Guild Wars 2

So i’ve owned Guild Wars 2 for nearly a year now and ever since I bought it I’ve had issues with low frame rate, even on lowest settings. My rig is pretty decent, It’s capable of running games like Crysis 3 on Ultra, Specs will be bellow. So at first I decided to just ignore the problem and hope it would get better after a few updates, but it never did. I decided to do some research and I found that quite a few people have FPS issues and I noticed they all had AMD FX-8000 series CPU’s. So it would be safe to assume the game isn’t optimized to handle all 8 cores.

I decided to do a bit of a field test and see what my GPU usage was while running the game on ultra, I’ll attach a picture of the test but what i found was the game ran at about 30% on average. It jumped to the 40’s towards the end and ran as low as 20% at some points but GPU usage should be at 100% with a game as graphically advanced as guild wars 2. Later I took my GPU over to my friends house and tried out the game with an Intel 2600 CPU (Quad-Core) to find i was getting a 30-40 FPS boost in most areas.

ArenaNet, I love you guys but you really need to fix this. This is a game thousands of people play daily and people shouldn’t have to suffer though 5-10 FPS whenever they encounter a zerg in WvW just because they have an 8-Core. Anyway, I really hope this problem gets fixed soon. Guild Wars 2 is my favorite game and while I would probably consider buying an Intel just to play it at high FPS I would rather spend that money in the Gem store.

Specifications:
CPU: AMD FX-8150
GPU: Sapphire HD 7970 GHZ Edition (6 gigabytes VRAM)
RAM: 16 gigabytes DDR3
PSU: 1000w
(Guild Wars 2 installed on an OCZ Agility 3 SSD)

I upgraded my computer with:

Intel 4930K (running at 4.5GHz, 6 core)
32GB PC-2400 DDR3
>>DUAL<< GTX 770’s (4GB each)

and now it runs all right, except it still crashes under zerg with animation set to high.

Multiple your CPU usage % by the number of cores and if that number is around 3 then everything is normal because not all software has enough work that can occupy all the cores available. It’s not an AMD vs Intel thing, it’s a false belief that all software can use, or be structured to use, all cores in a CPU. An Intel core is much faster than a single FX core. And since no thread (programs are composed of one or more threads) can’t exceed the performance of a single core, Intel thumps AMD FX when there’s only 3 or so cores worth of work available.

Yeah, It’s not secret that AMD CPU’s have really weak cores. But there has to be a way to put all cores to use… Every game I own besides this one can use all cores.

KumajirouSan.3527:

Yeah, It’s not secret that AMD CPU’s have really weak cores. But there has to be a way to put all cores to use… Every game I own besides this one can use all cores.

I would not say “very weak”…GW2 speed on AMD is much slower than AMD processor core is slower compared to Intel

OP.

GW2 does use all cores, it just doesnt use them evenly due to the way tis thread optimised.
GW2 uses 1 main thead, 2 secondary threads, and about 50 ish minor threads.
These all get distrubuted across all cores, however it is almsot always the 1 main thread that maxes out and at that point all the other processes CPu and GPu side slow down to match that 1 threads speed. This is why AMD cpu’s dont perform as well.

Could they split that 1 main thread up, possibly, but likely not with the current game engine and API.

As for AMD vs intel single htread performance.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

4770k at 2243
FX8350 at 1514

op
have you tried any core unparking?
I don’t recommend the regedit tweak.
core parking is useful, just not while you’re gaming.
this program: http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php
it’s free and allows you to set core parking how you want without a reset.
I have it set to unpark all cores only during “high” power scheme is used.

to the amd vs Intel argument.
there is a post floating around here with a guy that has a six core Intel processor and is getting insane fps.

i have amd fx 8320 and two radeon hd 6770 in crossfire and 32 gb ram i get 60 fps (have it cap at 60) 15-30 in big group and i have every thing n max but i dont check the checks at the bottom. i have been using the same type of cpu from start i have notice a improvement for the start

Since the game will never run significantly better than what we have now without some dedicated recoding of the engine, perhaps anet can start to make the content match the limited power of their engine.

KumajirouSan.3527:

Yeah, It’s not secret that AMD CPU’s have really weak cores. But there has to be a way to put all cores to use… Every game I own besides this one can use all cores.

Such as? Are they Dx11 or Dx9? Curious that’s all.

Almost guarantee they are using an underlying game engine that is marketed to other companies as a product. Even if they were the creators of it in the first place.

NeedCoffee.1402:

op
have you tried any core unparking?
I don’t recommend the regedit tweak.
core parking is useful, just not while you’re gaming.
this program: http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php
it’s free and allows you to set core parking how you want without a reset.
I have it set to unpark all cores only during “high” power scheme is used.

to the amd vs Intel argument.
there is a post floating around here with a guy that has a six core Intel processor and is getting insane fps.

The FPS he gets should be about the norm assuming you are running modern hardware….. Especially his PvE area fps, if you don’t get 100+ at the least with noone around as he mentioned where he got his numbers from, something is wrong with your setup imo…

Example: Alone with a single GTX 680 + 3770k,
http://www.simplifiedstyle.com/Gw2_2013_10_30_11_17_52_499.jpg

For settings,
http://www.simplifiedstyle.com/gw023.jpg

I know my sig says 780, but I’m testing clocks for another rig I need this card running CUDA computations on.

sobe.4157:

NeedCoffee.1402:

op
have you tried any core unparking?
I don’t recommend the regedit tweak.
core parking is useful, just not while you’re gaming.
this program: http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php
it’s free and allows you to set core parking how you want without a reset.
I have it set to unpark all cores only during “high” power scheme is used.

to the amd vs Intel argument.
there is a post floating around here with a guy that has a six core Intel processor and is getting insane fps.

The FPS he gets should be about the norm assuming you are running modern hardware….. Especially his PvE area fps, if you don’t get 100+ at the least with noone around as he mentioned where he got his numbers from, something is wrong with your setup imo…

Example: Alone with a single GTX 680 + 3770k,
http://www.simplifiedstyle.com/Gw2_2013_10_30_11_17_52_499.jpg

For settings,
http://www.simplifiedstyle.com/gw023.jpg

I know my sig says 780, but I’m testing clocks for another rig I need this card running CUDA computations on.

those are some pretty amazing fps. you oc your Sandy to 5? that too is impressive.
and on air non the less. did you delid? or did you get a gem of a cpu?

3770k is Ivy not Sandy, and if you see my sig I run an XSPC Raystorm waterblock, XSPC RX360 rad, and Boxgodz Monsoon Series 2 reservior. I did not delid, was tempted but after binning 5 3770ks I found one I liked as far as voltage @ 4.5 and 5GHz., majority of 3770k should hit 4.5 though regardless.

Sadly sig limits limited my ability for more details on my cooling XSPC is a watercooling company though

I would be amazed if som1 managed 5ghz on an Ivybridge without water cooling, even more so if they done it without water cooling AND without deliding.

High FPS in PvE like that isnt exactly hard, but it is indeed still nice to see for GW2
That said i personaly cant stand screen tearing so always have V-Sync on.

Im gunan be water cooling my own rig somtime in Q1 next year along with a Second GTX 780 and Asus’s 4k 39" Monitor ……sympathy for my wallet :P

SolarNova.1052:

High FPS in PvE like that isnt exactly hard, but it is indeed still nice to see for GW2
That said i personaly cant stand screen tearing so always have V-Sync on.

Im gunan be water cooling my own rig somtime in Q1 next year along with a Second GTX 780 and Asus’s 4k 39" Monitor ……sympathy for my wallet :P

I don’t run vsync on this 144Hz panel(ASUS VG248QE), I don’t see a need. I DO run vsync on my Yamakasi Catleap 2560×1440 IPS panel though, I didn’t care to spend $800 – $1,000 for the 2B panel just for an overclock I’m not guaranteed.

Oh and yes, can’t wait to see where 4K tech ends up, especially after ASUS brought out their 60Hz panel over the standard 30Hz we were seeing!

sobe.4157:

3770k is Ivy not Sandy, and if you see my sig I run an XSPC Raystorm waterblock, XSPC RX360 rad, and Boxgodz Monsoon Series 2 reservior. I did not delid, was tempted but after binning 5 3770ks I found one I liked as far as voltage @ 4.5 and 5GHz., majority of 3770k should hit 4.5 though regardless.

Sadly sig limits limited my ability for more details on my cooling XSPC is a watercooling company though

lol, I knew the 3770k was 3rd gen but I always get the codenames mixed up.
and I know nothing about water cooling, I just thought monsoon.sounded like a big air cooler.
what fps are you seeing in a zerg vs zerg situation in wvw?
looks like we have the same asus monitor. do you light boost with it?

I’d have to get back to you on ZvZ as I didn’t have Afterburner up in the background to monitor last time I did WvW, I’ve been stuck in Battlefield 4 lol.

As far as Lightboost + 120Hz is concerned over 144Hz, I DO enjoy Lightboost via ToastyX when playing FPS games, but I switch to the standard 144Hz when playing other games such as GW2.

Im trying to get some info directly from Asus about the 39" 4k screen and G-Sync. last reply i got from them sounded like it wont be coming with it immediatly, but later models might.

I’m waiting for the G-Sync release, already have $175 ready for the DIY kit for my VG248QE, but as far as G-Sync and other monitors, I can see it on trending 120Hz/144Hz panels since other companies have partnered up for G-Sync, but I’m not sure we’ll see it on 4K displays anytime soon, of course this is just speculation so who knows.

All I know is, there is talk about Lightboost working alongside G-Sync over at Blurbusters blog, I don’t think I could be happier about that news lol.

Single thread…. still?
I bought FX6300 instead of i3 3240.
WHY?
I want to play BF4, i want to play Crysis3… THIS CPU destroy i3 or even i5 while streaming BF3 on max setting 720P.
For those games is 3,5Ghz turbo off (1.75-1.875Vcore) to much! My PC in gaming use like 190-230W…

Everyone says “AMD CPU use a lot of power” – thats true on stock vcore (turbo) …

GW2 is a great game but poor optimization… Poor optimization makes game terrible….
So that mean if i dont buy i5 i cant get playable (40+)framerates in Crysis 3 or BF4 and GW2…. Thats sucks… Poor optimization discourages me of playing this game…
Please OPTIMIZE THIS GAME!

MY bro own i7 3770 and his FPS in battles also falls under 30.

… sigh …

No it’s not single thread, the game has plenty of threads. It’s just not all are run all the time. To take advantage of multiple cores an app needs to be threaded into somewhat equal parts in terms of computation. Video/file compression, easy. MMO, not as easy. Performance improves going from two to three cores but it pretty much levels out at that point unless you got other stuff running as well.

If you chose an FX-6300 over and i3-3240 just for this game. Well that’s probably close to break even. So comparing a third or fourth generation game engines designed for a game genre where FPS is everything first Vs the 2nd attempt of an engine designed for visual style first, yea, not a fair fight.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Single thread…. still?
I bought FX6300 instead of i3 3240.
WHY?
I want to play BF4, i want to play Crysis3… THIS CPU destroy i3 or even i5 while streaming BF3 on max setting 720P.
For those games is 3,5Ghz turbo off (1.75-1.875Vcore) to much! My PC in gaming use like 190-230W…

Everyone says “AMD CPU use a lot of power” – thats true on stock vcore (turbo) …

GW2 is a great game but poor optimization… Poor optimization makes game terrible….
So that mean if i dont buy i5 i cant get playable (40+)framerates in Crysis 3 or BF4 and GW2…. Thats sucks… Poor optimization discourages me of playing this game…
Please OPTIMIZE THIS GAME!

MY bro own i7 3770 and his FPS in battles also falls under 30.

And yet an i5 will play just the same on those games as your current cpu if not better….. If you think they will play poorly on an i5, you are sorely mistaken and here is why:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

You choosing an budget AMD cpu like the 6300 will perform much poorer than an i5 even in Crysis 3, so that is your own fault for budgeting yourself so much that you have to complain about a product. FYI, I run a 3770k and don’t lag in GW2, even @ stock clocks… But since it’s MY cpu, I will push it for what I can for 24/7 daily use.

You’re comparing Civics to Mustangs sobe. At least XFlyingBeeX is comparing similarly priced CPUs.

I know this is little of topic but in Crysis 3
FX 6300 is better than i5 2500 or equal to i5 3570

so is the BF4 .
http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

think i’m ready to throw in the towel. Was going to get my gf the game but finding that pretty much everything there is to do at end game.(dungeons, world events, zergs, wvw) performs terribly, this shouldn’t be the case when i’m running around the same game with 100+ most of the time and then crash land to 8fps when more than 8 people come on screen, regardless of settings.

7770s crossfired. Phenom II x4 @4.3ghz and nb-cpu at 2.8ghz custom cooled loop. 8 days prime stable(went camping for a week lol) If upgrading CPU’s was an option i’d take it but I won’t buy intel products(moral implications, & business practices) though I don’t deny they currently offer better performance. Its just not worth it to upgrade to the latest AMD chip that still won’t give me the frame rates I want when EVERY OTHER GAME I HAVE IS PLAYABLE MAXED OUT. I’m using a bunk kitten monitor right now that isn’t even 1080p and my frame rates hardly even change if i disable crossfire. So i’m i know this is a cpu bottleneck. One caused by software and not the cpu itself. I’ll probalby check in every nce in a while to see if things have changed thought thats probably just what they want. The people with issues to just go away so what remains is good press. Besides what do they care if i leave? they already got their money out of me. That just means lower server costs for them. Its just not fair. If I could find a single shred of evidence they cared or were trying to do something about it maybe I wouldn’t feel so taken advantage of but as of right now i truely feel arenanet doesn’t care about anything but money. Certainly not me at least. If only i could get a refund for all those gems I thought I was buying to support a game with a lot of potential.

Behellagh.1468:

You’re comparing Civics to Mustangs sobe. At least XFlyingBeeX is comparing similarly priced CPUs.

That’s the thing, I compared the same price segment for Crysis 3, an FX 8350 going for $200 vs an i5 3550 going for $220, and the i5 had it’s way with the 8350 and 6400. And if quality were concerned I certainly hope neither would be the mustang xD

CursedShaitan.9720:

think i’m ready to throw in the towel. Was going to get my gf the game but finding that pretty much everything there is to do at end game.(dungeons, world events, zergs, wvw) performs terribly, this shouldn’t be the case when i’m running around the same game with 100+ most of the time and then crash land to 8fps when more than 8 people come on screen, regardless of settings.

…….

And this is the predicament really that it comes down to, you have 2 choices as far as the game is concerned (Unless of course they somehow get something working better for the red camp), you can upgrade to Intel which would be much better but at a higher cost, or wait out your current in hopes of an update somewhere down the line. Moral issues with Intel? All these businesses do shady practices here and there, that does not exclude AMD.

Amd optimization would be nice, its possible but probably would require a rewrite of the guild wars 2 engine to be really multi-threaded. Planetside 2 is doing the same thing, the devs analysis of amd cpus is interesting. Here is what they said:

We have the exact same kind of Achilles’ heel on the PC too. People who have AMD chips have a disadvantage, because a single core on an AMD chip doesn’t really have as much horsepower and they really require you to kind of spread the load out across multiple cores to be able to take full advantage of the AMD processors.

Our engine sucks at that right now. We are multi-threaded, but the primary gameplay thread is very expensive. The biggest piece of engineering work that they’re doing right now, and it’s an enormous effort, is to go back through the engine and re-optimize it to be really, truly multi-threaded and break the gameplay thread up. That’s a very challenging thing to do because we’re doing a lot of stuff – tracking all these different players, all of their movements, all the projectiles, all the physics they’re doing.

It’s very challenging to split those really closely connected pieces of functionality across in multiple threads. So it’s a big engineering task for them to do, but thankfully once they do it, AMD players who’ve been having sub-par performance on the PC will suddenly get a massive boost – just because of being able to take the engine and re-implement it as multi-threaded.

Source: 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/

If Anet was to follow suit, then AMD cpus would see a massive boost in gw2. But as the ps2 dev said above, its a difficult task. We don’t know where Anet’s priorities are and if they have a team working at this time to re-optimize their engine to be multi-threaded.

The great thing about doing what is said in that qoute Aza, is that Intel users will ALSO see a boost. Specialy those running i7’s.
But as u and the qoute understands, its a massive undertaking and most game developers wont bother doign that unless they truley have the gamers best interests in mind. most have ‘money’ in mind and so wont give two flying f**ks how bad the perfomance is so long as people still play and put money into the game.

That is true.
Hopefully AMD Mantle will change everything… So i hope that many of great games will have/support AMD mantle.

It will use 8 cores!
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/graphics-cards/amd-mantle-a-low-level-api-with-high-level-potential-1190692

If BF4 would use only 2 cores … no CPU would be able to give playable framerates in MP 64… Unlike other developer they actually care about it.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

That is true.
Hopefully AMD Mantle will change everything… So i hope that many of great games will have/support AMD mantle.

It will use 8 cores!
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/graphics-cards/amd-mantle-a-low-level-api-with-high-level-potential-1190692

If BF4 would use only 2 cores … no CPU would be able to give playable framerates in MP 64… Unlike other developer they actually care about it.

I wouldn’t say they don’t care. I’m sure its a concern of Anet to give users the best possible performance. But there are a lot of barriers I think. The engine is old, its dx9 based and making a truly multi threaded mmorpg is probably no easy accomplishment. To my knowledge there aren’t any real multi threaded mmorpgs on the market.

Yet, mmorpgs would benefit from it the most since they are very cpu demanding. In regards to Amd cpus, they are interesting. We usually see them performing poorly thats because most games are only running one primary thread, maybe a thread for audio and physics. Amd’s single core performance is weak, so it doesn’t see high fps numbers.

Aza.2105:

I wouldn’t say they don’t care. I’m sure its a concern of Anet to give users the best possible performance. But there are a lot of barriers I think. The engine is old, its dx9 based and making a truly multi threaded mmorpg is probably no easy accomplishment. To my knowledge there aren’t any real multi threaded mmorpgs on the market.

All mmorpgs are multi- threaded…….

Being multi- threaded doesnt solve the O(n^2) tracking problems or etc which most games such as Battlefeild 3-4 avoid by having a char limit of 64…

Aza.2105
It is not AMD even i7 or i5 … actually is not difference between stock Intel and OC AMD CPU. Where both CPUs wont give you more than 30 FPS in huge fights (max setting). If you lower the settings then both CPUs will give more then 30 FPS…

So first i thought than because of AMD CPU – FX 6300 FPS in GW2 drops under 30 FPS… Not really true… even on i7 drops under 30 FPS and in both cases it is noticeable.

I know that optimization is not easy….

loseridoit
u have that right to.. But some MMORPGs runs smoother that GW2

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Aza.2105
It is not AMD even i7 or i5 … actually is not difference between stock Intel and OC AMD CPU. Where both CPUs wont give you more than 30 FPS in huge fights (max setting). If you lower the settings then both CPUs will give more then 30 FPS…

So first i thought than because of AMD CPU – FX 6300 FPS in GW2 drops under 30 FPS… Not really true… even on i7 drops under 30 FPS and in both cases it is noticeable.

I know that optimization is not easy….

loseridoit
u have that right to.. But some MMORPGs runs smoother that GW2

really, I didnt see that many mmorpg with 60+ players zergs in a 300+ player maps

Can you please list a few I would want to play them.

WoW is smoother…

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

WoW is smoother…

http://www.wowwiki.com/Alterac_Valley

40 vs 40 players

I think wvwvw has more players.

I havnt played the new updates, so I dont know if htey have bigger maps

Edit: i kinda wish Anet give player limit numbers

it might be around 80-150 players per map.

sobe.4157:

Behellagh.1468:

You’re comparing Civics to Mustangs sobe. At least XFlyingBeeX is comparing similarly priced CPUs.

That’s the thing, I compared the same price segment for Crysis 3, an FX 8350 going for $200 vs an i5 3550 going for $220, and the i5 had it’s way with the 8350 and 6400. And if quality were concerned I certainly hope neither would be the mustang xD

Not to be a stickler but you said. Bolded the part in question.

sobe.4157:

You choosing an budget AMD cpu like the 6300 will perform much poorer than an i5 even in Crysis 3, so that is your own fault for budgeting yourself so much that you have to complain about a product. FYI, I run a 3770k and don’t lag in GW2, even @ stock clocks… But since it’s MY cpu, I will push it for what I can for 24/7 daily use.

If you had said 8350 I wouldn’t have called it out.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

loseridoit
u have that right to.. But some MMORPGs runs smoother than GW2 for ME

Fixed that for you. As it stands GW2 is smooth as butter on my systems including laptop…. If you want better performance, stop chasticing and get a better setup, an modern i5 or i7 will be an improvement over your 6300 in any game you play.

If you want better game optimizations, talk to someone higher up in ANet about costs associated and see about starting a Kickastarter to raise required funds to do so. Otherwise, you are just whining to whine.

Behellagh.1468:

sobe.4157:

Behellagh.1468:

You’re comparing Civics to Mustangs sobe. At least XFlyingBeeX is comparing similarly priced CPUs.

That’s the thing, I compared the same price segment for Crysis 3, an FX 8350 going for $200 vs an i5 3550 going for $220, and the i5 had it’s way with the 8350 and 6400. And if quality were concerned I certainly hope neither would be the mustang xD

Not to be a stickler but you said. Bolded the part in question.

sobe.4157:

You choosing an budget AMD cpu like the 6300 will perform much poorer than an i5 even in Crysis 3, so that is your own fault for budgeting yourself so much that you have to complain about a product. FYI, I run a 3770k and don’t lag in GW2, even @ stock clocks… But since it’s MY cpu, I will push it for what I can for 24/7 daily use.

If you had said 8350 I wouldn’t have called it out.

All good Behe, I said 6300 because obviously it performs poorer than the 8350… Which what I linked already showed the 8350 performing worse than an i5. I5 even topping over an 6400, which is a slightly better chip than the 6300. So I only concluded that readers would figure that out from the graphs I posted and Bee talking about a 6300 doing better than i5 and i7 in games.

In short i5 that Bee said was worse, outperformed both 6400 and 8350 which are better chips than what he has. Sorry, I figured it was evident when I said 6300.

Well I didn’t click through your link. And when doing so it shows the FX-8350 and the i5-3550 in a dead heat on average frame rate.

Aza’s quote from the Planetside 2 crowd says it all when it comes to the battle between Intel iX cores and AMD FX cores and game engines.

All good, just misinformation in my post which I shouldn’t have assumed others would have known, that’s all.

We can talk about game optimization all day, but in the end, unless someone essentially offers a game company money, I don’t really see any company optimizing a current engine to such a large extent aside from starting from scratch. That’s my opinion on it at least, thus my previous mention of Kickstarter and talking to ANet’s higher ups.

Sobe.4157
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/

Tomshardware…. i dont believe them anymore…
I have friends with i3 i he did benchmark in Crysis 3…

Offtopic again
First i bought CPU + CPU cooler + MB = 202€ — 3570K = 195€

Let me put it this way
FX 6300 is cheaper than i3 2***/3***/4***.
FX 8320 is still cheaper than i3 4340 or i3 3240 …

I know that a lot of people think that AMD CPUs sucks.
Then is we look at streaming – CPUs use all threads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

There can you see real power of CPUs.

Anyway this game could (should?) be more optimized.
I love this game… with or without optimization

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

FX 6300 is cheaper than i3 2***/3***/4***.

An FX-6300+mobo(+cooler) will be the same as (or a bit more then) a 3220/3240/etc.

It’s basically between if you want more cores for games that are more heavily multithreaded or more powerful cores for games that aren’t. If you want to play GW2, going Intel is the wise move.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

I know that a lot of people think that AMD CPUs sucks.

AMD CPUs suck in terms of single thread performance, which is still pretty important.

Yep i know…… should go for at least i5 or i7 … i3 sucks..
I bet that i have better performance than you in GW2.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Sobe.4157
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/

Tomshardware…. i dont believe them anymore…
I have friends with i3 i he did benchmark in Crysis 3…

Offtopic again
First i bought CPU + CPU cooler + MB = 202€ — 3570K = 195€

Let me put it this way
FX 6300 is cheaper than i3 2***/3***/4***.
FX 8320 is still cheaper than i3 4340 or i3 3240 …

I know that a lot of people think that AMD CPUs sucks.
Then is we look at streaming – CPUs use all threads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

There can you see real power of CPUs.

Anyway this game could (should?) be more optimized.
I love this game… with or without optimization

lol, look, we could go all day with this, especially as far as TekSyndicate as this was discussed and re-tested over at Anandtech that showed the flaws, mistakes, and lack of information in his videos along with his bogus results(This isn’t the first time Tek did this…). For streaming x264, it has 4 modules with 2 cores per module = 8 cores which is where AMD gets its “8 cores”. Each modules has a 256bit FPU that can split to 2 128bit FPU which is where it offers the better performance over Intel for the streaming.

We aren’t talking about the 1 thing AMD managed to do extremely well within their modules, you brought up Crysis 3 and the like…. Your friend can have his i3 and do whatever he wants, but unless you have a your own test bench to test the numerous hardware in the same conditions, it’s essentially null for useful information.

As I told you already, if you really want to see optimization, give A-Net an email with your concern and ask about possibility of setting up an interview(via phone maybe) with one of their lead techs over the phone to determine if it would be feasible through large donation amounts to work on the engine with a backing such as Kickstarter. I personally probably wouldn’t mind pitching in $50 or so myself if it were to come about.

WILL anything come of talking to them? No idea…. But it’s your best bet IMO to get direct confirmation or information related.

I see you are a big intel fan. I dont care what CPU I use…… I just want it cheap and strong.
It is not the point which CPU is better.

It just make me sad that this game use only about 45-55% of my CPU.
Anyway like i said if i just lower detail my FPS are 45+ even really huge fight it does not go under 40FPS.

But I know there wont be any optimization for AMD CPUs…. i realized that long ago…

Only thing that i can do switch to win8.. that improves CPu perfromance

Over a month ago there was a dev post regarding performance that indicated that they are rolling out performance patches within the 4-6 week timeframe.
We hopefully will be seeing one shortly and perhaps even with the next patch.
I doubt that there will be a miracle patch but any amount of incremental performance boost would be appreciate.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Yep i know…… should go for at least i5 or i7 … i3 sucks..

i3s are (currently) great budget picks. They were even better when I got mine ~9 months ago. They might go the way of the Phenom II as the new generation of consoles come out, though, if games become more multithreaded.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

I bet that i have better performance than you in GW2.

With an FX-6300? I wouldn’t be too sure. Too bad there’s no ingame bench to test this sort of thing, because I really would like to compare some different hardware configurations/resolutions in a fair way.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Anyway like i said if i just lower detail my FPS are 45+ even really huge fight it does not go under 40FPS.

What’s your definition of ‘really huge fight’? I’m honestly curious.

Edit: Also I saw this above and want to ask:

I want to play BF4, i want to play Crysis3… THIS CPU destroy i3 or even i5 while streaming BF3 on max setting 720P.

Are you playing@720P and streaming the same, or playing higher (1080/whatever) and just streaming the 720P?

Fermi.2409
To stream at 1080P u need good network… I dont stream even if i tell you that after 10 month i am 58LVL in GW2 – i dont play so much… only when i am sick or bad weather outside…

I just tried because someone told me that AMD cpu sucks at multitasking … And according to benchmark FX 6300 beat his i5

But when i do i want to have best performance that my CPU can offer. And CPU half of price of the i5 should not deliver same performances…

stormcrow thanks for info.

Stormcrow.7513:

Over a month ago there was a dev post regarding performance that indicated that they are rolling out performance patches within the 4-6 week timeframe.
We hopefully will be seeing one shortly and perhaps even with the next patch.
I doubt that there will be a miracle patch but any amount of incremental performance boost would be appreciate.

Can you provide the link?

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

Fermi.2409
To stream at 1080P u need good network… I dont stream even if i tell you that after 10 month i am 58LVL in GW2 – i dont play so much… only when i am sick or bad weather outside…

So would you be playing at 1080 and streaming 720, or playing and streaming at 720?

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

I just tried because someone told me that AMD cpu sucks at multitasking …

That’s the only thing that AMD CPUs are good at.

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

And according to benchmark FX 6300 beat his i5

If so, only at one thing. Anyways, which benches say that?

XFlyingBeeX.2836:

But when i do i want to have best performance that my CPU can offer. And CPU half of price of the i5 should not deliver same performances…

It doesn’t, unless we’re talking about the crappy dual core i5s, and even then I’m not so sure, unless it’s pretty heavily multithreaded.