High-End PCs Capping at 40FPS

[InVizO]

Hello,

 

This game clearly has a bottleneck within the code/engine.

 

My rig:

i7 4790K up to 4.8ghz

Asus Sabertooth Mark 1 Motherboard

16GB DDR3 - capped frequencies

2x Nvidia 980GTX - SLI is off due to game

Samsung 850 512GB SSD

Asus Xonar STX Audio

Win 10 x64

Water-cooled

2560x1440 resolution

Maximum settings = 41-60 FPS depending on area and population

Level 4 Settings = 42-60 FPS

Level 3 Settings = 44-60 FPS

Level 1 & 2: My eyes almost bled to death from the ugliness.

 

Please tell me what to buy or what to change so that I can run my native resolution at 60FPS in towns and large dungeons.... Seriously out of ideas myself except for a new $2000 Titan video card when it comes out this summer, and I shouldn't have to do that.  My eyes are fixated on the new 34" monitors that push 3440x1440.  This game would likely be UNPLAYABLE at that resolution.

[Kumico]

Titan cards are over rated. They are good for video processing and stuff. The 980ti is better then the current titan and much much cheaper. It runs fine for me, I have a 4790k, 16gb ram, asus pro wifi mobo, and 1 980, water cooled w10. I never drop below 60 and usually run 75 to 80 fps. Granted, my resolution is only 1920x1080 so maybe try setting your resolution down to that and see? I have everything else maxed. 

[InVizO]

Just now, Kumico said:

Titan cards are over rated. They are good for video processing and stuff. The 980ti is better then the current titan and much much cheaper. It runs fine for me, I have a 4790k, 16gb ram, asus pro wifi mobo, and 1 980, water cooled w10. I never drop below 60 and usually run 75 to 80 fps. Granted, my resolution is only 1920x1080 so maybe try setting your resolution down to that and see? I have everything else maxed. 

I should have included 1080p performance metrics.  I do get a noticeable frame increase to about 53-60FPS, but playing on a non-native resolution looks terrible.

 

Plus, 1080p has been mainstream for longer than the PS3 and PS4, you would think they would start optimizing 3840x2160 within that 15 year time-span.

[LittleWolf]

i5 6600k, MSI z170A Gaming titanium MB, with a gtx 970, game cranked up to max on 1080p, i've never seen it drop below 60fps even with some streaming involved

[Enhance]

27 minutes ago, Kumico said:

Titan cards are over rated. They are good for video processing and stuff. The 980ti is better then the current titan and much much cheaper. It runs fine for me, I have a 4790k, 16gb ram, asus pro wifi mobo, and 1 980, water cooled w10. I never drop below 60 and usually run 75 to 80 fps. Granted, my resolution is only 1920x1080 so maybe try setting your resolution down to that and see? I have everything else maxed. 

Well, I think he meant the 1080 Titan that will be coming out and supposedly tenfolds the performance. Could grab a GTX1080Ti instead for a relatively okay price!

 

[InVizO]

2 hours ago, LittleWolf said:

i5 6600k, MSI z170A Gaming titanium MB, with a gtx 970, game cranked up to max on 1080p, i've never seen it drop below 60fps even with some streaming involved

Ummm....

 

 2560x1440 = 3.69mil Pixels

1920x1080 = 2.07mil Pixels

 

You need a minimum of 30% more VRAM and GPU processing power, and god only knows what that does to a bottle-necked game and your CPU.

 

If I was a 1080p user I would not be complaining in a thread.  The 980TI is also too small of an upgrade..... need more! lol

[Fairchild]

Single 980 is only 4GB. Anything over 1080p requires more than 3.5gb, and even newer games you can hardly find any of them fully optimized over that, let alone a 2012 game. If anything, you just need to configure your rig well.

[LittleWolf]

2 hours ago, InVizO said:

Ummm....

 

 2560x1440 = 3.69mil Pixels

1920x1080 = 2.07mil Pixels

 

You need a minimum of 30% more VRAM and GPU processing power, and god only knows what that does to a bottle-necked game and your CPU.

 

If I was a 1080p user I would not be complaining in a thread.  The 980TI is also too small of an upgrade..... need more! lol

i'm not complaining, just posting for comparisons for the previous posts

[Chrysanthemum]

You're lucky though, I run this game on a laptop (Not gaming specific) And get 15-25 fps. I play on the lowest graphics.

[Earthling]

the game is just buggy they need to work out the kinks my laptop Intel Core i7 4900MQ @ 3.5GHz, 32GB of ram, and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M 6GB of DDR5 ram OC at 1500MHz runs fine at max setting at 1920x1080 cap at 60Hz since my screen tops at 60Hz

[Bobonuke]

Operating System
            Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
        CPU
            Intel Core i5 4570 @ 3.20GHz    35 °C
            Haswell 22nm Technology
        RAM
            8.00GB Single-Channel DDR3 @ 798MHz (9-10-9-26)
        Motherboard
            Gigabyte Technology Co. Ltd. B85M-DS3H (SOCKET 0)    28 °C
        Graphics
            2269W (1920x1080@60Hz)
            4096MB ATI AMD Radeon R9 200 Series (XFX Pine Group)    37 °C
        Storage
            931GB Western Digital WDC WD10EZEX-00BN5A0 (SATA)    24 °C
        Optical Drives
            TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-224DB

 

 

I get random spikes of 20-30, not even being in populated areas. idgi.

[ArtBoxx]

So, I'm not crazy about the FPS ratings.

[Kumico]

The funny thing about that is the PS4 and XB1 barely run 1080p lololol. I'm currently sitting in  the Cave of Judgement in the part with 2 or 3 waterfalls draining into a small pool and stuff. Everything on max I have 120 fps. Moving it drops a little but not by much. SCRAP YOUR PC, BUILD A NEW ONE!!! Any idea when the new cards come out? I kinda wanna build a new rig for fun.

[Bobonuke]

1 hour ago, Kumico said:

The funny thing about that is the PS4 and XB1 barely run 1080p lololol. I'm currently sitting in  the Cave of Judgement in the part with 2 or 3 waterfalls draining into a small pool and stuff. Everything on max I have 120 fps. Moving it drops a little but not by much. SCRAP YOUR PC, BUILD A NEW ONE!!! Any idea when the new cards come out? I kinda wanna build a new rig for fun.

let me have your current one when you do :)

[Juggar]

22 hours ago, Fairchild said:

Single 980 is only 4GB. Anything over 1080p requires more than 3.5gb, and even newer games you can hardly find any of them fully optimized over that, let alone a 2012 game. If anything, you just need to configure your rig well.

Where the hell did you get that information? Sounds like misinfo based on GTX 970 3.5 VRAM issue.... 

 

Heres the deal, any res over 1080p does NOT require more than 3.5gb VRAM.... it HIGHLY depends on the game but in general most games at 2560x1440 wont even use up the full 4gb a GTX 980 has to offer. Theres no way this game requires more than 3.5 VRAM at resolutions over 1080p.... ill take a look next time I fire it up at 1440p.

 

I run games maxed at 1440P with my 980 Ti and I have yet to use more than 4 gb VRAM even though I have 6gb. Sure you can find games that use more than 3.5gb VRAM but at 1080p? Youd be hard pressed to find any...

 

I am quite confidant you could max this game easily at 2560x1440 with something like a 2gb GTX 660 .

[Glint]

Running a GTX 970, FX8350/16gb RAM + SSD.

 

 

Maxed out, full 60+ FPS.

[naWc]

On 21/01/2016 at 5:27 AM, InVizO said:

Hello,

 

This game clearly has a bottleneck within the code/engine.

 

My rig:

i7 4790K up to 4.8ghz

Asus Sabertooth Mark 1 Motherboard

16GB DDR3 - capped frequencies

2x Nvidia 980GTX - SLI is off due to game

Samsung 850 512GB SSD

Asus Xonar STX Audio

Win 10 x64

Water-cooled

2560x1440 resolution

Maximum settings = 41-60 FPS depending on area and population

Level 4 Settings = 42-60 FPS

Level 3 Settings = 44-60 FPS

Level 1 & 2: My eyes almost bled to death from the ugliness.

 

Please tell me what to buy or what to change so that I can run my native resolution at 60FPS in towns and large dungeons.... Seriously out of ideas myself except for a new $2000 Titan video card when it comes out this summer, and I shouldn't have to do that.  My eyes are fixated on the new 34" monitors that push 3440x1440.  This game would likely be UNPLAYABLE at that resolution.

There is a setting in the games settings menu, under Graphics. Just go to this tab and increase the 'limit frame rate' its possible it was set lower. Also check all the other settings in that tab are correct. Something may have got toggled by mistake.

 

Also if you are running multiple screens, with streams and other stuff your FPS will be lower. So that could be it also.

 

Anyways hope this helped. :)

[Earthling]

GPU-Z and CPU-Z are useful tools for finding details that some other tools cant

[Fairchild]

20 hours ago, Juggar said:

Where the hell did you get that information? Sounds like misinfo based on GTX 970 3.5 VRAM issue.... 

 

Heres the deal, any res over 1080p does NOT require more than 3.5gb VRAM.... it HIGHLY depends on the game but in general most games at 2560x1440 wont even use up the full 4gb a GTX 980 has to offer. Theres no way this game requires more than 3.5 VRAM at resolutions over 1080p.... ill take a look next time I fire it up at 1440p.

 

I run games maxed at 1440P with my 980 Ti and I have yet to use more than 4 gb VRAM even though I have 6gb. Sure you can find games that use more than 3.5gb VRAM but at 1080p? Youd be hard pressed to find any...

 

I am quite confidant you could max this game easily at 2560x1440 with something like a 2gb GTX 660 .

Nub it was discussed everywhere on tomshardware and probably anywhere else, and I don't even specifically saying the problem is towards this game. 3gb is what most high end games is using today, 3.5 is hardly reachable at 1080p but you were talking about 1440p nub. At 1440p any top graphic games can easily passed 3gb usage and 4gb isn't much of a gap in average 3.5gb is what average games can easily passed. Did I say - easily? Which is why SLI was needed in the first place to distribute the burden or just any card beyond 4 gb start to perform better than 4gb. 970 vram issue? Please, that card is still best bang for buck card to purchase to the date for any games playing at 1080p and anyone would probably dumb enough to get 980 except for bragging rights, and SLI them at higher than 1440p is a no brainer.

 

ps: you said in your spec is 980 and then you raise it to 980Ti. 

 

kek.

 

So you were saying you have best rig in the world and still can't perform on this game? I feel bad for you.

 

top kek.

 

 

[Vorpalspork]

I'm running the game just fine at max settings at 1440p with a GTX980TI  - consistently over 100fps.  Also using an i76700k at 4.0ghz.  Haven't bothered to overclock it.  I have my monitor set to 144hz to avoid capping the fps at 60.

 

 

[Juggar]

32 minutes ago, Fairchild said:

Nub it was discussed everywhere on tomshardware and probably anywhere else, and I don't even specifically saying the problem is towards this game. 3gb is what most high end games is using today, 3.5 is hardly reachable at 1080p but you were talking about 1440p nub. At 1440p any top graphic games can easily passed 3gb usage and 4gb isn't much of a gap in average 3.5gb is what average games can easily passed. Did I say - easily? Which is why SLI was needed in the first place to distribute the burden or just any card beyond 4 gb start to perform better than 4gb. 970 vram issue? Please, that card is still best bang for buck card to purchase to the date for any games playing at 1080p and anyone would probably dumb enough to get 980 except for bragging rights, and SLI them at higher than 1440p is a no brainer.

 

ps: you said in your spec is 980 and then you raise it to 980Ti. 

 

kek.

 

So you were saying you have best rig in the world and still can't perform on this game? I feel bad for you.

 

top kek.

 

 

 

I never said half the things you think I said, in fact reading your post reminded me that there quite a few autist/idiots/manchildren on these kinds of forums.... 

 

1. Never said or implied that I had a 980, only a 980 Ti. I simply said most games wont hit 4GB VRAM on a 980 but I do not own one. 

2. Also NEVER said or implied that I had any issues running the game whatsoever. It runs perfectly for me maxed at 1440P. 

 

Honestly, from the way you type, you dont sound like a capable human being. Its a shame.... 

 

You might consider this: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005200

[Glint]

I retract my earlier statement.

 

GTX 970

FX - 8350

SSD

16 GB Corsair RAM

 

Anyway, I've started experiencing an FPS issue. In town without NPC/Characters in sight (maybe 2 or 3) my FPS is anywhere between 70 - 120 fps. Easy, no problems, on  2720X1536 (DSR x4 off of native 768)

 

Unfortunately, when longer distances and adding maybe, 3 - 4 more NPCs and 3 - 4 more characters (Say a total of 6 NPC/7 Characters or close to that range) in the starting town, my FPS drops wildly down to 35 - 40 FPS.

 

Now, I tried altering settings. I dropped shadows off completely (something I would never do in Fallout 4 which I run on 1080p/everything maxed including god rays) at 60 FPS with some mild drops to 40/50 etc but I digress...

 

I tried changing the resolution down to my native 768, etc. Turned off all post processing, but in the end I only gained 5 FPS from all that tweaking.

 

 

To me this says two things:

 

1) The game is poorly optimized with our current patch

 

2) My CPU (FX-8350 on a fairly old gigabyte mobo) is to blame. I know AMD has never been the best but I think that's not the same problem as everyone else...

 

Also, is it me or is the aliasing (both of them) pretty poor on trees/buildings?....

 

Anyway, that being said I am aware of the 3.5 to .5 partition on the GTX 970. However, I'm running Skyrim maxed with huge mods (SMIM + 80 - 100 additional immersive/texture mods) and I rarely feature any stuttering. Fallout set one resolution setting down has little issue with everything maxed as mentioned except in high density areas like in the city. GTA 5, with everything except advanced settings on, maxed out on 4xDSR also has little to no issue.

 

 

I don't believe this has anything to do with VRAM in the 970. But it's also not likely the processor as the OP's is more than fine. I think this is bad coding.

 

 

Why you ask? I played Blade and Soul on Chinese and Russian servers, and although I still experienced the same poor AA settings (even with enhanced smoothing via Dynamic Super Resolution), I never experienced FPS drops this bad this early. Later on, at the beach where population cranked and combat was going on, I did experience drops but that was also with shadows/everything maxed.

 

 

Could it be poor coding/translation or something? There is no reason with a 970 that can run Fallout/Modded Skyrim maxed out with 4x DSR should be dropping to 35 - 40 FPS in the starting areas even with only 5 - 6 other players around....

[HotFuzz]

Had created a support ticket during the closed beta about low fps on a high end pc and after a few responses and attempts at fixing the issue, it ended up with them telling me to post my issue in the support forum to get help. Best to just move on honestly, I thought it would eventually be fixed but it was not, and it's not even posted in known issues, and on the support page there is no post under game performance for low fps. They will most likely just ignore this issue.

[RektChubabe]

On 21/01/2016 at 5:27 AM, InVizO said:

Hello,

 

This game clearly has a bottleneck within the code/engine.

 

My rig:

i7 4790K up to 4.8ghz

Asus Sabertooth Mark 1 Motherboard

16GB DDR3 - capped frequencies

2x Nvidia 980GTX - SLI is off due to game

Samsung 850 512GB SSD

Asus Xonar STX Audio

Win 10 x64

Water-cooled

2560x1440 resolution

Maximum settings = 41-60 FPS depending on area and population

Level 4 Settings = 42-60 FPS

Level 3 Settings = 44-60 FPS

Level 1 & 2: My eyes almost bled to death from the ugliness.

 

Please tell me what to buy or what to change so that I can run my native resolution at 60FPS in towns and large dungeons.... Seriously out of ideas myself except for a new $2000 Titan video card when it comes out this summer, and I shouldn't have to do that.  My eyes are fixated on the new 34" monitors that push 3440x1440.  This game would likely be UNPLAYABLE at that resolution.

 

Nope, i play 4k at max settings and dont have your issues at all.

 

i5 6600k @4.5 on water ,msi M7 gaming MB,  msi gaming gtx 980ti, 16 gigs of ripjaws DDR4 @ 3002, Samsung pro 850 SSD 512,  windows 10 etc, no idea what the problem is but yeah.

 

Also your pc is hardly "high" end its mid range at best.

[Mayples]

I wanted to drop in and let you all know a little about why you get lowend framerates on high end machines.

Granted, take this with a grain of salt because the actual problem may be 100% not related, however as a game designer I can almost assure you 99% that it is.

 

The game uses the Unreal Engine which is horridly optimized when it comes to large open areas. The reason being is UDK/Unreal likes to preload LOD in the distance if the program is asking for it. In larger areas, this actually wont even be noticeable, but instead in smaller areas severely noticeable. You see, alot of this game uses UDK's horrid process known as level streaming(stitching) to preload/front load the environment even though you can't see it. While not a problem, the actual problem comes from the interaction system with it. You will see multiple instances of things "phasing" in an out. Many MMO's handle this by loading and unloading scripts or calls dynamically. Unless Blade and Soul (NCSOFT) rewrote the entire UDK engine on Level Streaming and instance classes of how UDK handles area/script boxes or volumes, everything in each map is populated at once and then swapped on/off. This means that 1-2gb map is actually using the full 3-4gb worth of data even though your just passing through it and you completed the quests. It will load all, then just swap it off.

 

Reading the memory its very apparent this is happening as the game allocates a significant portion of the engine to area/collision memory that is then on hold and reserved instead of recycled. 

 

Also with the UDK engine, when the LOD system is in play, the actual memory buffer is still there. So when you see the 1/2 or 1/3 frame rate attacks in the far distance with an LOD model of .5, in the memory its still running the full amount, but the render scope is showing it at the smaller value. This is a problem with UDK which they fixed in UE4. I highly doubt they will rewrite BnS to UE4 though, so this will literally never go away.

 

<3 Mayples