Guild Wars 2

Pc specyfication:FX8150@4GHz,GA990XA-UD3,8Gb ram,Radeon 7970 3Gb

In LA on high settings im getting 2xfps with drops to 14-18,world bosses sometimes drop eaven to 5fps,cause of this frame rate im not going to wvw or spvp.Cpu ussage in amd overdrive is around 60% on 4 cores(after bios update its using 6 cores but no performance boost,still same frametate),Gpu ussage max ive noted was 63%(7970).
Im using latest official drivers.Before i was using gtx560 1gb and fps was similar.
Yesterday ive asked a guildie how game runs for him and he said he have 30-60fps up to area hes in on high settings same as mine and he runs phenom2x4@4GHz,8gb ram,radeon 6850.
So someone say what the hell is wrong with my pc or its game optimalization issue?Spend a lot on graphic card and got no boost in performance…all other games are running way better(tested it on Tomb raider,crysis 3 and there framerate goes up twice)

There really should be a sticky on the tech page:
The game is heavily CPU bound and unoptimized so having more than 4 cores/threads is pointless. Even 4 are not properly utilized. The game would run best on hypothetical tricore CPU running at 5GHz or more.
GPU does not matter in GW2 in 99% of the cases.

If you want decent performance buy an i5 xxx0k and OC it to 4+GHz. Even so you will not have flat 60 FPS in zerg fights.

Your framerate does look rather bad. On my Q6600 at 3,2GHz i get a few FPS less in that area. LA is horrible FPS wise in any case.

SonicTHI.3217:

There really should be a sticky on the tech page:
The game is heavily CPU bound and unoptimized so having more than 4 cores/threads is pointless. Even 4 are not properly utilized. The game would run best on hypothetical tricore CPU running at 5GHz or more.
GPU does not matter in GW2 in 99% of the cases.

If you want decent performance buy an i5 xxx0k and OC it to 4+GHz. Even so you will not have flat 60 FPS in zerg fights.

Your framerate does look rather bad. On my Q6600 at 3,2GHz i get a few FPS less in that area. LA is horrible FPS wise in any case.

he is using bulldozer cpu. I am surprise that the performance in not worse.

The OP should of spent money on a better cpu like visera since the OP prob has an AM3+ mobo

Well im planning to get 4670k and GA Z87 dh3 but if performance might be similar it will be another waste of money… So far i made few tickets becasue of that problem and no response so far form anyone from support/tech team…

Renholder.2481:

Well im planning to get 4670k and GA Z87 dh3 but if performance might be similar it will be another waste of money… So far i made few tickets becasue of that problem and no response so far form anyone from support/tech team…

well, that processor is an improvement over the junk that is called bulldozer.

Intel is more interested in idle power usage and IGPU speed which means that cpu speed is not that much better than Ivy bridge.

The support team been very helpful when I submit a ticket. They usually respond very quickly. I find your case quite odd.

My problem is that ppl with worst config are running game way better than me

And for your info i didnt bought this cpu i got it for free in website contest…

Renholder.2481:

My problem is that ppl with worst config are running game way better than me

And for your info i didnt bought this cpu i got it for free in website contest…

what do you mean by worse?
Your system is pretty bad since everything is bottlenecked by bulldozer, although you did get it for free.

phenom 2×4 less cache memory,lower frequency and weaker graphic card that mean by worse

And if cpu would be bottleneck for my pc other games wouldnt be able to run at ulti settings and 1920×1080...

People keep thinking that more cores is somehow magical. If you can’t break a software task into parts that can be run in parallel with out blocking one another over some common resource then the number of cores you have available means squat.

Routinely it boils down to the portion of code that is in charge of rendering the scene and the portion of code that handles interactions from the player and the server. And the rendering code is usually two threads, one game, one driver and they tend to be tightly coupled meaning they can’t take advantage of being run in parallel.

So in this regard it’s single core performance that rules the day and right now Intel does that best. But as soon as a game is GPU bound, it really doesn’t matter. Our problem is in environments where there are a lot of other players about, then the game becomes CPU bound. That’s why LA or boss events or WvW performance suffers.

As for AMD’s Bulldozer and Piledriver CPUs, they were designed to compete with Intel in a fully loaded server environment and be price/performance competitive. Doesn’t help that too many reviewers refuse to compare similarly priced models against one another or understand that a FX-4000 is targeted against an i3 and not an i5 or i7 and then benchmark the two in a single threaded app like iTunes.

Renholder.2481:

phenom 2×4 less cache memory,lower frequency and weaker graphic card that mean by worse

And if cpu would be bottleneck for my pc other games wouldnt be able to run at ulti settings and 1920×1080...

phenom 2×4 has better single core cpu performance than your computer.

Your system is worse

other games is not cpu bottleneck which is not a good comparison

Behellagh.1468:

As for AMD’s Bulldozer and Piledriver CPUs, they were designed to compete with Intel in a fully loaded server environment and be price/performance competitive. Doesn’t help that too many reviewers refuse to compare similarly priced models against one another or understand that a FX-4000 is targeted against an i3 and not an i5 or i7 and then benchmark the two in a single threaded app like iTunes.

piledriver is a good architecture it completes well against i3-i5.

However, Bulldozer is just plain awful. I already expect that for most first generation cpu.

The module (marketing stupid name) design for their chip is alot more complex than you think and has lots of interesting features. You should read about it. Basically, AMD is trying to have fantastic multi core and single core performance but with less unused die space

Believe me loseridoit I know all about them.

Most of the time on computationally heavy (so ignoring tasks that read files or rely of GPU performance) and are multithreaded, Piledriver can squeeze a 4-7% performance gain, in rare cases nearly 15%. Nothing to sneeze at, it’s a similar gain that Haswell has over Ivy Bridge. But largely the fundamental design is unchanged.

And the core concept to that design was to make a “module’s” performance running two threads, one on each of it’s junior cores, equivalent to an Intel core when that core is processing two threads (ie using Hyper Threading). Sadly that means that a “module” running one thread is at a serious disadvantage compared to an Intel core running one thread. Also unlike the Intel design where two threads running simultaneously actually improves the overall efficiency of the core, running two threads on a “module” actually reduces the overall efficiency of the module. Piledriver made some improvements but that fact still stands. And sadly that still means that loading up modules first so you could park used modules and then dynamically overclock the remaining ones, is still a losing proposition and not a feature. At least not on the desktop and most certainly not playing games.

More often than not any significant performance improvement between Bulldozer and Piledriver is due to the clock speed change. If you run the FX-8350 at the same speed as the FX-8150, you simply aren’t going to see that much of an improvement.

The 2nd problem AMD has with gaming today is that Intel’s current gen of CPUs have internal PCIe controllers for graphics that have a huge amount of bandwidth to the CPU where AMD still keeps the primary PCIe controller in the NorthBridge limited to the speed of the Hyper Transport bus which has a lot less bandwidth. It’s my contention that difference means that video cards aren’t getting the data as fast as they would on today’s Intel platform. Not a problem if a game is GPU bound but still affects a lot of games.

Renholder.2481:

Well im planning to get 4670k and GA Z87 dh3 but if performance might be similar it will be another waste of money… So far i made few tickets becasue of that problem and no response so far form anyone from support/tech team…

I just built a new system with a 4670k, an Asus Z87-A board and some cheap DDR3-1600. Kept the GeForce GTX 560 Ti from my old build for now.

Getting framerates near 60 FPS (vsync) most of the time, dipping to around 30-40 in large group fights. The GPU’s cooler gets quite loud when there’s a lot of combat effects on the screen, so maybe it’s a bit of a bottleneck there. The lowest framerate I’ve seen was about 15-20 FPS, when two WvWvW zergs crashed into each other. The skill lag was pretty nasty at that point; not sure if more FPS would really help anyway.

Settings mostly high, except with reflections disabled and shadows turned down a bit since both tend to make the framerate unstable.

I’d say go for the upgrade.