50 replies to this topic

[zafoddy]

Do we have any clue whether the BWE3 client will be optimized for gpu usuage? It would be a trementous benchmark for getting a new pc before launch and I guess this would effect many people.

Edited by zafoddy, 09 July 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[Trixh]

zafoddy, on 09 July 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Do we have any clue whether the BWE3 client will be optimized for gpu usuage? It would be a trementous benchmark for getting a new pc before launch and I guess this would effect many people.

I would assume we will get a pretty optimized version. Since we are getting pretty close to the release. But that is just pure speculation on my part.

We have no info on this matter so we can only speculate and wait for news/patchnotes etc etc.

Edited by Trixh, 09 July 2012 - 06:33 PM.

[Athlonpv]

If I were you I would deposit this question onto the GW2 twitter, see if they are willing to say something about the client either on the beta forums (for BWE3) or through twitter

[zafoddy]

Athlonpv, on 09 July 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

If I were you I would deposit this question onto the GW2 twitter, see if they are willing to say something about the client either on the beta forums (for BWE3) or through twitter

I don't have any social media account, I am not into that part of the internet. Does anyone has asked that?

[MinkoAk]

zafoddy, on 09 July 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

I don't have any social media account, I am not into that part of the internet. Does anyone has asked that?

I just did, like two seconds, the idea was prompted by this thread If there is any answer, I'll post it here

[Trixh]

MinkoAk, on 09 July 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

I just did, like two seconds, the idea was prompted by this thread If there is any answer, I'll post it here

Thank you kind sir

[MinkoAk]

Trixh, on 09 July 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Thank you kind sir

Don't thank me yet, I doubt I'll have an answer

[Honeymoon69]

bought a gtx670 for BW2 and made absolutely no diff at all getting 10 fps in WvW lol.

[Matsy]

Honeymoon69, on 09 July 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

bought a gtx670 for BW2 and made absolutely no diff at all getting 10 fps in WvW lol.

In general people with higher end cards had the most issues, its bizarre lol.

[Angelus359]

@matsy, thats because the drivers aren't quite as stabilized for the hardware yet

I had absolutely zero problems, once I turned down shadowing, on ultra everything on my geforce 260, phenom II 720 x3 2.8ghz system

I play at 1280x720 admittingly, but I ran adaptive vsync, evga percision ideal freq, and some rivatuner tweaks to keep my system from being too fast (and loud)

[Matsy]

I also turned down shadowing and had no issues after doing so.
My FPS went from like 5 to around 40+ most the time, no idea what the hell that was about (i5 2500k, asus 560ti)

Edited by Matsy, 09 July 2012 - 09:33 PM.

[zafoddy]

I guess we didn't have any twitter answer yet.

[Sans]

in the new gamespot video, they said they improved performance for this BWE.

[krOnicLTD]

Matsy, on 09 July 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

In general people with higher end cards had the most issues, its bizarre lol.

damn.. really ? what do i do with my gtx 670 now rofl -.- i hope they can optimize it for highend systems too because i really would hate to se framedrops and other problems only because i've quite a good pc -.- i bought it mainly (not only, but also) for gw2 xD i thought that i will get a steady 60fps all the time with everything maxxed on my 2500k@4ghz and a gtx 670@680

[Seafog]

I hope so, last bwe for me was a slideshow at times due to bad optimization.

[davadude]

The reason people with better cards were running worse is because the game had not been optimized at all.  People with higher cards generally go for weaker processors, and the game was reliant on the processor.

Some people had GTX580s and a Dual-Core, and it lagged due to the dual core setup.  I have an overclocked i7, and I was running 85 frames per second.

This beta, it should be optimized.  If not, your graphics card WILL pay off at final launch.

[Howl]

I ran the game with a Phenom II x2 555BE 3.2Ghz, 4GB Ram DDR3 and ATI 5670 GPU, almost all max settings, shadowing off, 1920x1080 with 40+ FPS at all times, and as you can tell I don't have a great rig here, dunno why most ppl is having those issues.

[NecrisTEWQ]

Howl, on 10 July 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

I ran the game with a Phenom II x2 555BE 3.2Ghz, 4GB Ram DDR3 and ATI 5670 GPU, almost all max settings, shadowing off, 1920x1080 with 40+ FPS at all times, and as you can tell I don't have a great rig here, dunno why most ppl is having those issues.

I was running with almost same setup except I'm running a GeForce GTX 460 SE and ran fine at 40+ FPS, and now for this BWE I have 16GB ram to play with which should make for an even smoother run

[Shathron]

I have the GTX670 as well. It runs at <40% load at all times at Ultra 1920x1080. I tested all the graphics settings during the last stress test with an fps monitor and my conclusion is that:
____Shadows are CPU bound____
What this means is you will get drastically lowered fps by setting shadows on anything higher then low (the low->medium change gave approx. 50% fps decrease) since your CPU is already at 100% running the rest of the game (i have a top of the line CPU). All the other settings seem to run on the GPU as they should and as such has no effect on the fps (since the GPU is chillin' at <40% load).

TL/DR:
Set Shadows to Low for drastically improved fps no matter what graphics card you have (unless they've fixed this for BWE3).

Edited by Shathron, 10 July 2012 - 08:19 AM.

[krOnicLTD]

damn.. shadows are cpu bound ?? can they optimize that and transfer this thread to the gpu or is it not possible with this engine ? i don't know this engine that well so i'm asking..

because if its locked to the cpu and not possible for them to transfer it to the gpu this would really suck.. i mean only console ports use cpu bound shadows normally lol o_O

[TheBandicoot]

Quote

People with higher cards generally go for weaker processors, and the game was reliant on the processor.

Not really, no. I have an Radeon HD 7970 and a Ivy Bridge i7 3870k @ 4,2 GHz and yet got very bad FPS when something was going on so that statement can be proven wrong, at least from my experience. One could think that if the game was purely CPU reliant and not optimized at all it would run best on the best processors - but it didnt. Its completly weird. While i got bad FPS, a friend of mine with a high end gaming laptop (it has the mobile version of my processor and a mobile version of NVidia´s 580) had no problems at all. Someone please explain to me how this is even possible...

[davadude]

TheBandicoot, on 10 July 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Not really, no. I have an Radeon HD 7970 and a Ivy Bridge i7 3870k @ 4,2 GHz and yet got very bad FPS when something was going on so that statement can be proven wrong, at least from my experience. One could think that if the game was purely CPU reliant and not optimized at all it would run best on the best processors - but it didnt. Its completly weird. While i got bad FPS, a friend of mine with a high end gaming laptop (it has the mobile version of my processor and a mobile version of NVidia´s 580) had no problems at all. Someone please explain to me how this is even possible...

Ivy Bridge is not supported until they have optimized.  Somehow, they're so "different" at handling the processes from the predecessors that the game could not handle them at all.

[krOnicLTD]

and the sandys ?? are they also not supportet ? lol o_O i hope they will get everything right until launch because such things would be gamebreaking nogos

[TheBandicoot]

Quote

Ivy Bridge is not supported until they have optimized.

Please specify what you mean - who is "they" ArenaNet or Intel? Becasue every other game runs just fine on them, and if ArenaNet doesnt optimize the game properly for today´s CPU generation that would be a huge dealbreaker for me. Ivy´s are also having some Mid- and Low-End models so they better have it optimized for BWE #3 or at least at launch. I would also apreciate an official comment regarding optimization but this time much more in-depth. Also, how do you know they are "not supported until they have optimized"? any official quote on that?

[Shathron]

mOnzun, on 10 July 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

damn.. shadows are cpu bound ?? can they optimize that and transfer this thread to the gpu or is it not possible with this engine ? i don't know this engine that well so i'm asking..

When you create a new engine pretty much everything is on the CPU from the beginning, then you transfer more and more to the GPU as you go along. They probably just haven't gotten to the shadows yet, i highly doubt they're gonna release with CPU bound shadows...

davadude, on 10 July 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Ivy Bridge is not supported until they have optimized.  Somehow, they're so "different" at handling the processes from the predecessors that the game could not handle them at all.

That's bullshit. Ivy Bridge is not even a new architecture it's basically just a Sandy with a die shrink, making it run a little cooler. So no, it has nothing to do with support. I think the largest difference is in what people view as "bad fps", people with better rigs usually expect and are used to much higher fps then those running low-range rigs. So what high-end people call "bad fps" may very well be what low-end people call "pretty good fps". Gotta give numbers to make any comparisons.

Also the game does at least use a bit of the GPU now so some people with good CPUs may have really crappy GPUs (maybe even running on the integrated ones ) and think they can run the game at 1080p which will result in a GPU bottleneck instead.

[davadude]

Shathron, on 10 July 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

When you create a new engine pretty much everything is on the CPU from the beginning, then you transfer more and more to the GPU as you go along. They probably just haven't gotten to the shadows yet, i highly doubt they're gonna release with CPU bound shadows...



That's bullshit. Ivy Bridge is not even a new architecture it's basically just a Sandy with a die shrink, making it run a little cooler. So no, it has nothing to do with support. I think the largest difference is in what people view as "bad fps", people with better rigs usually expect and are used to much higher fps then those running low-range rigs. So what high-end people call "bad fps" may very well be what low-end people call "pretty good fps". Gotta give numbers to make any comparisons.

Also the game does at least use a bit of the GPU now so some people with good CPUs may have really crappy GPUs (maybe even running on the integrated ones ) and think they can run the game at 1080p which will result in a GPU bottleneck instead.

That was the reason given by Arenanet during the last beta weekend to myself, I know there is no new architecture.  Just stating what they said, which I agree, is false and unreasonable.

[TheBandicoot]

You want numbers? Ok. Player-empty zone, high viewable distance (for example queensdale at the dam), not much going on near my position, not moving myself results in ~50 to 60 fps. When moving and turning its around ~40 to 50 fps, with some action going on (~5 people doing a DE) its ~30 to 40 fps, Imperators Core on the round stairway from the ground to the next stairway only 20 fps, WvWvW attacking a door with 15 or more people results in a framerate between 10 and 15. Enough numbers? My system should be capable of doong all of this with ease at MINIMUM 60 fps. ArenaNet has a HUGE chunk of optimization left to do.

[Naqaj]

davadude, on 10 July 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

That was the reason given by Arenanet during the last beta weekend to myself, I know there is no new architecture.  Just stating what they said, which I agree, is false and unreasonable.

Mind giving us a quote where you saw that? Don't remember seeing any statement even remotely like that.

[krOnicLTD]

Shathron, on 10 July 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

When you create a new engine pretty much everything is on the CPU from the beginning, then you transfer more and more to the GPU as you go along. They probably just haven't gotten to the shadows yet, i highly doubt they're gonna release with CPU bound shadows...

yeah right i know that with engine developement.. theres just the possibility that they designed shadows and some gpu thread to run on cpu only and if they have done that in early developement they normaly cannot just change that fast. they have to rewrite big parts of the engine to do so..

because of that i hope they haven't done such "stupid" things.. the best example are console games here because console games are designed to run on cpu mostly.. therefore processing threads and shadows and so on are often cpu bound and they cannot just change this fast to be utilized on gpu

a good example is the shift 2 engine from slightely mad studios were they have some gpu only thread run on cpu and they weren'T able to change it for the pc version because it would have been way too much rewriting

[Shathron]

TheBandicoot, on 10 July 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

You want numbers? Ok. Player-empty zone, high viewable distance (for example queensdale at the dam), not much going on near my position, not moving myself results in ~50 to 60 fps. When moving and turning its around ~40 to 50 fps, with some action going on (~5 people doing a DE) its ~30 to 40 fps, Imperators Core on the round stairway from the ground to the next stairway only 20 fps, WvWvW attacking a door with 15 or more people results in a framerate between 10 and 15. Enough numbers? My system should be capable of doong all of this with ease at MINIMUM 60 fps. ArenaNet has a HUGE chunk of optimization left to do.

No doubt that Anet needs to optimize, they know that as much as we do. Large numbers of players in a small area has always been a problem though, in the entire history of gaming. If you ever tried Age of Conans variant of WvW (called sieges) you'd know what bad fps really means. The game's 4 years old and today's computers can't even run those sieges at min 60 fps.

Anyhow, as for the numbers, i have a very similar rig to yours with the exception of a geforce card instead of radeon and experienced quite similar framerates. This was before i discovered the Shadows problem though so i had them on very high which probably cost me about 50% fps if not more. Did not have time to test WvW during the stress test so i can't provide any comparison numbers with shadows off there unfortunatly. My test was in queensdale looking out over a large distance (like you) and i got ~40 fps at very high shadows and constant 60+ at low shadows.