Hello
As said in the title I come here to news on the optimization of the game that already has nine months, it has been 9 months I expect a small side of cpu optimization and nothing we don’t know if it’s in court, if you work disappoint, or simply that you don’t intend to work disappointed?
The problem with this lack of optimization and the game only uses 3 cores.
In mcm we are left with the fall in combat fps (15/20 fps) so the gpu and cpu are not optimal used (40% gpu and the cpu max 35%).
Config :
-gtx 670 oc
-amd fx850 oc a 4.6 GHz
8 go ddr3 2133MHz
Could you tell me if you counted finally optimize the game?
PS: I enclose a screen printed where you see me on a border area (mvm) with a graph that shows the use of the gpu (78%) / cpu (32%), this scenario also works in PvE areas.
I think it’s possible to do that … I knew Skyrim at the beginning and the cpu optimization was still more badly than Guild Wars 2 and with the time that it’s improving.
ArenaNet spent more time on game looks than game optimizations. NCsoft is only allowing ArenaNet to release content to the game. Bug fixes and any hard optimizations will not be happening any time in the next few years. You can quote me on that, I’m never wrong about these things.
Hello
As said in the title I come here to news on the optimization of the game that already has nine months, it has been 9 months I expect a small side of cpu optimization and nothing we don’t know if it’s in court, if you work disappoint, or simply that you don’t intend to work disappointed?
The problem with this lack of optimization and the game only uses 3 cores.
In mcm we are left with the fall in combat fps (15/20 fps) so the gpu and cpu are not optimal used (40% gpu and the cpu max 35%).
Config :
-gtx 670 oc
-amd fx850 oc a 4.6 GHz
8 go ddr3 2133MHz
Could you tell me if you counted finally optimize the game?
PS: I enclose a screen printed where you see me on a border area (mvm) with a graph that shows the use of the gpu (78%) / cpu (32%), this scenario also works in PvE areas.
Sorry, i’m french and my english is very bad.
I decided to go to the same spot and capture a couple of frames with Process Explorer looking at Guild Wars. Note I am in Windowed Fullscreen and I know a lose a frame or two per second this way so the game isn’t running as fast as it could in fullscreen. What you don’t see is the zerg organizing behind the PE window (well you do see it on the map).
The first shows the overall CPU usage, 67.6%. On my quad core you could say it takes 2.7 cores to run. Notice on nunoumaior’s eight core rig that, assuming all 32% is the game, that’ll be about 2.56 cores.
The second shows the thread breakdown. Now I have a quad core so no thread can be higher than 25% or one core.
Now I surmise the first thread listed is the main gaming loop taking 69.4% of a core. The second and third threads comprise the main rendering threads, one game, one driver at 50.5% and 41.5% of a core respectively. It’s likely that these two threads sync with one another. Those three threads comprise about 60% of the entire game’s workload. The next 6 threads comprise about 38% of the game’s workload and the remaining 36 threads (yes on my system the game as 45 threads) about 2%. I’ll also guess that some of those 6 threads also sync loosely to the main gaming thread.
My point and the point of others is the game will only be as fast as single core performance. And the FX generation of CPUs aren’t as quick as Intel’s. They may be as quick as a Phenom II but the Core iX series of CPUs for the most part have better single core performance and it’s getting better every generation.
ArenaNet spent more time on game looks than game optimizations. NCsoft is only allowing ArenaNet to release content to the game. Bug fixes and any hard optimizations will not be happening any time in the next few years. You can quote me on that, I’m never wrong about these things.
NCSOFT doesn’t care what ANet does as long as the money keeps pouring in. GW2 bought in more sales in the last 3 quarters than any of their other properties.
Sure lets start interfering with the golden goose.
Hello
As said in the title I come here to news on the optimization of the game that already has nine months, it has been 9 months I expect a small side of cpu optimization and nothing we don’t know if it’s in court, if you work disappoint, or simply that you don’t intend to work disappointed?
The problem with this lack of optimization and the game only uses 3 cores.
In mcm we are left with the fall in combat fps (15/20 fps) so the gpu and cpu are not optimal used (40% gpu and the cpu max 35%).
Config :
-gtx 670 oc
-amd fx850 oc a 4.6 GHz
8 go ddr3 2133MHz
Could you tell me if you counted finally optimize the game?
PS: I enclose a screen printed where you see me on a border area (mvm) with a graph that shows the use of the gpu (78%) / cpu (32%), this scenario also works in PvE areas.
Sorry, i’m french and my english is very bad.
You’re showing us a Screen shot of your game in Windows Mode. Windowed Mode will never push your Graphics Card or CPU to its full potential.
With that said I won’t argue the fact this game is held together by shoestrings. ArenaNet didn’t develop the games engine and their team of coders need to swallow their pride and talk to Havok about the issues this game has.
Game is only using 32% of CPU because it only has about 3 cores worth of threads to run. If you had 100 cores then your CPU usage would be 3%. This is why single core performance is key and not the number of cores. AMD CPUs are simply outperformed, core Vs core, by Intel ones since the introduction of the Core 2.
As for the 670’s 78%, well it can only do as much work as the CPU can provide to it.
If you are expecting an official answer from ArenaNet, don’t hold your breath.
^That about sums it up. Most single player games with big graphics are usually GPU dependent, but GW2 is CPU dependent. Even with multicore support, most games only have around 2-3 cores worth of work to assign. Because of that, the performance of each individual core becomes more important than the number of cores. AMD tends to go for more less powerful cores and Intel goes less but more powerful cores. Depending on my graphic setting, GW2 always runs between 30-75% CPU usage on my intel quad core which is exactly what I’m expecting.
To be able to use more cores effectively, a task needs to be able to be split into multiple tasks with similar amount of work to do in each. That is not an easy thing to do especially in a task that is providing real time feedback.
In the end everything depends on the rendering code providing scene data to the driver via the Direct3D 9 API. And Dx9 isn’t really multithreaded enabled.
You would need to create something like command lists that’s found in Dx11 where you can have multiple threads each create a command list for whatever they are currently rendering, queue it for execution and then have one thread that processes the queue and executes the Dx9 API calls. But that will still mean that only one thread is talking to the driver and that will be the thread where you can still bind up.
It’s one of these things where it’s unclear up front if the additional overhead will provide actual improvement or not.
Here’s a SigGraph 2008 presentation (pdf) on the approach.
Sadly that open source library is no more as the company closed and assets sold off only a year or two later.
This is what happens when your minimum requirements are Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz, Core i3, or AMD Athlon 64 X2? Hard to balance between lots of threads and the lowest common denominator.
This is what happens when your minimum requirements are Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz, Core i3, or AMD Athlon 64 X2? Hard to balance between lots of threads and the lowest common denominator.
You can still scale it. And the Steam survey still shows 47% with two physical cores. Does it make marketing sense to exclude potentially half of your customers?
Same could be said by not requiring Dx11, since that excludes all of your XP, Vista and 40% of your Win 7/8 customers who only have Dx10 class video cards.
Don’t forget the game is expanding into Asia shortly and XP is still 58% in China, 30% is South Korea and 16% in Japan (Vs 13% in NA).
You code to your target audience and that means Dx9 and two core minimum isn’t bad when only 5% still run with a single core.
I’m sure someone will blame NCSoft NCSOFT by requiring ANet to make the game available in Asia.
You can still scale it. And the Steam survey still shows 47% with two physical cores. Does it make marketing sense to exclude potentially half of your customers?
Same could be said by not requiring Dx11, since that excludes all of your XP, Vista and 40% of your Win 7/8 customers who only have Dx10 class video cards.
Well, what if the game required DX10 and not 9? It would be a balance between the two.
Don’t forget the game is expanding into Asia shortly and XP is still 58% in China, 30% is South Korea and 16% in Japan (Vs 13% in NA).
I wish XP would die already… Vista is perfectly fine. All the hoopla about it when it was launched was mainly launch partners grossly misusing the “made for windows” seal with inadequate hardware and buggy drivers. I never have any problems with it now.
You code to your target audience and that means Dx9 and two core minimum isn’t bad when only 5% still run with a single core.
Oh, I understand why they did it, but it just kinda reminds me of Gaia’s zOMG!, which is made in flash, that way nobody has to download it. However, for a very long time, even those with really nice computers couldn’t play it though due to it not embracing new things which would make it run faster (ie not flash!).
