Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

[Scoob]

Hey all,

Firstly, I'm impressed so far - not really got time to play until much later, but have spent a fair bit of time just wandering around the Argon Equipment Dock watching ships

Anyway, the point of this topic: I've tried all settings from Ultra down to Low and my fps is still...not great. I don't know exactly what it is, just that it's not smooth (so, sub 50fps for sure, feels between 40 and 30 I'd estimate) and is giving me eye strain.

I observed that at "Ultra" settings, my GPU - a GTX 1070 - was working rather hard at my 1920x1200 resolution, regularly being at 95%+ load. So, I started tweaking settings, turning things down a notch...or several. Each time I did this, I saw my GPU load - I'm monitoring it on a second screen - drop. All the time I'm stood still, looking at my ship while others buzz around - I'm standing in the Equipment Dock doing this, outside my ship. At the lowest setting, my GPU load is around the 35% mark, the visuals are still good but noticeably lower quality of course. However, this has zero impact on my FPS - it's still far from smooth and leads to eye strain. Standing still, it's ok, but when I look around it's really rather jarring.

If graphical settings and GPU load doesn't impact FPS, perhaps it's my CPU? It's an older 2600k, but at 4.4ghz and, as luck has it, I'm monitoring that too. I'm seeing an average CPU load of under 30% - it's not gone above that while in-game proper, though it spikes during loading. However, it's not that evenly spread over all my Eight threads like X Rebirth is. I've got three "busy" threads which are over 50% load and five near-idle threads that are no more than 10% or so. My busiest thread appears to spike to around 70% from time to time but it's far from maxing out.

CPU seems to be up to the job, certainly not maxing out. How about RAM? Well, being on a gen 2 Intel my RAM is of course only DDR3, but it's decent DDR3 1600 and I have 32GB of it. Luckily, I'm monitoring RAM usage too! X4 is showing a working set of around 6GB, a fraction of my RAM total, so it can't be that.

How about my Drives? Well, I have two fast Samsung 850 EVO SATA SSD's in RAID0, so, while not M.2 fast, they're pretty darn speedy. Plus the game wasn't showing excessive HDD activity while I was standing in the Equipment Dock.

So, any tips? I've tried game settings from Ultra all the way down to Low with no impact on observed FPS. I've tried vSync off (Which is shown as Triple Buffer on my rig, due to a NV driver issue I read about elsewhere) as well as normal and adaptive - no differences observed.

I get that this starting area - the default first one - is a very busy area, with ships going in and out constantly and even the odd fight breaking out. However, performance is really not very good. This makes me worry about late-game performance or when I'm playing with small fleets of my own in multi-ship combat encounters, for example.

My drivers and Windows are all up to date - I checked before installing X4 -I have no issues in numerous other demanding titles, many pushing the CPU harder than X4, though with a more even load.

Final thought: Perhaps it's a result of the change to the Vulcan API for X4 from Rebirth's Direct X, but my CPU utilisation isn't even remotely even over all my threads. I wonder if disabling HT might help?

If anyone else with a similar issue, or with the same CPU yet no issues, cares to comment, then perhaps we can identify why my FPS is really rather poor.

Note: I'm aware that my 2nd Gen CPU is technically "below spec" vs. the 6th Gen CPU listed in the requirement. However, things really haven't advanced that much and I regularly get near identical performance in other games to users of a 1070 but much newer CPU. I will be upgrading soon, likely early next year, but this oddly uneven CPU load is unusual, considering pretty much all of my (newer) games, show a nice-even load over all threads.

Scoob.

[CBJ]

What you're seeing is pretty much exactly what I'd expect. On your system the game will be CPU-bound, and as we've explained, uses two cores fairly extensively and the rest fairly lightly. This is actually the same profile as XR and XRVR. I know you say you saw a different profile on those games, but I can assure you that this is the expected usage pattern for all three games. Having a below-spec CPU will make a difference in this game, and it's the per-core performance for those two core threads that is important.

[Ghostar]

I have a 1060 3Gb + 8GB RAM + I54460.
It runs in any setting mode between 20-30.
As Rebirth worked better and Elite Dangerous too, thought it was enough to have a good experience, might get a refund sadly.

[Naxirian]

I'm running an overclocked Ryzen 7 1700 and an R9 290X and no matter what settings I use, even the lowest possible, I cannot achieve 60 fps inside a station. I would chalk it up to it being a brand new game on an old GPU but it's visuals, whilst nice, are not exactly world class. I get more fps than that in Battlefield V on ultra.

[nemesis1982]

Have a i7700k and never really drops below 50FPS. Performance is great 4k ultra, When I enable AA the frame rate starts to go to 30FPS though.

[tomchk]

I use a i5-4590 with a GTX 1070, and X Rebirth (among many other titles) plays very smoothly even at 5480*1080. I hope X4 will play smoothly at least at 1920*1080! I'd love to use 5480, though. Any predictions?

[JNeam]

I have a Ryzen 5 2600x with a 1080ti. With AA off I'm getting ~50fps in stations and ~80 in space. With AA on I'm getting 30-40 in stations and 50-60 in space. This is at 1440p. Hopefully some updates will improve the performance.

[Wobbler79]

Third start option move few sectors to pontifex's claim, and watch how framerate halves, near gate with in the fog of war area little battle (station firing at something) , highway that goes near equipment dock at right off the screen and a station I had to scan for mission behind me. Got this save....1 thread (CPU core) 100% rest twiddling, GPU usage 20% framerate 25-35 (as 1 ship flies across the lower part of screen) 40 after the battle ends. Move far away from the highway and equipment center and fps goes to normal. the sectors next to it work fine + the start sector. So it seems 1 thread handles npc traffic, and npc battles and GPU calls, or there is something fishy going on at that location.

[Admiral A-F]

I am using a I9 9900K with 2080 card and 32GB I my game runs like butter, it is so smooth and react so fast.

[Scoob]

Is my 2600k really that much below minimum spec then @CBJ? If I had a low-end Sandy Bridge (2nd gen) then yeah, I could see that being an issue, but the flagship home desktop model of its day, which is also overclocked by 1ghz? Seems a little excessive. Sure, it might be some obscure architectural thing, where 2nd Gen Intel is really bad (takes more cycles) for a certain type of task. If so, that's fine, but literally every other game I have - even rather demanding ones - can show a higher CPU utilisation but better performance. I hadn't thought my IPC was that far behind more modern CPU's - certainly when comparing popular benchmarks such as Cinebench for example. Also, X4 isn't maxing out any of my Threads, if it was then it'd obviously be a CPU bottleneck issue. The fact it's not is why I'm posting about it....it looks like I have CPU power to spare - just one core peeking at around 70% load from time to time - yet I'm still having what look like CPU limited FPS issues.

What are you using to check in-game FPS guys? I tried the old -showfps option that worked in Rebirth - IIRC, I may have gotten that wrong! Though I can tell the FPS is poor just from looking.

Looks like my stalwart 2600k - eight years young - has finally met it match with a game I cannot get a reliable, playable FPS with regardless of graphic settings. Heh, X games have done this to me before...new rig please!

Going to have a little OC tinker....this CPU sat at 5ghz for quite some time, before I semi-retired it to 4.4ghz - it was on a full custom loop back then though, not the AIO it has now.

Thanks to everyone who's commented on this thread, it's good to read what different PC spec's are yielding performance-wise.

@Admiral A-F - didn't want to buy just yet, but it looks like a 9900K based system is in my immediate future!

Scoob.

[CBJ]

Is my 2600k really that much below minimum spec then @CBJ? If I had a low-end Sandy Bridge (2nd gen) then yeah, I could see that being an issue, but the flagship home desktop model of its day, which is also overclocked by 1ghz? Seems a little excessive. Sure, it might be some obscure architectural thing, where 2nd Gen Intel is really bad (takes more cycles) for a certain type of task.

There are many factors, and I don't know all the details, but the minimum requirements are usually there for a reason.

If so, that's fine, but literally every other game I have - even rather demanding ones - can show a higher CPU utilisation but better performance. I hadn't thought my IPC was that far behind more modern CPU's - certainly when comparing popular benchmarks such as Cinebench for example. Also, X4 isn't maxing out any of my Threads, if it was then it'd obviously be a CPU bottleneck issue. The fact it's not is why I'm posting about it....it looks like I have CPU power to spare - just one core peeking at around 70% load from time to time - yet I'm still having what look like CPU limited FPS issues.

The problem with using external tools to measure the CPU utilisation is that they don't always show what is actually going on. While developing the game we have much more accurate ways to measure what's actually happening. One example is that different threads may be waiting for one another at different points in the frame cycle, making it look like a CPU core isn't being fully utilised, when in fact it is being fully utilised when it isn't waiting for something else to finish.

[Scoob]

Thanks for the reply @CBJ, I appreciate you taking the time.

As my monitoring tools are doubtless less accurate than your internal ones, it does indeed look like my 2600k has finally met its match. I've been thinking of upgrading for some time now, but every time the answer to the question "But do I need to upgrade" has been no, as this rig has handled everything I've thrown at it - certainly since adding the GTX 1070.

I'm considering building a 9900k based system, it's the "Ultimate Gaming CPU" after all lol. I do have a full custom external water loop, that'll plug directly (quick-release) into a new CPU block, so I stand a chance at least of keeping the 9900k cool.

My alternative - "budget" system if you will - would be based around the Ryzen 2700X. A much cheaper build, but equally a good chunk weaker single-threaded performance, considering X4 seems to like fast individual cores. Intel stuff is over-priced at the moment, which makes the AMD platform tempting, but I'd want something that does the job as best as possible. I'm willing to spend more for the best experience. Christmas is cancelled....except for MY present to ME!

I still think it's interesting to hear other's feedback on the performance they're getting with their hardware. It might help a lot of us who, perhaps, are needing a bit of an upgrade.

I'm lucky in that my 2600k has given me sterling performance up until today, in any number of titles.

@Egosoft: I'm aware I'm going to need to spend some fairly substantial amounts of money but, having seen what I've seen so far, X4 looks like it's worth it.

Scoob.

[Aken_Bosch]

I have a 1060 3Gb + 8GB RAM + I54460.
It runs in any setting mode between 20-30.
As Rebirth worked better and Elite Dangerous too, thought it was enough to have a good experience, might get a refund sadly.

There must be something going on somewhere with your setup/configuration I think, same GPU +i7 4770 and I can play at 60+ fps in space, 45-60 on platforms and less than that only in very busy situations, on ultra details at 1080 and FXAA.

[konrad13x]

Maybe below will help OP a bit.

I used HWINFO64 and AMD Performance Monitoring to record CPU/GPU utilization and FPS during 90mins game session (points taken every 1sec).
Game settings: 1920x1080, all Ultra, FXAA on High, full screen mode, installed on SSD.
PC spec in my description, 144Hz monitor, CPU fixed 4.1GHz on all cores, no thermal throttling on CPU/GPU.

1-600 and 2800-3600 -inside Equipment Dock in BHS
600-2800 - outside ED (few small fights between AI)
3600-4800 - BHS far from ED, scanning station
4800-5500 - Grand Exchange (asteroid field)

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler

Show

So far I have a lot off fun learning new mechanics (played only modded X3, own but skipped Rebirth).

[Ranix]

I've got a Threadripper 1920 and pc3200 RAM with a 980ti. I notice expected changes in quality and framerate when I play with the settings. When I enable triple-buffering (instead of standard vsync) the framerate unlocks and I can see my FPS fluctuate from ~100 to ~250 depending on where I'm looking and what my settings are.

I think it's very clear this game is not GPU bound, it's CPU or memory clockspeed bound. This is a REAL PC game, unlike most PC releases. You are probably used to the recycled garbage developers have been putting out for the past ~10 years, which are glorified XBONE ports that run entirely on the video card. That is not what this is. This is a real PC game made by real PC developers who know how to use a CPU to have fun. You need a real PC to play this, not a souped up nvidia console my dude.

[Scoob]

There must be something going on somewhere with your setup/configuration I think, same GPU +i7 4770 and I can play at 60+ fps in space, 45-60 on platforms and less than that only in very busy situations, on ultra details at 1080 and FXAA.

Lack of Hyper-threading and a somewhat lower clock speed enough to push FPS that low do you think?

On a related note, my build of choice adds over £1,400 (GBP) to the cost of X4...ah well. Going to sleep on it and decide what to do.

Note: it's my CPU that's the weak point of my system with regards to X4, so, I'll get the best CPU I can, water cool it (AIO initially for testing, before going to my custom loop), plenty of RAM, a decent M.2 (or two) but stick with my 1070 for now - hopefully the 2080Ti (or maybe 2080) will come down in price a little...I'll be wanting a water block for that too.

Damn, now I'm excited about X4 and building a new rig lol.

Scoob.

[Ranix]

don't upgrade that video card! read my last post and the guy who posted charts and graphs before me!

The game is using the video card and it's really maxing it out, but the frame rate is not tracking the video card's usage it's tracking the CPU's usage

[Scoob]

A quick update on my performance....I've done a few tweaks and, combined, they've improved things somewhat. I'm still not at the silky-smooth level that a solid, reliable 60fps minimum would give me, but I'll take the improvement.

Here's what I've done:

Firstly, I've turned off Hyper-Threading on my 2600k. For whatever reason, I appear to be getting slightly better CPU utilisation now - according to my potentially flawed tool at least. Either that, or it simply reports HT workloads incorrectly...which I strongly suspect. I'm going to pop it back on and test again as a control.

Secondly, I'm running the game from a RAMDrive. The GoG version - DRM-free of course - allows this to work flawlessly. I did this because I was noticing a LOT of drive activity as ships flew by, landed, took off etc. while I stood on the Argon Equipment Dock. Perhaps the game needs to cache more assets as they are loaded? Maybe it was just trying to be efficient and maintain a smaller memory footprint. I have 32gb, so there's no need for that! Needless to say, loading times are much quicker and perhaps it's also contributed to a light fps bump.

Thirdly, I've upped my OC very slightly, from 4.4ghz to 4.6ghz. A modest bump, but it can't hurt.

I'll continue to tinker to see if I can get the best possible "last gasp" performance out of this CPU.

Scoob.

[sandalle]

I've got a Threadripper 1920 and pc3200 RAM with a 980ti. I notice expected changes in quality and framerate when I play with the settings. When I enable triple-buffering (instead of standard vsync) the framerate unlocks and I can see my FPS fluctuate from ~100 to ~250 depending on where I'm looking and what my settings are.

I think it's very clear this game is not GPU bound, it's CPU or memory clockspeed bound. This is a REAL PC game, unlike most PC releases. You are probably used to the recycled garbage developers have been putting out for the past ~10 years, which are glorified XBONE ports that run entirely on the video card. That is not what this is. This is a real PC game made by real PC developers who know how to use a CPU to have fun. You need a real PC to play this, not a souped up nvidia console my dude.

That's because you have an nvidia car and you just disabled vsync with the "Triple Buffer Vsync" option.

Nvidia drivers have a minor issue with how they name their VSync options towards Vulkan games (like X4). You will therefore note, that the default VSync mode name "Triple Buffering VSync” is in fact NO VSYNC. You may have to try out the others modes depending on your driver version. Nvidia is working on fixing this naming issue.

[Ranix]

What speed is your RAM running at Scoob?