Guild Wars 2

Hi all,

I’ve got a little bit of a problem that i can’t seem to figure out.
I just bought a brand new computer a week ago, since my old one isn’t cutting it.
So first thing i did was install all driver and download guild wars.
on startup i was hoping on some crazy fps.
I only got 40 FPS in maxed settings and not even stable fps. when i look around the fps immediately drops to 20 fps. i’ve tried putting everything on low and got like 80 fps.

Can someone help me with this issue?

My specs:

AMD FX-8350
8 GB Ram
AMD R9 280X 3 GB
Guild Wars 2 running on a 840 EVO SSD
Windows 7 Pro/Windows 8 Pro, 64-Bit

Those fps figures seem more or less normal for that setup and GW2. Though i cant say im used ot seeing fps figures from that city/location. LA next to the mystic forge would give a better idea.

Though just incase, make sure ur Graphics card is using the correct PCI-E slot with atleast x8 speed, preferably x16.

Check ur GPU usuage and Individual CPU thread usuage.

You are running everything at max, in a city with a rebadged HD 7970 being driven by an FX-8350, pulling over 30 fps and you complain.

Some people simply can’t be happy.

Behellagh.1468:

You are running everything at max, in a city with a rebadged HD 7970 being driven by an FX-8350, pulling over 30 fps and you complain.

Some people simply can’t be happy.

No I am not happy. i just spend like 1.5k on my new rig. and all that for 10 more fps.

have you tried any other games ?

if so how did they perform?

SolarNova.1052:

Those fps figures seem more or less normal for that setup and GW2. Though i cant say im used ot seeing fps figures from that city/location. LA next to the mystic forge would give a better idea.

Though just incase, make sure ur Graphics card is using the correct PCI-E slot with atleast x8 speed, preferably x16.

Check ur GPU usuage and Individual CPU thread usuage.

It´s in the right slot (x16)
Here’s is a screenshot next to mystic forge.

NeedCoffee.1402:

have you tried any other games ?

if so how did they perform?

Yes, I’ve tried battlefield 3, Full settings, stable 60 FPS.

Now 50 FPS on low settings.

Rogier.4572:

No I am not happy. i just spend like 1.5k on my new rig. and all that for 10 more fps.

$1.5k and you went AMD for the CPU? You must’ve done something wrong, then. You can easily get an i7 for that sort of budget.

And that’s the issue, the CPU- it matters much more for this game then the GPU, as long as you’re around 7870 level or better.

Ok, yea that seems normal for a AMD CPU bassed system.
You could maybe get mroe performance if u OC that CPU.

but in all honesty as has been said above, for a 1.5k system you really should have gone with an Intel CPU, speialy if u play games like GW2 that are heavily CPU bound. MWO is another game that favors Strong Intel CPU’s.

For reference, my rig is able to to pull 35-45 FPS in the same location as in that LA-MF pic with higher settings.

try running max settings WITHOUT supersampling. Make sure Relfections are on Terrain and sky at the most, and shadows are on high at the most.

Set culling to Character Limit highest and texture limit medium.

This game is not optimized for AMD-CPUs
Okay

This may help you to improve your performance.
Disable turbo/
Then go to CPU features and setup 1 core per module.

Try it then
Give CPU fan to MAX! – only if you have stock cooler
Then do prime 95 after 25 min check your max. core T (62 is maximum)
Check your stock core voltages.

OC. If you have non-stock Air cooler 30$+
Disable all power options give off
Then vcore – 1.425 + LLC ultra high
Multip. : 22.5 = 4,5Ghz
- should be stable

And again this game is not optimized for AMD CPUs.

The game only has around 3 cores worth of work to process, so all the extra cores in an FX-8350 is great for things also running but it doesn’t help the game.

AMD FX cores are inherently slower compared to Intel cores in terms of performance. The design was meant to compete only when both an FX-8xxx and Intel i7 are running 8 threads at 100%. When that’s not true, when Intel is only running one thread per core, it significantly outperforms a single FX- core (30-40%)

GW2 has some significant problems in extremely complex environments, like Lion’s Arch, and when there are other players around, the more players, the lower the performance and it drops off quickly.

I’m sure if you go into the open world, say the Wayfarer Foothills, go up on the wall of Twinsper Haven and look out over the icy plains toward where the maw event runs, your frame rate will be impressive at your max settings. It’s just during maw it will plummet when you are there. The CPU simply gets bogged down and without it feeding the video card, frame rate suffers.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

This game is not optimized for AMD-CPUs
Okay

This may help you to improve your performance.
Disable turbo/
Then go to CPU features and setup 1 core per module.

Try it then
Give CPU fan to MAX! – only if you have stock cooler
Then do prime 95 after 25 min check your max. core T (62 is maximum)
Check your stock core voltages.

OC. If you have non-stock Air cooler 30$+
Disable all power options give off
Then vcore – 1.425 + LLC ultra high
Multip. : 22.5 = 4,5Ghz
- should be stable

And again this game is not optimized for AMD CPUs.

Thank you for explaining.

I have a H100i so it will be fine if i OC.

Phaha you should go then for at least 5,0Ghz

There are a couple of AMD FX patches for Windows 7. They are suppose to improve performance issues slightly.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2646060
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594

you should also try as many of these tweaks as you have patients for.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=327922

especially process lasso, and core parking.

if your using kitten without a hdd tough might want to look into a program called primo cache. it makes your ssd almost as fast as a ram disk.

Well one of those two patches I linked to is core parking while the other assigns threads one per module before doubling them up.

NeedCoffee.1402:

you should also try as many of these tweaks as you have patients for.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=327922

especially process lasso, and core parking.

if your using kitten without a hdd tough might want to look into a program called primo cache. it makes your ssd almost as fast as a ram disk.

I’ve tried unparking and boosted my framerate from 40 to 60/70.

amazing, thanks for the help!

Go in LA
Max setting take a picture with FPS on screen

Rogier.4572:

NeedCoffee.1402:

you should also try as many of these tweaks as you have patients for.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=327922

especially process lasso, and core parking.

if your using kitten without a hdd tough might want to look into a program called primo cache. it makes your ssd almost as fast as a ram disk.

I’ve tried unparking and boosted my framerate from 40 to 60/70.

amazing, thanks for the help!

Wow a +20 ish fps increase. thats awesome.
You should also take a look at process lasso too
its a more intelligent and customizable method of controlling all your processes in windows.
there have been many times when i bought a game on steam and forget to set it up in process lasso and windows assigns the game to run in the background or automatically gave it low priority. Gamers cant trust windows to assign priority to our games.

I’m gonna look into this thread and links provided. I get the same FPS under the exact same settings and hardware (R9 280X is rebadged 7970)

[Edit]
I’ve installed ProcessLasso and tried out the Game Mode on it and I think so far it’s just the core parking modification doing some work here but I’ve gotten a whole 2 FPS increase at the least. I’m sure I could get to what Rogier’s at though with some more working.

try this :

azizul.8469:

try this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkfIFP0g2xY

Considering that’s for Battlefield 4, which is a completely different game and is more GPU bound than CPU bound, I doubt that will help much.

Avelos.6798:

I’m gonna look into this thread and links provided. I get the same FPS under the exact same settings and hardware (R9 280X is rebadged 7970)

[Edit]
I’ve installed ProcessLasso and tried out the Game Mode on it and I think so far it’s just the core parking modification doing some work here but I’ve gotten a whole 2 FPS increase at the least. I’m sure I could get to what Rogier’s at though with some more working.

your not gonna see huge fps increase with process lasso, but you will see smoother game play. next time you have gw2 running, minimize it and pull up process lasso. right click on gw2 and choose for gw2 to run in high priority.

NeedCoffee.1402:

Avelos.6798:

I’m gonna look into this thread and links provided. I get the same FPS under the exact same settings and hardware (R9 280X is rebadged 7970)

[Edit]
I’ve installed ProcessLasso and tried out the Game Mode on it and I think so far it’s just the core parking modification doing some work here but I’ve gotten a whole 2 FPS increase at the least. I’m sure I could get to what Rogier’s at though with some more working.

your not gonna see huge fps increase with process lasso, but you will see smoother game play. next time you have gw2 running, minimize it and pull up process lasso. right click on gw2 and choose for gw2 to run in high priority.

I uninstalled ProcessLasso because after an hour it started spamming me with “BUY ME BUY ME!” crap so it’s gone. I can basically do the same thing with task manager, setting the game to run high priority.

Behellagh.1468:

The game only has around 3 cores worth of work to process, so all the extra cores in an FX-8350 is great for things also running but it doesn’t help the game.

AMD FX cores are inherently slower compared to Intel cores in terms of performance. The design was meant to compete only when both an FX-8xxx and Intel i7 are running 8 threads at 100%. When that’s not true, when Intel is only running one thread per core, it significantly outperforms a single FX- core (30-40%)

GW2 has some significant problems in extremely complex environments, like Lion’s Arch, and when there are other players around, the more players, the lower the performance and it drops off quickly.

I’m sure if you go into the open world, say the Wayfarer Foothills, go up on the wall of Twinsper Haven and look out over the icy plains toward where the maw event runs, your frame rate will be impressive at your max settings. It’s just during maw it will plummet when you are there. The CPU simply gets bogged down and without it feeding the video card, frame rate suffers.

This is a misunderstanding, you can’t compare amd’s core speed to intel. In fact you can’t compare the two cpus at all. They are totally different architectures. The only thing that is factual is that the way Anet coded Guild Wars 2 takes advantage of intel architecture and not amd. Its the real reason why amd cpus perform so badly in comparison to intel.

If GW2 was coded for Amd architecture then intel would be slower, since its architecture is very different. I suspect with the coming of the PS4 and Xbox One that the roles will slowly reverse. Then intel users will begin to complain of poor performance in games.

Aza.2105:

This is a misunderstanding, you can’t compare amd’s core speed to intel. In fact you can’t compare the two cpus at all. They are totally different architectures.

It already happens all the time. They may be different architecture and they do perform totally different in Guild Wars 2.

Aza.2105:

The only thing that is factual is that the way Anet coded Guild Wars 2 takes advantage of intel architecture and not amd. Its the real reason why amd cpus perform so badly in comparison to intel.

I don’t necessarily think Guild Wars 2 is coded for Intel Processors. I believe that it just so happens that Intel has what it takes to run the game to as good as it can get. It’s already obvious that AMD lacks in single thread performance anyway.

Aza.2105:

If GW2 was coded for Amd architecture then intel would be slower, since its architecture is very different.

Quite a number of titles I’ve seen coded for AMD I’ve seen played better on an Intel system, but those titles aren’t MMORPGs either so I guess this statement is kinda… just there.

But I don’t believe there’s really any comparison anyway. Intel CPU is just better for this game, period. My laptop’s intel i7 3630QM out performs my AMD FX-8350 in most areas that matter in Guild Wars 2. 3.2 GHz quad core with HT against a pseudo 8 core at 4.1 GHz (turboing) is pretty bad in my opinion.

Avelos.6798:

Aza.2105:

This is a misunderstanding, you can’t compare amd’s core speed to intel. In fact you can’t compare the two cpus at all. They are totally different architectures.

It already happens all the time. They may be different architecture and they do perform totally different in Guild Wars 2.

Aza.2105:

The only thing that is factual is that the way Anet coded Guild Wars 2 takes advantage of intel architecture and not amd. Its the real reason why amd cpus perform so badly in comparison to intel.

I don’t necessarily think Guild Wars 2 is coded for Intel Processors. I believe that it just so happens that Intel has what it takes to run the game to as good as it can get. It’s already obvious that AMD lacks in single thread performance anyway.

Aza.2105:

If GW2 was coded for Amd architecture then intel would be slower, since its architecture is very different.

Quite a number of titles I’ve seen coded for AMD I’ve seen played better on an Intel system, but those titles aren’t MMORPGs either so I guess this statement is kinda… just there.

But I don’t believe there’s really any comparison anyway. Intel CPU is just better for this game, period. My laptop’s intel i7 3630QM out performs my AMD FX-8350 in most areas that matter in Guild Wars 2. 3.2 GHz quad core with HT against a pseudo 8 core at 4.1 GHz (turboing) is pretty bad in my opinion.

Yes because the programming, it has nothing to do with AMD cpus being bad. I’ll copy and paste a wonderful quote I found that explains the differences:

A software setup with data fed in a mostly serial manner favors intel, because intel’s instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are 90% serial data…which means intel chips break down a serial stream of data faster (single threaded performance). AMD’s instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are setup to run parallel streams of data (heavily threaded performance), which most software out right now is not designed to feed data to the CPU in this manner. So, data being fed serially to a CPU designed to run parallel streams of executions is inefficient, and favors one designed for that type of data streaming.

For example…

Picture you’re at Wal-Mart (or where ever), and there are 8 checkout lanes open…the first lane has a line a mile long, and they will only allow 4 of the other 7 lanes to have a line 1 person long. It doesn’t make any sense right? For starters, they’re not even using all of the lanes available, and the ones they are, aren’t being utilized efficiently.

That’s what’s happening inside an AMD architecture FX8350 with current software…

With Intel chips right now…it’s more like the line at best buy…where you have 1 line a mile long, but the front person has 4 different cashiers to go to when they arrive at the front of the line.

So, having 1 line a mile long doesn’t slow them down, they’re designed that way…

However, once information is fed in a parallel manner to the CPU…AMD will have all 8 lanes at Wal-Mart open for business and the lines will be distributed equally with people (instructions for the CPU), but Intel will still have the Best buy type line with 4 people running a cash register…except that now there will be 4 or even 8 lines forming into that one line, which makes things slow down because they are not designed to execute like that.

I hope the analogy makes this very complicated architecture discussion make sense.

I mentioned the PS4 and Xbox One because they are the future of gaming. Which will force developers to finally code their games to be true multi-threaded titles. Planetside 2 is a example of this, since the game is coming to ps4 the developers have been forced to recode their game engines to benefit AMD.

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/08/05/the-ps4s-big-challenge-is-its-amd-chip-that-heavily-relies-on-multi-threading-says-planetside-2-dev/

Since you have a AMD 8350, download planetside live and test server and test the difference. On live, you will get around 30-40fps but on the test server which has some of the amd optimizations you will get around 80-100fps+. Guild Wars 2 is very similar, the multi threading is poor, essentially non existent. If Anet coded it to be heavily multithreaded then AMD performance would be boosted greatly.

I tried to play Planetside 2. That game can go blow it for all I care because I can’t sign in to it no matter what I do. I’ve sworn of Sony Entertainment Online.

Aza.2105:

Behellagh.1468:

The game only has around 3 cores worth of work to process, so all the extra cores in an FX-8350 is great for things also running but it doesn’t help the game.

AMD FX cores are inherently slower compared to Intel cores in terms of performance. The design was meant to compete only when both an FX-8xxx and Intel i7 are running 8 threads at 100%. When that’s not true, when Intel is only running one thread per core, it significantly outperforms a single FX- core (30-40%)

GW2 has some significant problems in extremely complex environments, like Lion’s Arch, and when there are other players around, the more players, the lower the performance and it drops off quickly.

I’m sure if you go into the open world, say the Wayfarer Foothills, go up on the wall of Twinsper Haven and look out over the icy plains toward where the maw event runs, your frame rate will be impressive at your max settings. It’s just during maw it will plummet when you are there. The CPU simply gets bogged down and without it feeding the video card, frame rate suffers.

This is a misunderstanding, you can’t compare amd’s core speed to intel. In fact you can’t compare the two cpus at all. They are totally different architectures. The only thing that is factual is that the way Anet coded Guild Wars 2 takes advantage of intel architecture and not amd. Its the real reason why amd cpus perform so badly in comparison to intel.

If GW2 was coded for Amd architecture then intel would be slower, since its architecture is very different. I suspect with the coming of the PS4 and Xbox One that the roles will slowly reverse. Then intel users will begin to complain of poor performance in games.

Actually you can. It’s called benchmarking.

I’m not comparing clockspeed, just performance and when both an FX module and a single Core i3/i7 core are running a single thread, Intel will out perform it. And yes it’s due to the underlying architecture. I’ve gone over that time and time again. Short version AMD choose to implement two lower performing cores to compete with a single Intel hyperthreaded core. Great when an AMD Module and Intel HT core are assigned two threads but when only assigned one, AMD can only devote one core to that thread while Intel can devote the entire core instead of splitting it’s performance between two threads.

Avelos.6798:

I tried to play Planetside 2. That game can go blow it for all I care because I can’t sign in to it no matter what I do. I’ve sworn of Sony Entertainment Online.

Its not about liking it, its just about seeing for ones self what happens when developers actually make a game that benefits amd architecture. On the pts when I was speaking to other players, the intel users said they couldn’t see much of a difference. The amd users however were saying the samething I was. That on live they had 20-30fps but now they are at 70fps+ on average. Big difference.

Well I’m never going to see the difference because I don’t want to play that game lol

Avelos.6798:

Well I’m never going to see the difference because I don’t want to play that game lol

The first picture is on live with no amd 8 core optimizations. The second is the pts with amd 8 core optimizations. Big difference right? Same spot, same settings, but a extraordinary difference between the fps.

Behellagh.1468:

Aza.2105:

Behellagh.1468:

The game only has around 3 cores worth of work to process, so all the extra cores in an FX-8350 is great for things also running but it doesn’t help the game.

AMD FX cores are inherently slower compared to Intel cores in terms of performance. The design was meant to compete only when both an FX-8xxx and Intel i7 are running 8 threads at 100%. When that’s not true, when Intel is only running one thread per core, it significantly outperforms a single FX- core (30-40%)

GW2 has some significant problems in extremely complex environments, like Lion’s Arch, and when there are other players around, the more players, the lower the performance and it drops off quickly.

I’m sure if you go into the open world, say the Wayfarer Foothills, go up on the wall of Twinsper Haven and look out over the icy plains toward where the maw event runs, your frame rate will be impressive at your max settings. It’s just during maw it will plummet when you are there. The CPU simply gets bogged down and without it feeding the video card, frame rate suffers.

This is a misunderstanding, you can’t compare amd’s core speed to intel. In fact you can’t compare the two cpus at all. They are totally different architectures. The only thing that is factual is that the way Anet coded Guild Wars 2 takes advantage of intel architecture and not amd. Its the real reason why amd cpus perform so badly in comparison to intel.

If GW2 was coded for Amd architecture then intel would be slower, since its architecture is very different. I suspect with the coming of the PS4 and Xbox One that the roles will slowly reverse. Then intel users will begin to complain of poor performance in games.

Actually you can. It’s called benchmarking.

I’m not comparing clockspeed, just performance and when both an FX module and a single Core i3/i7 core are running a single thread, Intel will out perform it. And yes it’s due to the underlying architecture. I’ve gone over that time and time again. Short version AMD choose to implement two lower performing cores to compete with a single Intel hyperthreaded core. Great when an AMD Module and Intel HT core are assigned two threads but when only assigned one, AMD can only devote one core to that thread while Intel can devote the entire core instead of splitting it’s performance between two threads.

Then you can’t compare them, one is relies strictly on multi threading in order to perform the other does not. And there aren’t a lot of heavy multi threaded software or games to give a direct comparison.

Aza.2105:

Behellagh.1468:

Aza.2105:

Behellagh.1468:

The game only has around 3 cores worth of work to process, so all the extra cores in an FX-8350 is great for things also running but it doesn’t help the game.

AMD FX cores are inherently slower compared to Intel cores in terms of performance. The design was meant to compete only when both an FX-8xxx and Intel i7 are running 8 threads at 100%. When that’s not true, when Intel is only running one thread per core, it significantly outperforms a single FX- core (30-40%)

GW2 has some significant problems in extremely complex environments, like Lion’s Arch, and when there are other players around, the more players, the lower the performance and it drops off quickly.

I’m sure if you go into the open world, say the Wayfarer Foothills, go up on the wall of Twinsper Haven and look out over the icy plains toward where the maw event runs, your frame rate will be impressive at your max settings. It’s just during maw it will plummet when you are there. The CPU simply gets bogged down and without it feeding the video card, frame rate suffers.

This is a misunderstanding, you can’t compare amd’s core speed to intel. In fact you can’t compare the two cpus at all. They are totally different architectures. The only thing that is factual is that the way Anet coded Guild Wars 2 takes advantage of intel architecture and not amd. Its the real reason why amd cpus perform so badly in comparison to intel.

If GW2 was coded for Amd architecture then intel would be slower, since its architecture is very different. I suspect with the coming of the PS4 and Xbox One that the roles will slowly reverse. Then intel users will begin to complain of poor performance in games.

Actually you can. It’s called benchmarking.

I’m not comparing clockspeed, just performance and when both an FX module and a single Core i3/i7 core are running a single thread, Intel will out perform it. And yes it’s due to the underlying architecture. I’ve gone over that time and time again. Short version AMD choose to implement two lower performing cores to compete with a single Intel hyperthreaded core. Great when an AMD Module and Intel HT core are assigned two threads but when only assigned one, AMD can only devote one core to that thread while Intel can devote the entire core instead of splitting it’s performance between two threads.

Then you can’t compare them, one is relies strictly on multi threading in order to perform the other does not. And there aren’t a lot of heavy multi threaded software or games to give a direct comparison.

This is soo true. And, alot of the ‘benchmark’ applications are written with Intel Architecture in mind. SOME have small optimizations in favor of AMD, but they are patched rather then a complete recode (which is what is needed to really test AMD vs Intel).

If you want to really test AMD vs Intel, you need raw CPU data to do that. And not compression results, time to encode, FPS on games rendered on the CPU only.

But, since the world is in favor of Intel (just like how its M$ over Linux/Unix) all these Benchmarks are pointless.

sirsquishy.8531:

But, since the world is in favor of Intel

I wouldn’t say that. Intel is just currently better fitting the needs of consumers given how software is programmed to run these days.

Fermi.2409:

sirsquishy.8531:

But, since the world is in favor of Intel

I wouldn’t say that. Intel is just currently better fitting the needs of consumers given how software is programmed to run these days.

This is exactly it. I suppose you can say that programmers are living in the past. During the days when cpus had single cores and it was all about raw speed. A vast majority of software and games still are primarily single threaded. Guild Wars 2 is a example of this, which is why we have performance issues.

More than likely Anet will not change this, they may add features such as the ability to disable particles so that we have a boost in fps. But re-writing the entire game engine so its multi-threaded? No. Unless they decide to bring gw2 to the ps4 and xbox one, then they would be forced to make the engine work with amd 8 core cpu.

Most software doesn’t really need to take advantage of more cores, though- just the more demanding stuff will really benefit from it.

Fermi.2409:

sirsquishy.8531:

But, since the world is in favor of Intel

I wouldn’t say that. Intel is just currently better fitting the needs of consumers given how software is programmed to run these days.

I think you just confirmed what I said in my post.

Software is programed with Intel in mind. Single Threaded. and Optimized to use Intel’s Instructions.

Fermi.2409:

Most software doesn’t really need to take advantage of more cores, though- just the more demanding stuff will really benefit from it.

Double Quote cause Im lazy to Copy/paste;

And this presents another issue. Programmers are falling behind the game. Multi-threaded applications has existed for years. Yet they still make the main application they build single threaded, then spawn additional threads to handle CPU calling issues to increase their Performance (Exactly what GW2.exe does).

That is completely on the programmers, not Intel not AMD, not Windows/Linux. But the ‘behind the times’ companies that are selling us software.

sirsquishy.8531:

I think you just confirmed what I said in my post.

Software is programed with Intel in mind. Single Threaded. and Optimized to use Intel’s Instructions.

Except it isn’t. Software is programmed how its programmed. Intel’s CPUs are just designed to fit the software better.

With AMD offering lots of threads, there is more incentive for more multithreading of applications now, though.

sirsquishy.8531:

That is completely on the programmers, not Intel not AMD, not Windows/Linux. But the ‘behind the times’ companies that are selling us software.

Exactly. Don’t put it on Intel for using dastardly methods to gain an advantage over AMD, where everything is optimized for them.

Fermi.2409:

sirsquishy.8531:

I think you just confirmed what I said in my post.

Software is programed with Intel in mind. Single Threaded. and Optimized to use Intel’s Instructions.

Except it isn’t. Software is programmed how its programmed. Intel’s CPUs are just designed to fit the software better.

With AMD offering lots of threads, there is more incentive for more multithreading of applications now, though.

sirsquishy.8531:

That is completely on the programmers, not Intel not AMD, not Windows/Linux. But the ‘behind the times’ companies that are selling us software.

Exactly. Don’t put it on Intel for using dastardly methods to gain an advantage over AMD, where everything is optimized for them.

I really don’t think anyone is blaming Intel OR AMD for these short comings. Just happens that they both tend to get the short end of the stick.

Sadly the overall issue here is the game itself is still poorly optimized overall for either platform (AMD or Intel). Until we see better optimization come along and more options for multi-core support low FPS will plague even the most powerful rigs that run it.

Avelos.6798:

azizul.8469:

try this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkfIFP0g2xY

Considering that’s for Battlefield 4, which is a completely different game and is more GPU bound than CPU bound, I doubt that will help much.

it is applicable to any CPU-bound game, and GW2 is a CPU-bound game…

azizul.8469:

Avelos.6798:

azizul.8469:

try this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkfIFP0g2xY

Considering that’s for Battlefield 4, which is a completely different game and is more GPU bound than CPU bound, I doubt that will help much.

it is applicable to any CPU-bound game, and GW2 is a CPU-bound game…

I know GW2 is a CPU bound game. BF4 is more GPU bound.

GW2 is not CPU bound game… bad optimization… I think i7 with 100% usage…

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

GW2 is not CPU bound game… bad optimization… I think i7 with 100% usage…

Ooooh yes it is. Every MMO I have performs much worse than on an intel based CPU system.

Run this game on an FX-8350 machine and then run this game on an i7 3770K. You’ll find that the i7 probably scores double the frames at the same settings.

How many cores it use?
2 – 100%
3 – 85-95%
……

Please believe me … ur right but not double perfromance

even intel fail sometime
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/Super-Low-FPS-with-high-end-Gaming-Pc/first#post3170699

Better perfromance on WIN8

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

How many cores it use?
2 – 100%
3 – 85-95%
……

Please believe me … ur right but not double perfromance

even intel fail sometime
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/Super-Low-FPS-with-high-end-Gaming-Pc/first#post3170699

Better perfromance on WIN8

Pretty sure for me I’d get somewhere near double.

Nah you dont bealive me i have better score than i3 with FX 6300 we tested…