Guild Wars 2

Rannith.9068:

Essence Snow.3194:

Uhmm yeah it kinda doesn’t explain it all. Resolution? cpu clock? Difference between autodetect and screen shot fps, etc…etc….

Just my opinion but 47fps is not that bad…….certainly not bad enough for an “I quit” reaction.

I get the same fps reguardless of fullscreen or window mode. It 4.3 ghz Fx 8370

Here’s your issue right there.

Upgrade to an Intel CPU and you’ll get more then 47FPS with that GTX960.

OK I am still sold that this game needs optimized. Here is yet another image (with same setting as the first image) but with an overclocked 960. Remember guys I am standing in a very demanding spot in the game yet there is nobody around me. Now compare this to the second image I posted where I was NOT standing in a demanding spot and with higher settings. The game fluctuates fps way to much for my liking and I ask Arena Net to Please fix this issue.

Rannith.9068:

OK I am still sold that this game needs optimized. Here is yet another image (with same setting as the first image) but with an overclocked 960. Remember guys I am standing in a very demanding spot in the game yet there is nobody around me. Now compare this to the second image I posted where I was NOT standing in a demanding spot and with higher settings. The game fluctuates fps way to much for my liking and I ask Arena Net to Please fix this issue.

Its your weak FX8370’s single core performance that’s giving you the limiting 55FPS. its not the game or its engine (not really). The game relies on single core performance over muli-threading performance.

Here is an example – my G3258 + HD5770 (screenshot)
that’s right a dual core Haswell clocked at 4ghz, and a older HD5770 gets better FPS then your FX8370+GTX960, why do you think that is?

SEE this is proof , perfect example why Arena net needs to fix their stuff. Totally leaving us AMD users in the dust. Thanks for clarifying this for Arena Net. They need to realize that not everyone uses Intel. Once again this is the only game I have performance problems with out of 150 games. Everything from flight sims to fps shooters all run wonderfully.

honestly i dont know really “that much about pcs” im runing a GTX 750 and my fps never drop below 50, 50 is the min and that because im recording (playing on highest settings btw)

the only thing that could make me lower settings not to low but medium is wvw 50v50 all others runs perfectly on highest values and i think my card is worst than urs, using atm amd fx processor and 16gb ram

but i think ur problem might not be graphics card but other component? always remember that a powerfull video card requires powerfull components to suport itself

if i could mention a game with a bad engine would be PoE, but i dont feel it on gw2 and im AMD usser o_o

Mad Rasputin.7809:

As most people have figured out over the lifespan of the game, GW2 is horribly optimized for AMD processors. It runs so much better on an Intel.

And I wouldn’t say it’s all AMD’s fault, as certain processors of theirs that SHOULD be able to handle the game just fine don’t seem to perform very well.

There really is no getting around the fact that GW2 is horribly optimized for AMD processors and you will almost always get a better performance from an Intel.

Again, you don’t write code that’s optimized for one brand of processor over another. The game is written to run okay on two cores and better with three or four. AMD decided to fight Intel’s fewer faster cores with more slower cores. That may work for Cinebench or any software that will spawn an identical worker thread for every core detected but that approach will not work with software that uses only a few cores worth of performance.

The fault lies with AMD’s approach to “fixing” the multithreaded benchmark results while sacrificing single core performance. Okay idea for business servers, not great for the desktop.

Behellagh.1468:

Mad Rasputin.7809:

As most people have figured out over the lifespan of the game, GW2 is horribly optimized for AMD processors. It runs so much better on an Intel.

And I wouldn’t say it’s all AMD’s fault, as certain processors of theirs that SHOULD be able to handle the game just fine don’t seem to perform very well.

There really is no getting around the fact that GW2 is horribly optimized for AMD processors and you will almost always get a better performance from an Intel.

Again, you don’t write code that’s optimized for one brand of processor over another. The game is written to run okay on two cores and better with three or four. AMD decided to fight Intel’s fewer faster cores with more slower cores. That may work for Cinebench or any software that will spawn an identical worker thread for every core detected but that approach will not work with software that uses only a few cores worth of performance.

The fault lies with AMD’s approach to “fixing” the multithreaded benchmark results while sacrificing single core performance. Okay idea for business servers, not great for the desktop.

Once again this is the only game I have performance problems with out of 150 games. Everything from flight sims to fps shooters all run wonderfully.

sirsquishy.8531:

Rannith.9068:

OK I am still sold that this game needs optimized. Here is yet another image (with same setting as the first image) but with an overclocked 960. Remember guys I am standing in a very demanding spot in the game yet there is nobody around me. Now compare this to the second image I posted where I was NOT standing in a demanding spot and with higher settings. The game fluctuates fps way to much for my liking and I ask Arena Net to Please fix this issue.

Its your weak FX8370’s single core performance that’s giving you the limiting 55FPS. its not the game or its engine (not really). The game relies on single core performance over muli-threading performance.

Here is an example – my G3258 + HD5770 (screenshot)
that’s right a dual core Haswell clocked at 4ghz, and a older HD5770 gets better FPS then your FX8370+GTX960, why do you think that is?

you do not get better fps, the first and third images were from standing in demanding areas.

Rannith.9068:

SEE this is proof , perfect example why Arena net needs to fix their stuff. Totally leaving us AMD users in the dust. Thanks for clarifying this for Arena Net. They need to realize that not everyone uses Intel. Once again this is the only game I have performance problems with out of 150 games. Everything from flight sims to fps shooters all run wonderfully.

I can’t honestly tell if your trolling or just that uninformed.

look here – http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor/3

so I take it you think that Cinebench needs to also optimize for AMD as well since Intel outperforms in that model too?

Rannith.9068:

sirsquishy.8531:

Rannith.9068:

OK I am still sold that this game needs optimized. Here is yet another image (with same setting as the first image) but with an overclocked 960. Remember guys I am standing in a very demanding spot in the game yet there is nobody around me. Now compare this to the second image I posted where I was NOT standing in a demanding spot and with higher settings. The game fluctuates fps way to much for my liking and I ask Arena Net to Please fix this issue.

Its your weak FX8370’s single core performance that’s giving you the limiting 55FPS. its not the game or its engine (not really). The game relies on single core performance over muli-threading performance.

Here is an example – my G3258 + HD5770 (screenshot)
that’s right a dual core Haswell clocked at 4ghz, and a older HD5770 gets better FPS then your FX8370+GTX960, why do you think that is?

you do not get better fps, the first and third images were from standing in demanding areas.

Now, using those SAME settings go back to your other areas :-)

You are using settings that push your CPU too hard to maintain performance.

sirsquishy.8531:

Rannith.9068:

SEE this is proof , perfect example why Arena net needs to fix their stuff. Totally leaving us AMD users in the dust. Thanks for clarifying this for Arena Net. They need to realize that not everyone uses Intel. Once again this is the only game I have performance problems with out of 150 games. Everything from flight sims to fps shooters all run wonderfully.

I can’t honestly tell if your trolling or just that uninformed.

look here – http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor/3

so I take it you think that Cinebench needs to also optimize for AMD as well since Intel outperforms in that model too?

I am saying the game fluctuates fps like crazy. And i’m tired of looking at it honestly.

I would say to drop your graphics settings a little bit; although I do think that you should be getting FPS that’s a least on par with my GTX460 (10% overclock).

The first picture below, I turned up my settings at the same place you were and am getting 63 FPS (my CPU is an i5-3330 @ 3Ghz) with vsync off.

In the second picture, I switched to my normal graphics settings, which made no difference in FPS at that location (but would in a crowd). I turned vsync back on – I hate screen tearing.

Edited to add: I forgot to try it with the frame limiter off -doh.

Rannith.9068:

SEE this is proof , perfect example why Arena net needs to fix their stuff. Totally leaving us AMD users in the dust. Thanks for clarifying this for Arena Net. They need to realize that not everyone uses Intel. Once again this is the only game I have performance problems with out of 150 games. Everything from flight sims to fps shooters all run wonderfully.

Not sure why you’re still at this when there’s a consensus that you just need to get an Intel rig. You can keep your AMD for your other games, but if you want to play one of the best games of this age, then you need a good processor.

Comparing your sims to GW2 is like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ford Mustang. You have budget performance, and you get what you pay for it.

Rannith.9068:

SEE this is proof , perfect example why Arena net needs to fix their stuff. Totally leaving us AMD users in the dust. Thanks for clarifying this for Arena Net. They need to realize that not everyone uses Intel. Once again this is the only game I have performance problems with out of 150 games. Everything from flight sims to fps shooters all run wonderfully.

It is not ANet’s resposibility to fix AMD’s lousy core performance. Overclocking the 960 will do little simply because that isn’t where the game’s performance is being limited. The game itself is not graphically intensive that a GTX 960 would be noticeably faster than a GTX 560Ti on the same system.

The renderer is a block of code that loops for every frame. The AMD FX core runs that loop slower than a cores from Intel or even older AMD models. Beginning and end of story.

Now if a game is so graphics intensive that it does get jammed up at the GPU end of things, then CPU performance doesn’t matter as much or at all (Metro cranked to max graphics for example). You wouldn’t notice the lack of core performance on an FX over an Intel. But this is not the case here.

Could it be faster? That’ll be nice but it’ll affect everyone’s brand of CPU equally. It won’t be fixing just AMD FX.

Rannith.9068:

sirsquishy.8531:

Rannith.9068:

sirsquishy.8531:

Rannith.9068:

OK I am still sold that this game needs optimized. Here is yet another image (with same setting as the first image) but with an overclocked 960. Remember guys I am standing in a very demanding spot in the game yet there is nobody around me. Now compare this to the second image I posted where I was NOT standing in a demanding spot and with higher settings. The game fluctuates fps way to much for my liking and I ask Arena Net to Please fix this issue.

Its your weak FX8370’s single core performance that’s giving you the limiting 55FPS. its not the game or its engine (not really). The game relies on single core performance over muli-threading performance.

Here is an example – my G3258 + HD5770 (screenshot)
that’s right a dual core Haswell clocked at 4ghz, and a older HD5770 gets better FPS then your FX8370+GTX960, why do you think that is?

you do not get better fps, the first and third images were from standing in demanding areas.

Now, using those SAME settings go back to your other areas :-)

You are using settings that push your CPU too hard to maintain performance.

why can’t you understand this the first and third images I was standing at are demanding spots in the game!!!!… WHY DONT U GO BACK THERE AND STAND THERE AND SEE WTF HAPPENS

for one, dont have that system anymore…i gave it to my nephew, for another why should I? your the one with issues.

and your screenshots from before are using different ingame settings then what your last one did (the one that you mirrored my settings from).

You need to use my settings and go back to redo your screenshots. As its going to prove to you that your pushing your FX8370 to hard to keep up with DX9 API thread.

In my eyes this is the only game i have problems with out of 150 games. If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse. In my eyes they did the job half right. Left me in the dust. Does not feel good. I am not upgrading when 99% of my other games run perfect

OK, I tried it with the frame limiter off with my normal settings and got 83 FPS where you were. With your settings I got 68 FPS.

So yeah, I say to try dropping your graphics settings a bit and overclocking your CPU.

abomally.2694:

OK, I tried it with the frame limiter off with my normal settings and got 83 FPS where you were. With your settings I got 68 FPS.

So yeah, I say to try dropping your graphics settings a bit and overclocking your CPU.

ok I will try I do have a Hyper 212 evo cooler so I think i got like 10c to play with. Hopefully I can get it to like 4.6 This is actually the first game I have been told to o/c my cpu. Maybe 4.5+ is the sweet spot i’m looking for. problem is im scared to touch voltages.

Rannith.9068:

If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse.

No excuse for what, exactly? The game requires single core performance. Your CPU lacks single core performance. It’s as simple as that.

Rannith.9068:

In my eyes they did the job half right. Left me in the dust. Does not feel good.

You should be blaming AMD, not Anet. They’re the ones who decided to focus on moar coarz instead of higher performance per core.

In any case, I feel like you’re just whining at this point and ignoring what everyone is saying. It’s annoying, honestly.

Fermi.2409:

Rannith.9068:

If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse.

In any case, I feel like you’re just whining at this point and ignoring what everyone is saying. It’s annoying, honestly.

thats exactly how I feel about you when i say 99% of my other games run perfect and nobody listens to me. But Arena net has to be an odd duck and make a cpu heavy game. So when they do this they need to wake up and realize not everyone has Intel.

Rannith.9068:

In my eyes this is the only game i have problems with out of 150 games. If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse. In my eyes they did the job half right. Left me in the dust. Does not feel good. I am not upgrading when 99% of my other games run perfect

You have 150 that have sub-par requirements to run. GW2 needs a lot of resources from the cpu. While you can still play GW2 decently, you can’t get great performance without upgrading your budget AMD chip to an Intel one. The price difference is shown in the quality.

It has nothing to do with Intel Vs AMD beyond objective benchmarking of general performance. Intel cores are faster in terms of performance even eliminating any advantage from automatic overclocking.

And really the problem with the game’s renderer is when other players are around beyond X number. Parties in dungeons are fine. Zergs, not so much. Also areas that are multiple levels (mainly the cities) seem to bog down the renderer a bit but it’s the portion of the game’s loop that handles all the players around you and adding them into the scene that shatters the frame rate. They could all just be standing around and you’ll see a major hit. Having an endless stream of attack animations go off, forget about it. But it’s not a problem with large groups of NPCs, just players.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Rannith.9068:

In my eyes this is the only game i have problems with out of 150 games. If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse. In my eyes they did the job half right. Left me in the dust. Does not feel good. I am not upgrading when 99% of my other games run perfect

You have 150 that have sub-par requirements to run. GW2 needs a lot of resources from the cpu. While you can still play GW2 decently, you can’t get great performance without upgrading your budget AMD chip to an Intel one. The price difference is shown in the quality.

now I got people on here telling me what freaking game I own, I have lots of games Crysis 3 , bioshock infinate , Battlefields , Flight Sim X, Witcher series , Arkham City, Skyrim, The Secret World, Civ5, Starcraft 2, etc etc etc… Arma2/3. Gw2 just runs bad, fluctuates fps drastically.

Im done here there is nothing more to say. You want to ignore me go ahead. Im not on here for my health. Trying to make AMD users have a better experience. There is no excuse when thousands of other companies can make an AMD chip run good but this game cannot. good day.

Rannith.9068:

thats exactly how I feel about you when i say 99% of my other games run perfect and nobody listens to me.

Everyone is listening to you even though that fact is 100% irrelevant. GW2 isn’t any of those games.

Rannith.9068:

But Arena net has to be an odd duck and make a cpu heavy game. So when they do this they need to wake up and realize not everyone has Intel.

Never? It’s not like the game is coded for Intel or some other nonsense along those lines. The game is CPU heavy because it’s an MMO; that’s the nature of the beast. Similarly to RTS games, when there are many things on the screen that aren’t particularly hard to draw, performance will be CPU limited.

Rannith.9068:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Rannith.9068:

In my eyes this is the only game i have problems with out of 150 games. If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse. In my eyes they did the job half right. Left me in the dust. Does not feel good. I am not upgrading when 99% of my other games run perfect

You have 150 that have sub-par requirements to run. GW2 needs a lot of resources from the cpu. While you can still play GW2 decently, you can’t get great performance without upgrading your budget AMD chip to an Intel one. The price difference is shown in the quality.

now I got people on here telling me what freaking game I own, I have lots of games Crysis 3 , bioshock infinate , Battlefields , Flight Sim X, Witcher series , Arkham City, Skyrim, The Secret World, Civ5, Starcraft 2, etc etc etc… Arma2/3. Gw2 just runs bad, fluctuates fps drastically.

You can’t compare some single player games to an MMO. FPS changes depending on what other players are doing around you.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Rannith.9068:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Rannith.9068:

In my eyes this is the only game i have problems with out of 150 games. If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse. In my eyes they did the job half right. Left me in the dust. Does not feel good. I am not upgrading when 99% of my other games run perfect

You have 150 that have sub-par requirements to run. GW2 needs a lot of resources from the cpu. While you can still play GW2 decently, you can’t get great performance without upgrading your budget AMD chip to an Intel one. The price difference is shown in the quality.

now I got people on here telling me what freaking game I own, I have lots of games Crysis 3 , bioshock infinate , Battlefields , Flight Sim X, Witcher series , Arkham City, Skyrim, The Secret World, Civ5, Starcraft 2, etc etc etc… Arma2/3. Gw2 just runs bad, fluctuates fps drastically.

You can’t compare some single player games to an MMO. FPS changes depending on what other players are doing around you.

TSW = mmo , sc2 = rts

im comparing everything i have to gw2

Rannith.9068:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Rannith.9068:

In my eyes this is the only game i have problems with out of 150 games. If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse. In my eyes they did the job half right. Left me in the dust. Does not feel good. I am not upgrading when 99% of my other games run perfect

You have 150 that have sub-par requirements to run. GW2 needs a lot of resources from the cpu. While you can still play GW2 decently, you can’t get great performance without upgrading your budget AMD chip to an Intel one. The price difference is shown in the quality.

now I got people on here telling me what freaking game I own, I have lots of games Crysis 3 , bioshock infinate , Battlefields , Flight Sim X, Witcher series , Arkham City, Skyrim, The Secret World, Civ5, Starcraft 2, etc etc etc… Arma2/3. Gw2 just runs bad, fluctuates fps drastically.

Im done here there is nothing more to say. You want to ignore me go ahead. Im not on here for my health. Trying to make AMD users have a better experience. There is no excuse when thousands of other companies can make an AMD chip run good but this game cannot. good day.

The issue comes down to single core performance. AMD is about 65% behind Intel in single core performance. its just fact. Nothing that Anet can really do about that right now.

Rannith.9068:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Rannith.9068:

In my eyes this is the only game i have problems with out of 150 games. If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse. In my eyes they did the job half right. Left me in the dust. Does not feel good. I am not upgrading when 99% of my other games run perfect

You have 150 that have sub-par requirements to run. GW2 needs a lot of resources from the cpu. While you can still play GW2 decently, you can’t get great performance without upgrading your budget AMD chip to an Intel one. The price difference is shown in the quality.

now I got people on here telling me what freaking game I own, I have lots of games Crysis 3 , bioshock infinate , Battlefields , Flight Sim X, Witcher series , Arkham City, Skyrim, The Secret World, Civ5, Starcraft 2, etc etc etc… Arma2/3. Gw2 just runs bad, fluctuates fps drastically.

All those games are very GPU dependent. This game simply isn’t. And the variable workload on the CPU between areas with few players and many significantly affects frame rate.

Here, this is an old review with the 2nd gen FX CPUs came out. They reviewer tested at two settings, one at low resolution, one at high.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0

The gap between the two shows how GPU limited a game can be. But if you notice, there are some games that perform, either at low or high resolution as well with an FX-8350 and an i3-3240. And a few games show a large improvement in performance at the low resolution going from an i3 to an i5 (2 cores/4 threads Vs 4 cores/4 threads), Far Cry 2 for instance.

If the FX-8350 barely keeps ahead of a 2 core/4 thread i3 in Far Cry 2 and an i5 with it’s 4 core/4 thread showing a 60+% improvement, what does that say about the performance of the cores in the FX-8350? Sure, once you crank up the graphics the gap between the FX-8350 and an i5-3570K drops from 50% to 15% in favor of Intel but that’s the GPU that’s limiting frame rate and not the CPU.

The point is GW2 isn’t graphics heavy and therefore sub par CPU performance does affect this game a lot more than those that are graphics heavy. And if all you play are games that are graphic card dependent to determine the game’s overall performance, you simply aren’t going to see how CPU performance impacts your gaming.

Rannith.9068:

TSW = mmo , sc2 = rts

im comparing everything i have to gw2

FYI – The Secret World sold at most, 400,000 copies. They have an active player base of about 2,000 at a time.

As for system requirements, both games have similar minimum requirements, but GW2 needs a lot more cpu power to perform at the high level. So because you can still run GW2 with your AMD rig, you can play. If you want higher settings and FPS, buy an Intel chip.

guys thanks for debating this with me, I will definately get Intel down the road but for now I have what I have. I wish I would have known about this earlier…Honestly never had a program limit me so much because of my processor. AMD has always served me well over the years. but anyhow u guys the bulls vs the cavs are on nba dot come for free. playoffs baby~

Rannith.9068:

guys thanks for debating this with me, I will definately get Intel down the road but for now I have what I have. I wish I would have known about this earlier…Honestly never had a program limit me so much because of my processor. AMD has always served me well over the years. but anyhow u guys the bulls vs the cavs are on nba dot come for free. playoffs baby~

This is a really good review compared to bulldozer and the upcoming AMD Zen cores. explains why the FX series is soo slow compared to Intel (think on Intel like the Zen Diagram in the article, itll help make more sense out of it)

http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-cpu-core-block/

Well first you need to accept you will get sub 60 fps performance in certain areas doing certain activities. Cities, multi-level structures, crowds of players will all negatively affect your frame rate. So don’t freak out in those areas or activities.

Graphic settings that can help. Reflections off or terrain only. Shadows on medium. Character model limit on medium along with character quality matching it. This first limits how many other players are shown and the second how many of them aren’t a generic character model.

Render sampling can hurt at supersample but that’s GPU not CPU. I don’t see a problem with the rest at their settings when you select the high default setting. Experiment to see if they make a noticeable difference on your setup.

In the end it’s up to the user to balance between “pretty” and frame rate.

Rannith.9068:

sc2 = rts

im comparing everything i have to gw2

Just for the record, that 8370 is going to chug badly in busy multiway SC2 matches as well (4 people); smaller matches aren’t an issue, but bigger ones are.

Turn Vsync off
Keep character models+limits on low

i have no idea what your talking about. The game runs smooth at about 60 fps on a 8350 and 550 ti at 1080p. Though at one point i was getting like 15 fps awhile back but the gpu got locked at 450mhz. Try updating your drivers and rebooting.

Rannith.9068:

guys thanks for debating this with me, I will definately get Intel down the road but for now I have what I have. I wish I would have known about this earlier…Honestly never had a program limit me so much because of my processor. AMD has always served me well over the years. but anyhow u guys the bulls vs the cavs are on nba dot come for free. playoffs baby~

Your cpu aint the issue ( It could use an OC though,theyre Made to OC.. )despite what people are making you believe here,they All got intels,most never used an AMD at all and all talk based on what they read online,and not from actual experience.I used to rock a fx 8120 at 4.6 ghz,Fps 100+ in most areas game nearly maxed out.Dont make yourself waste money when it isn’t necessary,something else is holding your fps back most likely,might also just be because you’re running it on stock.Besides you people should support AMD some more…if AMD ceases to exist or stop making cpu’s alltogether…Intel will kitten us from left to right and the prices will be insane

Btw: Turn off Vsync and put resolution to Full…do not play in windowed mode since it can lower your fps Drastically.

Caedmon.6798:

Rannith.9068:

guys thanks for debating this with me, I will definately get Intel down the road but for now I have what I have. I wish I would have known about this earlier…Honestly never had a program limit me so much because of my processor. AMD has always served me well over the years. but anyhow u guys the bulls vs the cavs are on nba dot come for free. playoffs baby~

Your cpu aint the issue ( It could use an OC though,theyre Made to OC.. )despite what people are making you believe here,they All got intels,most never used an AMD at all and all talk based on what they read online,and not from actual experience.I used to rock a fx 8120 at 4.6 ghz,Fps 100+ in most areas game nearly maxed out.Dont make yourself waste money when it isn’t necessary,something else is holding your fps back most likely,might also just be because you’re running it on stock.Besides you people should support AMD some more…if AMD ceases to exist or stop making cpu’s alltogether…Intel will kitten us from left to right and the prices will be insane

Btw: Turn off Vsync and put resolution to Full…do not play in windowed mode since it can lower your fps Drastically.

Except for the fact I was on AMD before going to Intel (Haswell). I had my system using an AM3+ Motherboard with a Phenom II 965 x4 then upgraded to a FX8350 (Thinking more Cores = more Performance). Top FPS at the time was 65FPS with a 7850. Played on that for a long time (Not just GW2 other games too) then Decided to build another box for other stuff, and tested GW2 on it and was completely surprised at the results.

The other box was a G3220 and a HD7790. In open world (Queensdale for example) 90-100FPS using the same settings on my FX8350. Low Character limit, No high res textures/character models, Medium Shadows, No FXAA, and Sky Reflections. Everything else was on High+Supersample. Sure zerg content (World bosses + WvW) was still low 18-20FPS, but the open world+Dungeon performance surprised the hell out of me.

that is why I ultimately moved to Intel and dropped AMD for my compute. Now I play on a i7-4790K+295x2, and get well above 100FPS on max settings (Reflections are still on Sky and no FXAA). My wife’s system is a i5-4670K+280x, and she also gets well above 100FPS+ with the same settings…because this game prefers single core performance over multi-threaded. Both CPUs are clocked at 4.6ghz.

If something is unacceptable then it’s the picture you made of CPU-z.. download gpu-z too and make more dept pictures of those 2 while running the game.

edit: also add core temp

Caedmon.6798:

Rannith.9068:

guys thanks for debating this with me, I will definately get Intel down the road but for now I have what I have. I wish I would have known about this earlier…Honestly never had a program limit me so much because of my processor. AMD has always served me well over the years. but anyhow u guys the bulls vs the cavs are on nba dot come for free. playoffs baby~

Your cpu aint the issue ( It could use an OC though,theyre Made to OC.. )despite what people are making you believe here,they All got intels,most never used an AMD at all and all talk based on what they read online,and not from actual experience.I used to rock a fx 8120 at 4.6 ghz,Fps 100+ in most areas game nearly maxed out.Dont make yourself waste money when it isn’t necessary,something else is holding your fps back most likely,might also just be because you’re running it on stock.Besides you people should support AMD some more…if AMD ceases to exist or stop making cpu’s alltogether…Intel will kitten us from left to right and the prices will be insane

Btw: Turn off Vsync and put resolution to Full…do not play in windowed mode since it can lower your fps Drastically.

Except I,like SirSquishy, used AMD until my last build.
Played for years on an AMD Athlon II x4 935@3ghz with an AMD R7 260x 2gb 1160/1650 . 45-60fps in most PVE areas while alone,15-30 in LA,Single digits to 15fps in bosses.

Same set up but with an i5 4690k@4.2ghz on an AsRock Z97 Anniversary nets me 60fps solid in casual PVE,50-60 in LA(dips while turning the camera fast at the forge) and 30-60fps in world bosses.

Fermi.2409:

Rannith.9068:

If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse.

No excuse for what, exactly?

Writing coding that’s so focused on single-core performance. Although multi-threaded code is harder to write, these days it’s the only way to actually use the available hardware.

It’s not just an Intel vs AMD thing, either. I’ve got a dual Intel CPU system… I just checked, and with my CPUs sitting at 65% idle, my GPU at about 60% idle, and using 1.64GB of RAM (with 5GB free), my FPS near the Mystic Forge in LA hovered around 15-20. Even if nothing else changes, it seems like with all that free RAM there’d be room for more caching and pre-computing.

BDave.9386:

Fermi.2409:

Rannith.9068:

If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse.

No excuse for what, exactly?

Writing coding that’s so focused on single-core performance. Although multi-threaded code is harder to write, these days it’s the only way to actually use the available hardware.

It’s not just an Intel vs AMD thing, either. I’ve got a dual Intel CPU system… I just checked, and with my CPUs sitting at 65% idle, my GPU at about 60% idle, and using 1.64GB of RAM (with 5GB free), my FPS near the Mystic Forge in LA hovered around 15-20. Even if nothing else changes, it seems like with all that free RAM there’d be room for more caching and pre-computing.

You really don’t understand do you. It’s not that they wrote the game with single core in mind. They wrote code that, under certain conditions like lots of players about, can’t accomplish all the work required to prep and send the data to the GPU for the next frame quickly. And that means how fast it takes to get it done is determined by single core performance. No thread of code can achieve better performance than running on a single core. The OS may bounce it from core to core as it scheduled threads to run on all the cores but that doesn’t make that thread get done sooner.

The game does use multiple threads but most appear to be utility, like loading assets or building player character models that need to be displayed. So beyond the two primary threads, which is why the game requires two cores, and a handful of minor threads, is why having a lot of slow cores (AMD FX) is less meaningful than having a few faster cores that can run those two main threads as fast as possible.

Behellagh.1468:

BDave.9386:

Fermi.2409:

Rannith.9068:

If they want to be Intel fanboys let them but there is no excuse.

No excuse for what, exactly?

Writing coding that’s so focused on single-core performance. Although multi-threaded code is harder to write, these days it’s the only way to actually use the available hardware.

It’s not just an Intel vs AMD thing, either. I’ve got a dual Intel CPU system… I just checked, and with my CPUs sitting at 65% idle, my GPU at about 60% idle, and using 1.64GB of RAM (with 5GB free), my FPS near the Mystic Forge in LA hovered around 15-20. Even if nothing else changes, it seems like with all that free RAM there’d be room for more caching and pre-computing.

The game does use multiple threads but most appear to be utility, like loading assets or building player character models that need to be displayed. So beyond the two primary threads, which is why the game requires two cores, and a handful of minor threads, is why having a lot of slow cores (AMD FX) is less meaningful than having a few faster cores that can run those two main threads as fast as possible.

Yes, and that design decision is the problem. It would require a more-or-less complete rewrite (at least of the core engine) to fix.

And that’s due to the decision to support XP, 32-bit and Dx9. Dx9 is not thread safe, you can’t have two threads perform calls into the Dx9 API without stepping on each other’s context. Dx11 for all intensive purpose is thread safe. But Dx11 is Win 7 which isn’t Win XP.

But lets say in some alternate reality ANet adds Dx11 support, and lets for argument sake outline what the current rendering thread does.

A – Render static large scale objects, the ground and buildings
B – Render static small objects, bushes, trees, statues, lamp posts. Things that are reused on multiple maps
C- Critters from the inoffensive to the belligerent. This includes NPCs.
D – Players

Under Dx9 these will be done sequentially A – B – C – D for each frame.

Under Dx11 you could kick off a thread for each. So far fine and dandy, now instead of the sum of the times it’s now the longest of the four that dictate rendering speed. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be bottle necks like loading assets from the hard drive. We only have 3 GB to hold active assets (a reason for 64-bit support so to expand that). A reason why on occasion when turning you can get a major frame rate hit as new assets are loaded from your “slow” hard drive. No amount of multi-threading or multiple cores can get around this.

This all goes back to targeting 32-bit XP which at the time when GW2 started was still quite popular with gamers over Vista with it’s Dx10 (which still wasn’t thread safe but better). Quad cores were still a high end gamer option. So it was designed around two cores.

You may not like the way they made their design choices but at the time, and their preference to develop most tools in house including the game engine and renderer, we got what we got.

And players will still ignore the fact, if they’re someone holding onto the AMD fallacy of “if they only made it more multi-threaded”, that a change like I described helps Intel just as much. Intel will still run the game faster, just that now the GPU performance may hide more of that difference.

The issue is that they decided to do vector based math on the CPU instead of the GPU for wide area dynamic content (Player generated movement and attacks, things that cannt be predicted) . DX9 aside, that is the MAIN issue with this game.

and that is the only reason AMD is a huge step behind Intel due to the IPC differences between what AMD currently has and what Intel currently released. (basically FX = Core2 9000 series era, Phenom II = i5 gen1 era).

all the other babble is not needed here. As GW2 will probably never see DX11 or 12 for that matter in the coming year. But! Anet might surprise us all.