being used to its full capacity and that is why you are reluctant to upgrade - that is normal with GW2 (and most games). GW2 is taking up one of your 4 cores with a single, main thread. There are other smaller threads working (usually just one of any real impact) which, along with the OS and whatever else you have running, accounts for the ~40% utilisation.

 

Games generally aren't very good at utilising more than one or two cores (except some newer ones).

 

The most important thing about a CPU in terms of gaming is performance per core. It's one reason why intel have been dominant. Your core, while OK for a budget build at the time you got it, has a lowish clock speed and per-core performance for an gaming intel CPU. Upgrading even just a little to CPU with more respected gaming chops will yield the FPS increases you're after. If budget is a big factor, even a good condition used CPU from years back will run GW2 well (you can get an old i5 4570K cheaply and is compatible with your mobo socket type).

[Crinn.7864]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> At the end its still a lottery. It is entirely possible to buy an i7-8700k and get something that overclocks worse than an i3-8350k. Especially since those are an entirely different die and not a cut down 6 core.

 

Even with a worse overclock you'll still get better performance out of the 8700k every time. As mentioned in this thread, GW2 does actually use multiple threads, and on top of that you need to remember that GW2 will be sharing the CPU with your operating system and a large assortment of background processes.

[Malediktus.9250]

I never claimed otherwise. I just said that there is no guarantee that the i7 will overclock higher

[Balistic.9503]

hmm, not sure why alot of people are getting low fps, with good comp spec,

My spec,

ryzen 5 1600

16g ddr4 mem

gtx 1060 6gb

gw install on ssd 250g

 

I get about 80 fps in crowed citys, Open world, wvw, 90-120 fps, this is with all graphic options set to high, 1080p

[Sako.7609]

> @"Balistic.9503" said:

> hmm, not sure why alot of people are getting low fps, with good comp spec,

> My spec,

> ryzen 5 1600

> 16g ddr4 mem

> gtx 1060 6gb

> gw install on ssd 250g

>

> I get about 80 fps in crowed citys, Open world, wvw, 90-120 fps, this is with all graphic options set to high, 1080p

 

80 fps in crowded cities, like Lions Arch? Wow..

I get average of 40-60~fps while standing on the Trader's Forum Waypoint and facing towards the BL trading post, otherwise I get pretty much the same FPS as yours.

Only difference between our specs are SSD size and CPU. ( I am also using 1080p)

 

According to [PassMark, i5 8400 has slightly higher Single Thread Rating compared to ryzen 5 1600, but ryzen has better overall score.](https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-8400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3097vs2984 "PassMark, i5 8400 has slightly higher Single Thread Rating compared to ryzen 5 1600.")

 

Since GW2 isn't very multicore friendly I find it odd that I have such low framerate compared to yours, could you specify which graphics settings you are using?

Here are the ones which I find perfect for quality/performance on even massive zerk events.


 

i5 8400

16gb ddr4

gtx 1060 6gb

512gb ssd

[Balistic.9503]

play in full screen window mode, tab out alot

dpi scaling checked

fxaa- anti A

native- rendering

ever thing else set to high, ( i dont use ultra or highest)

everything checked but not V-Sync

 

I just used the in game gfx options auto detect