60 or less FPS on i7 8700 with GTX 1070Ti + SSD

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Larenc.1269" said:

> Older products run it better if you can get it to work [compatibility issues] my brother has a computer thats 10 years old and runs gw2 better then my New high performance gaming laptop specialized in well gaming lol. Why does it run better you might ask? Less bs plain and simple. Newer products have more protocols then necessary.

 

GW2 depends on single core performance. An I7-8700 has a 3.2 GHz single core speed, while a i7-960, which was released in 2009, also has 3.2 GHz single core performance. For GW2 those two processors are very similar, even though they are 9 years apart. Laptop CPUs usually have less clock speed than desktop CPUs. That's why your brother's machine runs faster.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"orfeoulis.4325" said:

> Same issue. 4790k@4.5ghz / gtx1080 8gb.

>

> Game runs mostly at sub 60 frames (unless I'm looking at the floor) _regardless of quality settings_. If I turn everything down I get maybe +5-10fps total.

>

> Also my CPU and GPU run at ~50% usage when framerates dip to 30-40fps. Screenshot at heart of the mists for proof. 40ish fps. https://i.imgur.com/GmqYdb3.jpg Please note the laughable 35% gpu usage and the 65%ish cpu usage the results 45 fps....

>

> Is this normal? I thought my rig would be enough to at least maintain 60fps.

>

> Edit, better screenshot (you can see the framerate on the bottom right cornet of the GW2 options window)

 

The overall CPU usage doesn't mean anything, you need to check your cores individually and see if any one of them reaches 90%+ usage.

 

Intel says 4790k is clocked at 4.0 GHz (4.4GHz boost)

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Runakh.5643" said:

> I ran into the same issue ever since I upgraded my computer.

> I7 Gen4 + 970M = 80-120FPS

> i7 Gen8 + 1060 6GB = 30-50FPS

>

> I've tried all different optimization settings from both Intel drivers and NVidia drivers, as well as Windows settings...

> Let me know if you find out why

 

The generation of your CPU doesn't matter and your GPU also is of little use when the bottleneck is the CPU single core performance.

The fastest I7 Gen 8 is 8086K at 4.0 GHz

The fastest I7 Gen 4 is 4770K also at 4.0 GHz

 

You can start by posting your graphics tab with the fps counter on both machines. Those results don't look real at all.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Runakh.5643" said:

> That's weird. I experience +20-40FPS with disabled Hyperthreading, on my i7-7850H.

 

There is no i7-7850H on Intel's Ark so your CPU is something else.

[Maze.3825]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Runakh.5643" said:

> > I ran into the same issue ever since I upgraded my computer.

> > I7 Gen4 + 970M = 80-120FPS

> > i7 Gen8 + 1060 6GB = 30-50FPS

> >

> > I've tried all different optimization settings from both Intel drivers and NVidia drivers, as well as Windows settings...

> > Let me know if you find out why

>

> The generation of your CPU doesn't matter and your GPU also is of little use when the bottleneck is the CPU single core performance.

> The fastest I7 Gen 8 is 8086K at 4.0 GHz

> The fastest I7 Gen 4 is 4770K also at 4.0 GHz

>

> You can start by posting your graphics tab with the fps counter on both machines. Those results don't look real at all.

 

Wouldn't it matter since the IPC would be greater with the later generations?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Maze.3825" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Runakh.5643" said:

> > > I ran into the same issue ever since I upgraded my computer.

> > > I7 Gen4 + 970M = 80-120FPS

> > > i7 Gen8 + 1060 6GB = 30-50FPS

> > >

> > > I've tried all different optimization settings from both Intel drivers and NVidia drivers, as well as Windows settings...

> > > Let me know if you find out why

> >

> > The generation of your CPU doesn't matter and your GPU also is of little use when the bottleneck is the CPU single core performance.

> > The fastest I7 Gen 8 is 8086K at 4.0 GHz

> > The fastest I7 Gen 4 is 4770K also at 4.0 GHz

> >

> > You can start by posting your graphics tab with the fps counter on both machines. Those results don't look real at all.

>

> Wouldn't it matter since the IPC would be greater with the later generations?

 

Haswell (Gen 4) and up to Coffee Lake (Gen 8) Intel CPUs have the same IPC. I just noticed a mistake in my post, the 4790k runs at 4.0 GHz, not the 4770k.

[orfeoulis.4325]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"orfeoulis.4325" said:

> > Same issue. 4790k@4.5ghz / gtx1080 8gb.

> >

> > Game runs mostly at sub 60 frames (unless I'm looking at the floor) _regardless of quality settings_. If I turn everything down I get maybe +5-10fps total.

> >

> > Also my CPU and GPU run at ~50% usage when framerates dip to 30-40fps. Screenshot at heart of the mists for proof. 40ish fps. https://i.imgur.com/GmqYdb3.jpg Please note the laughable 35% gpu usage and the 65%ish cpu usage the results 45 fps....

> >

> > Is this normal? I thought my rig would be enough to at least maintain 60fps.

> >

> > Edit, better screenshot (you can see the framerate on the bottom right cornet of the GW2 options window)

>

> The overall CPU usage doesn't mean anything, you need to check your cores individually and see if any one of them reaches 90%+ usage.

>

> Intel says 4790k is clocked at 4.0 GHz (4.4GHz boost)

 

https://i.imgur.com/pktyOlO.jpg here you go. @"maddoctor.2738"

 

Not sure what to make of this, but 40 fps with seems way too low for this rig. Either I'm spoiled with all my games running at 100+ fps and this is perfectly normal for the gw2, or there's something eluding me about how to run gw2 in 2018.

 

Problem is I want to play like crazy but the fps dips make it unbearable for me, I'm just curious if this sub-par performance a core "feature" so I can move on.

[wanya.1697]

> @"orfeoulis.4325" said: Please note the laughable 35% gpu usage and the 65%ish cpu usage the results 45 fps....

 

for CPU usage you have to look at each core separately

it happens all the time that one core is nearly at 100% while others are only at 20 to 30%

so overall cpu usage looks like there is no issue while you actually already are at maximum

this is the main issue of gw2 it does not use multicores to full potential

a dual core with 5 ghz will run the game better as a quad core with hyperthreading at 4 ghz

 

[orfeoulis.4325]

@"wanya.1697" hmmm so you are telling me that the fact that core 0 and 4 are at 80% is the problem here? Doesn't seem I can to much about it :( Quite disappointing tbh, really wanted to come back to gw2, but playing at 40fps ruins it.

 


 

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"orfeoulis.4325" said:

> @"wanya.1697" hmmm so you are telling me that the fact that core 0 and 4 are at 80% is the problem here? Doesn't seem I can to much about it :( Quite disappointing tbh, really wanted to come back to gw2, but playing at 40fps ruins it.

>

 

This looks normal for GW2, those 2 cores have really high usage which is the problem because GW2 uses mostly one core for its main thread. There is indeed nothing you can do, other than increasing the graphic settings (by a lot), your GPU can handle it. Leave character model limit at low though as that affects CPU performance more than anything else. You won't go above 40-50 fps but at least you will be playing the game at near maximum settings.

[wanya.1697]

you could try turning off hyperthreading so only the real cores are used on older I7 that helped a littlebit not sure about newer ones

at that waypoint I also only have about 40 fps with slightly lower graphic settings (I have I7 2600k at 4.3ghz with gtx1060)

 

[orfeoulis.4325]

@"wanya.1697" @"maddoctor.2738" thanks for the replies

[gimo.3281]

it is assumed that when new technology comes out, legacy api's performance gonna get carried and will improve. looks like technology goes into reverse.

[samo.1054]

Some of the screenshots in this topic definitely have too low fps considering the PC setup. There is something wrong with your system, but can only wild guess here as to what it may be. Also make sure that your RAM is running in dual channel and enable XMP profile.

 

Additionally it is not true that old generations of CPUs would run similar or even more FPS than newer ones. Altho in many cases the differences may be small, but newer generations should always be faster. Even if CPUs have the same clock, it is ignorant to assume that an old generation CPU with the same clock is equally fast. Single core performance of newer CPUs is still improved compared to older ones even at same frequency. Additionally newer generations of CPUs are coupled with faster ram and all that added together DOES make a difference.

 

All that being said, it is not worth to upgrade from i7 4790k to i7 8700, or ryzen 2700x just for the sake of guild wars 2. You will be disappointed. The screenshot posted by @orfeoulis.4325 definitely shows way too low FPS considering on screen situation, settings and PC setup. I'm running 4790k@4.7ghz, dual channel ram @ 2133Ghz and a r9 290x and will get 50-60 fps on all high settings in a *crowded* pvp area, easily. So there is definitely something wrong with your system.

 

Go to userbenchmarks.com, test your system and you might get some clue if any of your parts are underperforming.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

Those threads rise every week. The answer is always the same: GW2 uses a 12 year old engine with dx9c. It's horribly optimised. And that's why you get shitty FPS.

[orfeoulis.4325]

@"samo.1054" here's my user benchmark, [https://userbenchmark.com/UserRun/11990174](https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/11990174 "https://userbenchmark.com/UserRun/11990174") looks pretty ok I think.

 

_Ignore the terrible hdd performance, i'm running gw2 from my ssd anyway._

 

Screenshot for the lazy 

Also please note that GW2 is the only game that gives so terrible performance. And by terrible I mean consistent below 60fps drops.

 

Overwatch/warframe runs on 140-165fps mostly, WoW, black desert online, 100+ and CoD4 80-100 to name a few. Path of exile also brings my gpu to it's knees but runs at 120+ fps too. I run my games at 2560x1440 on a 165hz monitor btw (asus rog pg279q)

 

I'm really bummed out tbh, bought PoF and was really hyped to get back into the game :/

[samo.1054]

@orfeoulis.4325 Yeah that benchmark looks decent enough. Very similar to mine, my RAM results are 10% better, but that shouldn't make that huge of a difference that I'm seeing from my experience and your screenshots, so I'm a little out of ideas here. I could apply your exact in-game graphical settings to my PC and take a few screenshots in the mists to see exactly what difference we're talking about.

[greenlights.7960]

@"orfeoulis.4325" yep, my benchmark is even higher than yours, and I get similar to worse FPS. *shrug* I still consider the game playable, it looks pretty enough, and the frames never slow down enough for me to not be in control. I guess I'll take it.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"orfeoulis.4325" said:

> Overwatch/warframe runs on 140-165fps mostly, WoW, black desert online, 100+ and CoD4 80-100 to name a few. Path of exile also brings my gpu to it's knees but runs at 120+ fps too. I run my games at 2560x1440 on a 165hz monitor btw (asus rog pg279q)

 

That's because those are either newer games, games using highly optimized graphic settings. or games that updated their graphic engines over the years. If you want to try a game that will give you "similar" performance to GW2, try Crysis (not Crysis 2), it's a relic of the era where companies expected 8GHz+ CPUs to appear

[orfeoulis.4325]

To be completely fair, SPvP performance very smooth is at 100fps average, but the framerates in the new Elona zones are very poor. I just can't force myself through it :( and I understand most people don't care or won't even notice the low framerates and I'm jealous.

 

Anyway, it is what it is, at least thanks to the people posting here we confirmed it's not only me and that it's an optimization issue. Fingers crossed Anet will address this next expansion!

[orfeoulis.4325]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"orfeoulis.4325" said:

> > Overwatch/warframe runs on 140-165fps mostly, WoW, black desert online, 100+ and CoD4 80-100 to name a few. Path of exile also brings my gpu to it's knees but runs at 120+ fps too. I run my games at 2560x1440 on a 165hz monitor btw (asus rog pg279q)

>

> That's because those are either newer games, games using highly optimized graphic settings. or games that updated their graphic engines over the years. If you want to try a game that will give you "similar" performance to GW2, try Crysis (not Crysis 2), it's a relic of the era where companies expected 8GHz+ CPUs to appear

 

Not sure what your point is, do you mean that if I buy a 2k$ PC today and GW2 runs at 40fps it's logical because "old engine"? WoW's engine is also ancient and uses only one core (they are adding multi-threading next patch btw), but at least performance is very waaaaay better compared to 15 years ago as someone would expect.

 

Or are you indirectly and politely saying that GW2 is terribly optimized compared to other titles?

[ArmoredVehicle.2849]

> @"orfeoulis.4325" said:

> Not sure what your point is, do you mean that if I buy a 2k$ PC today and GW2 runs at 40fps it's logical because "old engine"? WoW's engine is also ancient and uses only one core (they are adding multi-threading next patch btw), but at least performance is very waaaaay better compared to 15 years ago as someone would expect.

>

> Or are you indirectly and politely saying that GW2 is terribly optimized compared to other titles?

 

May I ask where did you get the info that WoW uses only 1 core? Also keep in mind that Blizzard made quite a few updates to the engine, they even added DX11 and I'm pretty sure if you limited the game to 1 core manually it would run at less than half the fps. For GW2 even a 2k$ PC won't net you 60+ frames everywhere, for starters a high end GPU is a waste as it relies a lot on CPU power and while CPU performance increased over the years it wasn't by much.

 

Last year I upgraded my system from an i5-4590 + GTX 960 to a Ryzen 1700X + GTX 1060, the difference in many cases was almost equal except for large group fights where the Ryzen had a small advantage. **maddoctor.2738** pretty much nailed it with the Crysis 1 example, that game's performance is still bottlenecked by the CPU.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"orfeoulis.4325" said:

> Not sure what your point is, do you mean that if I buy a 2k$ PC today and GW2 runs at 40fps it's logical because "old engine"? WoW's engine is also ancient and uses only one core (they are adding multi-threading next patch btw), but at least performance is very waaaaay better compared to 15 years ago as someone would expect.

>

> Or are you indirectly and politely saying that GW2 is terribly optimized compared to other titles?

 

I gave you an example of another title (Crysis) where a 2k$ PC today would get similar performance to a -powerful- PC from nearly 12 years ago, because it uses a single core more than any others. That's what happens when a game engine isn't updated to meet the new standards. WoW's engine has been updated numerous times over the years, the GW2 engine hasn't been updated at its core, they added lots of new features like shaders (karka skin for example), particle effects (wyvern flames), and post processing (Path of Fire zones) but the core of the engine (threaded performance) was never updated to use all cores properly.

 

The good news with that same example I used is that Crysis 2 and onwards threads wonderfully, Crysis 3 although way more impressive visually compared to Crysis 1, runs at almost double (or even triple) the FPS because it is threaded better. Which means Anet could pull this off too if they wanted to spend the required resources to do so.

[SkyShroud.2865]

Yes. Gw2 is dated. It runs at 2 threads with one thread that deals with network, sound etc while the other thread that does everything else. It is because it runs at 2 threads while having a lot of bling bling, it actually single core performance demanding.

 

It is a dated programming and for them to update to use more than 2 threads means, depending on the scripting and simulations they have used, they would have to solve sync issue of various difficulties. While multithreading isn't exactly new, it doesn't mean many devs knows how to work with it in a development team, it won't be rare to see devs mixing up the various branches and create more bugs.

 

As for if there is any justification to support 4 threads, there isn't any justification not to. According to steam's survey on hardwares, great majority of the pc support 4 threads.

 

In other words, there is nothing for you to change in your settings (other than reducing the all graphic to lowest) to gain more performance. The only way for you to gain even more performance in gw2 is overclock your processor.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> In other words, there is nothing for you to change in your settings (other than reducing the all graphic to lowest) to gain more performance. The only way for you to gain even more performance in gw2 is overclock your processor.

 

As most settings affect the GPU instead of the CPU reducing graphics to lowest won't give any more frames. In terms of performance hit:

Character Model Limit (by FAR the largest fps hit, the others are tiny compared to this one)

Character Model Quality / LOD Distance / Shadows

Reflections will help if you are on top a shinny surface (I'm looking at Serpent's Ire)

 

The rest of the settings will barely affect performance if your machine is bottlenecked by the CPU. The best option is to turn everything to maximum so although you have 30-50 fps, you at least see a pretty game.