Regarding performance
- Thread starter [TW]Ramm-Jaeger
- Start date
seriously now, the last patch for the final beta made things so much better, i dont understand what changed in the release version and why did we have the beta anyway if the full runs worse than that.
and this isnt trolling or anything, i said the same on the steam group chat and got banned. like im the only one with problems and therefore nobody can trust what i say, i think we can see now that this is not the case...
most people refuse to play the game in the current state, as there are so many other games that were released or will be released soon. so many people will return after ro2 is properly patched
and this isnt trolling or anything, i said the same on the steam group chat and got banned. like im the only one with problems and therefore nobody can trust what i say, i think we can see now that this is not the case...
most people refuse to play the game in the current state, as there are so many other games that were released or will be released soon. so many people will return after ro2 is properly patched
I don't really think that's the case, now that the game is officially available to almost everyone you will see more of a buzz of complaint's and problems that might of not been shown during the beta or wasn't really noticed imo.
This feels like a massive cop out to me, the game seems fraught with issues relating to CPU usage and it can't all just be waved away as people without the required hardware having a cry when they can't run it on ultra.
I'll use myself as an example, here's my specs;
OS: Windows 7 64bit
Processor: Intel Core2Quad Q9450 @ 2.66Ghz
Memory: 6 GB
Graphics: 1024MB NVIDIA GTX570
Sound: Sound Blaster X-Fi Extreme Audio
Compare this to the recommended specs;
I'll use myself as an example, here's my specs;
OS: Windows 7 64bit
Processor: Intel Core2Quad Q9450 @ 2.66Ghz
Memory: 6 GB
Graphics: 1024MB NVIDIA GTX570
Sound: Sound Blaster X-Fi Extreme Audio
Compare this to the recommended specs;
Last edited:
Well, if you have a bottleneck the other components don't really help your framerate.
I agree that recommended should mean more than 25 frames per second though. 25 fps should be acceptable for the minimum requirements, imo.
If you overclock your CPU a bit you'd see immediate results though, as that seems to be what's holding you down!
Also, settings that only relate to the GPU, like texture quality, can probably cranked up without a decrease in framerate! So at least the game will look good at, what, 25 frames per second, which you might be able to increase to, say, 35 frames per second by overclocking your CPU.
I agree that recommended should mean more than 25 frames per second though. 25 fps should be acceptable for the minimum requirements, imo.
If you overclock your CPU a bit you'd see immediate results though, as that seems to be what's holding you down!
Also, settings that only relate to the GPU, like texture quality, can probably cranked up without a decrease in framerate! So at least the game will look good at, what, 25 frames per second, which you might be able to increase to, say, 35 frames per second by overclocking your CPU.
Tis a shame it's a CPU bottleneck. This is typical of console ports where the CPU has to do all the work. Seems a shame that a PC only FPS is being bottlenecked by the CPU and not offloading as much work as it can to the powerful video cards available.
As they mentioned, there is/was a CPU bottleneck and your clock speed is quite frankly, rather low. I have a 5 year old computer with a 3 Ghz processor. Granted, different processors have different levels of efficiency if compiled with your processor in mind, but if it (likely) isn't then you probably aren't getting the most out of your processor.
That said, on my system since the most recent update my CPU usage no longer tops out at 100% so you should give the game another spin if you haven't already.
![Dumba [cro]](/data/avatars/s/5/5293.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Is it holding down my 3.6 ghz quad core? Or that guy who OCed his intel to 4.5 GHz somewhere on the forum? Or some other holding-fairy appears then?
Also, didn't one of the devs say they developed the game on old Athlon FX dual-core, how comes slow old dual core isn't holding it down, but a much faster quad core is?
Way to disrespect your fanbase, tripwire.
"It's not that our game is really poorly optimized, it's just that your $6k rig sucks ***."
"It's not that our game is really poorly optimized, it's just that your $6k rig sucks ***."
I find it absolutely hilarious how some of you people keep patting the devs on their backs and ignoring the fact that this game, sadly, is completely broken.
3x GTX480? (some dude stated that he has that in his rig) And he can't get more than 50 fps? How much more powerful PC can you have? What WILL run this game if not some of the most powerful rigs today (mind that those rigs will run anything for YEARS to come)? And Ramm mentions that gamers are spoiled and expect to run console ports which run on 5 year old setups. So they built this game for 22nd century?
Btw, I turned off depth of field. Now my AA is clearly not working cause the entire game looks jagged and ugly, however, I get fps between 35-80... it KEEPS DROPPING to <30, but it also increased to a maximum of 80 (before turning off DoF it was 60).
My PC is: Athlon II X4 640 3.0Ghz, 4GB DDR3 1333mhz, Palit GTS450 1GB. I seem to be getting better FPS than the guy with 3 GTX480's and a more powerfull processor.
What
a
joke.
3x GTX480? (some dude stated that he has that in his rig) And he can't get more than 50 fps? How much more powerful PC can you have? What WILL run this game if not some of the most powerful rigs today (mind that those rigs will run anything for YEARS to come)? And Ramm mentions that gamers are spoiled and expect to run console ports which run on 5 year old setups. So they built this game for 22nd century?
Btw, I turned off depth of field. Now my AA is clearly not working cause the entire game looks jagged and ugly, however, I get fps between 35-80... it KEEPS DROPPING to <30, but it also increased to a maximum of 80 (before turning off DoF it was 60).
My PC is: Athlon II X4 640 3.0Ghz, 4GB DDR3 1333mhz, Palit GTS450 1GB. I seem to be getting better FPS than the guy with 3 GTX480's and a more powerfull processor.
What
a
joke.
Last edited:
Game has bad cpu optimization and thats why most people get low gpu usage. My gpu usage is avg. 80 % and it should be 99 % like other new games without vsync. Couple my friends have older quad cores and gpu usage is a lot lower like 30-50 %.
Also there is some weird sound issues like crackling (middle of match) and loosing sound when map starts, which could be cpu related. Should game use a lot cpu because its only about 40 % with all cores, thats pretty low if comparing to heavy cpu game like Bc2 (uses 70 %)
Also there is some weird sound issues like crackling (middle of match) and loosing sound when map starts, which could be cpu related. Should game use a lot cpu because its only about 40 % with all cores, thats pretty low if comparing to heavy cpu game like Bc2 (uses 70 %)
It would be naive for those players like me to think that the game works for everyone because I am not having problems like some other people are.
That said, the game does work for a lot of other players and they are free to have a good or bad opinion of the game and the Devs. Just because the game doesn't perform for you doesn't mean that is the case for everyone.
That said, the game does work for a lot of other players and they are free to have a good or bad opinion of the game and the Devs. Just because the game doesn't perform for you doesn't mean that is the case for everyone.
Completely agree, some peoples seem to give these guys way too much slack becouse "They are the last PC exlusive company alive111!!".. Well, careface.jpg to that! No excuse whatsoever - this game is BROKEN! Personally i've got hardware that curbstomps this game to oblivion, and i can't get more than 25-30 FPS on a single monitor running 1920x1080.. My usual resolution is 5760x1080.
Better fix this crap fast! Some stuff is probably driver related, so keep nagging at ATI/Nvidia
Its funny you say that when you guys have been saying that the game is gpu bound all this whole time... you can find your post about that with little research.
The biggest problem is not so much the performance (although I do feel I should be getting more). It's the jerkiness and changes to the FPS which make the game feel disjointed and stuttery, almost like lag.
For instance, my FPS on medium settings is usually about 40-60FPS. Which would be fine. But it seems everytime I go through a door, or pop up from cover, or bring up the ironsights, or do anything where the scene might change substantially, the game kind of 'stutters' slightly, i guess due to the FPS dropping a lot for a brief moment. This is the key problem, the game doesn't feel smooth, each transition feels laggy to me. It might only be a stutter of a split second but its enough to be a huge annoyance.
A good example of this is the PPSH. I find that when I bring the ironsights up and tap fire, there is a slight stutter. Then the game kinda catches up, and the barrel has jerked up. This was annoying the other day on Station when I fired at a crouching German maybe 25m away - I was sure I must of hit him, but I couldnt be sure because of the slight stutter. The result was that instead of being riddled with bullets, he returned fire with one shot from a K98 and killed me. Things like that, when little perfoamnce hitches cause you to get killed, are what makes for a lot of the frustration with performance, rather than actual low FPS counts across the board.
For instance, my FPS on medium settings is usually about 40-60FPS. Which would be fine. But it seems everytime I go through a door, or pop up from cover, or bring up the ironsights, or do anything where the scene might change substantially, the game kind of 'stutters' slightly, i guess due to the FPS dropping a lot for a brief moment. This is the key problem, the game doesn't feel smooth, each transition feels laggy to me. It might only be a stutter of a split second but its enough to be a huge annoyance.
A good example of this is the PPSH. I find that when I bring the ironsights up and tap fire, there is a slight stutter. Then the game kinda catches up, and the barrel has jerked up. This was annoying the other day on Station when I fired at a crouching German maybe 25m away - I was sure I must of hit him, but I couldnt be sure because of the slight stutter. The result was that instead of being riddled with bullets, he returned fire with one shot from a K98 and killed me. Things like that, when little perfoamnce hitches cause you to get killed, are what makes for a lot of the frustration with performance, rather than actual low FPS counts across the board.
I don't know what your problem with me is, but I'm sure what I said was at least reasonable and at best true.
I never said anything about your friends' problems, iirc...