V2.1.13 - BUG COLLECTION

[GoldenShadowGS]

Specs:
CPU: i5 4690K
GPU: EVGA GTX 970 SC
RAM: 16GB
120hz monitor

Getting 93 FPS in front of the castle by the river.
High settings at 1080p

[Dr.Disaster]

Specs:
CPU: i5 4690K
GPU: EVGA GTX 970 SC
RAM: 16GB
120hz monitor

Getting 93 FPS in front of the castle by the river.
High settings at 1080p

Yummy box you got there!
I see 63 fps in the same spot with the same settings.

CPU comparison:

Code: Select all

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=837&cmp[]=2284

GPU comparison:

Code: Select all

http://videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2561&cmp[]=2954

[GoldenShadowGS]

Yummy box you got there!

Just built it in December

[eLPuSHeR]

Nice setup you got there.

I am somewhat dissapointed with my GTX 660 Ti smoothness rather than raw performance. and I am including Windows desktop smoothness.

I think latest nVidia's drivers are to blame here.

[GoldenShadowGS]

Same specs as before except I swapped the 970 SC back to the 660 ti.
I am RMAing the 970 back to EVGA through their "step-up" program to get the new 970 with a better heatsink because the fan noise on the first version of the 970 is too loud and the new version should get lower temps for the same fan noise. I put my GTX 660ti into my new PC and noticed much improved performance from it. My old i7 920 was really holding it back.

http://cloud-2.steamusercontent.com/ugc ... 221FF1663/
Getting 77 FPS.

I think the CPU is a larger factor to your performance than your GPU with LOG2.

[Dr.Disaster]

This supports the conclusion we came to in other threads. The game engine builds a high number of rather small/simple (tiny?) draw calls for the GPU. The faster the GPU is the more draw calls it can render but in the end the CPU speed sets the limit to the number of draw calls that the engine can generate.

IMO the solution would be to build more complex draw calls with methods like "The Road to One Million Draws". An alternate would be a routine that determines which draw calls don't need to be rendered at all because their result would be covered by another draw call result.

[minmay]

This supports the conclusion we came to in other threads. The game engine builds a high number of rather small/simple (tiny?) draw calls for the GPU. The faster the GPU is the more draw calls it can render but in the end the CPU speed sets the limit to the number of draw calls that the engine can generate.

IMO the solution would be to build more complex draw calls with methods like "The Road to One Million Draws". An alternate would be a routine that determines which draw calls don't need to be rendered at all because their result would be covered by another draw call result.

Keep in mind that both of these are quite a bit more difficult in Direct3D 9 than they are in current Direct3D/OpenGL versions. And dropping Direct3D 9 support would have excluded a noticeable share of users.

[badhabit]

Same specs as before except I swapped the 970 SC back to the 660 ti.
I am RMAing the 970 back to EVGA through their "step-up" program to get the new 970 with a better heatsink because the fan noise on the first version of the 970 is too loud and the new version should get lower temps for the same fan noise. I put my GTX 660ti into my new PC and noticed much improved performance from it. My old i7 920 was really holding it back.

http://cloud-2.steamusercontent.com/ugc ... 221FF1663/
Getting 77 FPS.

I think the CPU is a larger factor to your performance than your GPU with LOG2.

Yes, this is true. The engine is often CPU & GPU limited (see my system with CPU upgrade) as no real multithreading support exists & the graphic calls are too small. The overall performance scales mostly with a single CPU's clock (so overclocking one core and downclocking all others might be beneficial), not with more cores (despite the recommendation on the website for quad core). Several users dropped playing becuase of this, but at least we have a semi-promise that with the Mac port some long needed optimizations will take place. (e.g. for the long promised portable port I guess the performance is also the reason for "non-release")