Is Anet ever going to adequately address the poor optimization of the game engine?

[Purple Miku.7032]

> @"Wander.5780" said:

> > @"Purple Miku.7032" said:

> > @"Wander.5780" do you have windows 7 or windows 10? With your hardware you should not be chugging at 40 FPS in LA.

> >

> > I'd need to be able to assess your rig in person but I'm guessing you know how to run performance analytics and hopefully determine what is causing the problem for you. I have a 3 year old laptop and I only get lower FPS in LA than you do if I turn supersampling on with shadows/shaders to highest.

> >

> > Anyways, something worth looking into is whether or not you have superfetch enabled. Superfetch is a part of Windows' memory manager and when I was helping my brother figure out why his Overwatch was so chuggy it turned out to be due to that particular setting. It's a shot in the dark but perhaps that could be the problem for you, so I recommend you try it out if you haven't:

> >

> > * Hold the Windows Key, while pressing “R” to bring up the Run dialog box.

> > * Type “services.msc“, then press “Enter“.

> > * The Services window displays. Find “Superfetch” in the list.

> > * Right-click “Superfetch“, then select “Properties“.

> > * Select the “Stop” button if you wish to stop the service.

>

> I've disabled the superfetch service in Windows 10, no difference. At this point I'm just going to accept this game's abysmal performance and roll with it. 22-30 FPS in the new LS4e3 map across the board, with spikes up to 45 FPS. Totally unacceptable... but I haven't gotten any concrete answers here, and it seems like the consensus is that "yeah this game doesn't run that well, but here's X you can do to **_possibly_** get 5-10 more FPS on average. Why does this game run so poorly on modern hardware if DX9 is not the core issue? Everytime I load up ESO at max settings, even in Cyrodiil where theres dozens and dozens of players on screen with spell effects everywhere, and even there the lowest FPS I'll hit is in the high 30's, where as everywhere else is a solid 60+. If this game is still this poorly optimized 3-4 years from now, while looking as dated as it currently does, they will have problems retaining players like myself.

 

Well the new map is a huge exception for me. I find that I get absolute garbage FPS there unless I set both shadows/shaders to "low" or "lowest." Literally every other graphics setting can be at max and it makes almost no difference to me. I think it's a matter of them trying to push the game to the limits in many cases. Have you tried the very southeast region in Domain of Istan? That place is laggy as HELL for me. Like, we're not just talking low FPS we're talking choppy and stutters for days. Also, that big tower in the middle of Domain of Istan makes my FPS 20-30 even on lowest graphics settings for some unknown reason.

 

I think it's simply the case that some of the newest maps just need to be looked into and smoothed out more. But if you're telling me you're getting horribly low FPS in some of the older maps, then that's a concern that implies another issue behind the scenes because your hardware should not result in worse performance than mine.

[Wander.5780]

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that with the release of a new xpac they devote some development time towards optimizing the game engine. Does this game even use 4 cores currently? The 64bit client launched I believe 2 years ago, and there was some improvement there but it still runs like molasses. It would be nice if they could make the game support 6-8 cores as most AMD processors have been hexa or octa core for a while, along with the new Coffee Lake Intel i5/i7’s now having 6 core configurations.

[Maze.3825]

> @"Wander.5780" said:

> I’m keeping my fingers crossed that with the release of a new xpac they devote some development time towards optimizing the game engine. Does this game even use 4 cores currently? The 64bit client launched I believe 2 years ago, and there was some improvement there but it still runs like molasses. It would be nice if they could make the game support 6-8 cores as most AMD processors have been hexa or octa core for a while, along with the new Coffee Lake Intel i5/i7’s now having 6 core configurations.

 

Runs pretty good on the coffee i5 8400 here, there are some very peculiar performance issues in certain areas though, I have no clue about the lag in Champions Dawn. I guess I never will.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Wander.5780" said:

> I’m keeping my fingers crossed that with the release of a new xpac they devote some development time towards optimizing the game engine. Does this game even use 4 cores currently?

 

Why don't you measure it, and answer the question yourself? The tools to trivially do so are included with ever version of Windows, without having to even go beyond a basic clean install. Then you can tell us if it uses four cores or not.

 

Pro tip: the answer will be yes.

 

> The 64bit client launched I believe 2 years ago, and there was some improvement there but it still runs like molasses.

 

As the developers said at the time, nothing about being 64-bit, or 32-bit, is performance relevant. Except for memory and address space.

 

> It would be nice if they could make the game support 6-8 cores as most AMD processors have been hexa or octa core for a while, along with the new Coffee Lake Intel i5/i7’s now having 6 core configurations.

 

Well, it went up from one to four over time. That said, six to eight cores is hard for any game engine, and relatively few games benefit much beyond two, let alone four.

 

It'll probably end up showing up eventually, though, if Intel don't get replaced by a better architecture.

[DynDasE.6254]

Playing GW2 with AMD Phenom ii x4 850 + GTX960 back then when GW2 was launched VS. my current setup AMD Ryzen 7 1700 + GTX 1080Ti yields no difference in Performance.

[Maze.3825]

> @"DynDasE.6254" said:

> Playing GW2 with AMD Phenom ii x4 850 + GTX960 back then when GW2 was launched VS. my current setup AMD Ryzen 7 1700 + GTX 1080Ti yields no difference in Performance.

 

Nonsense.

[Yamazuki.6073]

> @"Wander.5780" said:

> > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > You should get the Samsung B-Die based DDR4 RAM and overclock and tweak it as good as you can. Gives more FPS boost than anything else for this game. It is a lot of work since RAM has so many different timings and 3 different voltages that need to be adjusted, but its worth it.

> > That is assuming you did not bought a cheap mainboard. RAM overclocking resuls also greatly vary by mainboard quality.

>

> I’ve worked in IT for 10 years and I’ve been building gaming PCs since I was 13 years old, (I’m 30 now)

> and not once have I ever heard of the need to OC RAM to make a 6 year old game run well... that is just ridiculous and should be totally unnecessary. My experience with messing with RAM voltages has always been inconsistent, and the performance benefit has always been totally negligible when comparing it to overclocking a CPU or GPU. If we have to jump through these hoops to make a 2012 game run well in 2018 hardware, that is ridiculous. If I can’t change the in-game graphics settings to yield a better framerate, with state of the art hardware, then I’m sorry but that is 100% on the developers.

>

 

A bit late, but, I want to clarify that this isn't correct. It's been known that memory frequency do impact applications that are CPU heavy. Memory performance on more recent Intel chips have become apparent, and some AMD setups as well. It's also important to make sure memory isn't run as single channel either, as for many games and setups this alone can cut fps by up to 50%.

 

There are tests showing that the difference between the low end 2133 DDR4 and 3,000-4,000 DDR4, it ranges from 10 to 30 FPS average difference with the minimum fps going up by 5 to 15. This will vary between games, as some games you only see a 4% difference, however, in the case of games like GW2, I would imagine it does make a difference. Higher frequencies also generally mean less visible stuttering due to less variance in fps.

 

The op says they have an 8700k, but still get 30 fps in LA, I have an 8700k as well but with everything maxed but shadows and I mostly sit between 50-60 fps in the crowded area (with names turned on). In most areas I stay at a constant 60 fps, and that's only because I have GW2 limited to 60 fps due to for some reason GW2 spiking my gpu temperatures in areas where I get 120 fps. The only time I personally have seen my game drop between 20 and 30 fps would be during crowded events, and even then, it's more of a constant ~25 fps with nearly zero stuttering, completely different than what the other user of the same processor seems to be experiencing. Again, I have everything, but shadows, maxed. I can even run the game multiple times and not sutter during events or other activities with both clients on max too.

 

This means there is definitely something other than the game's poor optimization holding his performance back.

[Mikikira.1574]

Just adding my two cents to be "that person" I push 110~120 fps in LA by the forge with no problem, but I'm also running a binned 7980XE at 4.6GHz with 64 gigs of DDR4-4600 GPU is a Quadro GV100, res is 8K.

 

OP's performance problem is probably due to user setup error, either memory is running in single channel, not at XMP or better speeds, or GPU in the wrong slot, or a combination of all of the above.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Wander.5780" said:

> I think the elephant in the room here, is that aside from being a DX9 game in 2018, I get much higher FPS in more graphically intensive games with way more going on at once like I do in ESO. That alone points to this game having optimization issues. It’s shocking that there isn’t at least a DX11 client for this game yet... DX9 is 16 Years old and should not be an API to build a game on in 2012.

 

This at least the devs addressed, and while I don't have access to the post, the devs went into some detail of why DX11 wouldn't actually improve the frame rate of this game.

[Solvar.7953]

One note on all performance comparisons - there are lots of variables involved. If one person is playing at 4K resolution, and the other at 1920x1080p, in that first case 4 times as many pixels are needing to be drawn which is going to have a significant impact. So 2 people with the same cpu reporting wildly different results could very well be because of resolution and other settings.

 

[Malediktus.9250]

> @"Mikikira.1574" said:

> Just adding my two cents to be "that person" I push 110~120 fps in LA by the forge with no problem, but I'm also running a binned 7980XE at 4.6GHz with 64 gigs of DDR4-4600 GPU is a Quadro GV100, res is 8K.

>

> OP's performance problem is probably due to user setup error, either memory is running in single channel, not at XMP or better speeds, or GPU in the wrong slot, or a combination of all of the above.

 

I doubt you. 64 GB of DDR4-4600 will not work on any memory controller at all. Even two sticks of 16GB will strain a memory controller so much that DDR-4000 is hard to achieve. Maybe you mean DDR4-3600?

Also a 7980XE would be worse for gaming than a 8700k. It is basically screenshot or it didnt happen time.

[Wander.5780]

> @"DynDasE.6254" said:

> Playing GW2 with AMD Phenom ii x4 850 + GTX960 back then when GW2 was launched VS. my current setup AMD Ryzen 7 1700 + GTX 1080Ti yields no difference in Performance.

 

Sounds like I’m not the only one that wasted money on new hardware to make this game run better...

[azizul.8469]

it is written on stone, they will not take any action on this, will not move away from DX9, taking too much resources they said.

[DynDasE.6254]

> @"Wander.5780" said:

> > @"DynDasE.6254" said:

> > Playing GW2 with AMD Phenom ii x4 850 + GTX960 back then when GW2 was launched VS. my current setup AMD Ryzen 7 1700 + GTX 1080Ti yields no difference in Performance.

>

> Sounds like I’m not the only one that wasted money on new hardware to make this game run better...

 

I didn't specifically upgrade my PC for GW2. I expected much more performance since GW2 based game does not require much power. I play other games in 100 fps or 144 fps.

I can play The Witcher 3 in Ultra mode with 60FPS+; however, my PC is struggling to get 60FPS in GW2 at my home instance. I can understand getting bad framerate in Lion's Arch. But, getting low framerate in an isolated story instance is a horrible game performance optimisation.