Questionable CPU and GPU Performance?

[uscgpeterson]

First ill say sorry if I put this in the wrong part off the forum i didn't know if it should have went into the Support area since its not a game glitch or problem.

Specs:
i5-7300HQ 2.5ghz to 3.5ghz boost.
Intel Graphics 630.
Gtx 1060 Max-Q Overclocked with MSI +175 Core and +415 Memory. The core boost up to 1800+. Nvidia Control Panel Everything is set to prefer maximum performance and my power plan is set to high performance. I'm also using Razer Cortex it has boosted my frames alittle. I have to use v-sync due to screen tearing.
8Gb RAM
128Gb SSD
Windows 10
Game is running with direct x11

I have been search and searching and reading everything i can find on the internet but i cannot seem to find an answer.
I have been using FPS Monitor to monitor my in game performance. I discovered that my CPU averages between 50% and 70% it can occasionally jump to 100% on a core or 2 for a second. My GPU sits around 30% and i can't figure out if this is normal or not. My best guess is that I need more ram? Does anyone have any input? My frame rate is lowest around stations and the map at 28FPS and my higest is out in space and it gets close to 80FPS. I tried disabling my integrated graphics but my performance got worse which is super odd. It seems Nvidia Control Panel doesnt like to work right when its disabled. I am completely stumped. My performance does not change with any settings from low to ultra if there is a difference its a frame or 2. The only way I have found to increase my GPU % is to set MSAA or SSAA and then my frames drop. FXAA doesnt affect my frames.

http://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u55 ... fdx8h1.png

http://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u55 ... i2sxuv.png

http://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u55 ... nct2yx.png


{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}

[adeine]

I have been using FPS Monitor to monitor my in game performance. I discovered that my CPU averages between 50% and 70% it can occasionally jump to 100% on a core or 2 for a second. My GPU sits around 30% and i can't figure out if this is normal or not. My best guess is that I need more ram? Does anyone have any input? My frame rate is lowest around stations and the map at 28FPS and my higest is out in space and it gets close to 80FPS. I tried disabling my integrated graphics but my performance got worse which is super odd. It seems Nvidia Control Panel doesnt like to work right when its disabled. I am completely stumped. My performance does not change with any settings from low to ultra if there is a difference its a frame or 2.

Sounds like your game is CPU bound with performance more or less average for the current state of the game. Stations are quite taxing at the moment and will have a noticeable hit on most if not all systems compared to flying out in space (unless in gas clouds with asteroids, which are another performance bugbear).

The map is currently probably the worst part of the game performance-wise and a common source of frustration, depending on how busy it is and what filters you have enabled. If you enable order queues for allied ships and have manual traders, you can expect single digit FPS on the map screen.

[uscgpeterson]

I suspected it could be my CPU but I don't want to believe it lol. I really like the game and would like stable 60 fps. From what I have been reading it seems possible that with updates they could make huge improvements in optimization? As far as the map I turn everything off and I get a solid 30fps if I enable the trade lines then yes my fps hit the dirt down to single digits. I am curious though and I have to ask if my cpu was limiting me wouldn't it show close to 100% utilization on the cores and not and average 60? I suspected my ram because I saw a video of a guy playing and his game was using 15gb+ of ram.

[uscgpeterson]

These were all taken in a row.

http://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u55 ... hyovqb.png

http://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u55 ... v8qii9.png

http://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u55 ... i25emr.png

http://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u55 ... lkkrxp.png

http://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u55 ... kdgp2m.png

http://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u55 ... toufsn.png



{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}

[uscgpeterson]

Here check it out 16gb of ram is being used.

https://i1321.photobucket.com/albums/u5 ... wgeb8a.png


{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}

[Imperial Good]

Reset your GPU to stock settings.

Just because an overclock appears stable does not necessarily mean that it will perform better. Especially when it comes to memory clock there are values which will regress performance because they are not completely stable but still stable enough that error correction will prevent visible errors at a massive impact to performance. Only way to tell if an overclock actually increases performance is by measuring performance in benchmarks/in games. Resetting to stock settings and checking performance can rule out this being a cause.

Game is running with direct x11

This is not possible? X4 only supports Vulkan as far as I am aware.

I have to use v-sync due to screen tearing.

This can potentially limit frame rate below what you can achieve. For example 28 FPS and low GPU usage would make sense in this case as it is near some fraction of the display refresh rate so it cannot achieve a higher vsync frame rate in time with the remaining time wasted idling.

For measuring frame rate turn vsync off. One can always turn it on later.

Try turning off options such screen space reflections as well as turning down ambient occlusion. Reducing LOD and effect distance may also help.

It is likely CPU bottlenecked. That said the game is still quite playable even on something as pathetic (by modern standards) as an I7 920 at stock settings.

[CBJ]

As I've explained quite a few times in previous discussion, a guarantee of a "stable 60 fps" from this kind of game is an unachievable goal. We are simulating the entire game universe all the time, and we don't put artificial limits on how many objects can be in one place at any given time. There will always be situations where the framerate will drop, and those situations may or may not correspond to there being more visibly on the screen for the GPU to render, because more often than not the limitation is on the CPU side.

That said, we do also always work on performance and are constantly looking at where things slow down to see if we can improve those particular situations. The situation around stations is complicated. The game (both CPU and GPU) does have more work to do in such locations, but there are also other factors. Many people have reported, for example, that with the NVIDIA sound drivers enabled, the game slows down a lot more than, say, with their on-board Realtek sound device, because the NVIDIA drivers don't seem to handle the much busier sound environment there so well. The map is another complicated case; the game really does have a lot more work to do when the map is open. It's going to be much more difficult to improve that particular case, but we will work on it.

[EmperorDragon]

You could definitely do with more RAM, maybe not for X4 but 8GB is not really sufficient anymore by today's standards.

X4 also uses Vulkan so Direct X is not used, you cannot run the game on DX11 as far as I am aware.

If you're not too much bothered about flashy AAA titles, it may be better to get rid of Win10 and install Win7 instead. Some newer AAA games require DX12, which is Win10 exclusive so, keep that in mind.

If you want to stick with Win10, avoid untrusted background software (unnecessary Google and MS services, social media stuff etc.), try to root out data miners, disable your internet connection before playing and see if that helps. It can actually make a noticeable difference under certain circumstances.

The game will make your CPU sweat, a CPU upgrade may be worthwhile too. Also make sure you have sufficient free space on your HDD, savegames can grow quite large over time.

Remember that X4 is quite a complex game, stable framerates in a game of this type and scope is unlikely, it will always fluctuate depending on where you are and what you do.

[radcapricorn]

That said, we do also always work on performance and are constantly looking at where things slow down to see if we can improve those particular situations. The situation around stations is complicated. The game (both CPU and GPU) does have more work to do in such locations, but there are also other factors...

One of the more annoying FPS drops is in fact walking on platforms. Take the HQ for example. So long as your character is looking "north" (no matter where they are at that station, be it dock, elevator rooms, any place really), the performance is great. But as soon as you turn toward "south", performance tanks quite noticeably. What comes to mind is that there's a lot more geometry in sector "south" of HQ (asteroids, clouds, etc.). Most/all of which should be occluded by the station's geometry.

[uscgpeterson]

I have run benchmarks on my GPU and the overclock gives me about a 5% performance increase and is stable I have tested it very vigorously. If I go any higher on the core or memory it then becomes unstable.

[uscgpeterson]

As I've explained quite a few times in previous discussion, a guarantee of a "stable 60 fps" from this kind of game is an unachievable goal. We are simulating the entire game universe all the time, and we don't put artificial limits on how many objects can be in one place at any given time. There will always be situations where the framerate will drop, and those situations may or may not correspond to there being more visibly on the screen for the GPU to render, because more often than not the limitation is on the CPU side.

That said, we do also always work on performance and are constantly looking at where things slow down to see if we can improve those particular situations. The situation around stations is complicated. The game (both CPU and GPU) does have more work to do in such locations, but there are also other factors. Many people have reported, for example, that with the NVIDIA sound drivers enabled, the game slows down a lot more than, say, with their on-board Realtek sound device, because the NVIDIA drivers don't seem to handle the much busier sound environment there so well. The map is another complicated case; the game really does have a lot more work to do when the map is open. It's going to be much more difficult to improve that particular case, but we will work on it.

So are you saying that if I disable my nvidia sound drivers I could potential get better performance? I am also still having a good experience just large fleet battles have me worried if they will be enjoyable because I do think this is the best space game made. I played original freelancer for years and could never find a replacement. I tried x3 but I hated not having a cockpit or being able to see my ship. I regret not giving it a bigger chance as it was overwhelming at first. X4 has only the sky for improvement it really is a great space game you guys hit the nail on the head and I only wish yall good things with the game. One thing I want to add is last night I was at the order warlf and a xenon ship came by and the station sent out probably 50+ defense drones I have never seen that many before. My frames went down in the 20s and the game began to studder really bad, ram usage went up to 7.5gb and I think it needed more but couldn't get more. So I will be upgrading to 16gb in a few days.

Reset your GPU to stock settings.

Just because an overclock appears stable does not necessarily mean that it will perform better. Especially when it comes to memory clock there are values which will regress performance because they are not completely stable but still stable enough that error correction will prevent visible errors at a massive impact to performance. Only way to tell if an overclock actually increases performance is by measuring performance in benchmarks/in games. Resetting to stock settings and checking performance can rule out this being a cause.

Game is running with direct x11

This is not possible? X4 only supports Vulkan as far as I am aware.

I have to use v-sync due to screen tearing.

This can potentially limit frame rate below what you can achieve. For example 28 FPS and low GPU usage would make sense in this case as it is near some fraction of the display refresh rate so it cannot achieve a higher vsync frame rate in time with the remaining time wasted idling.

For measuring frame rate turn vsync off. One can always turn it on later.

Try turning off options such screen space reflections as well as turning down ambient occlusion. Reducing LOD and effect distance may also help.

It is likely CPU bottlenecked. That said the game is still quite playable even on something as pathetic (by modern standards) as an I7 920 at stock settings.

Yes I still do have a quite enjoyable experience it seems my problem is that I'm used to console gaming where I don't worry about frames because I cannot check them and when I'm able to check them it bothers me. It has really come up later in the game when I have big fleet battles and my fps just takes a dive between 20fps and 30fps. Also when I have turned v-sync of and in my original statement I stated that I could get up to 80fps with it off the CPU and GPU performance remains the same and the screen tearing is just terrible. It also doesn't matter what I set any setting to I still get the same FPS its only when I enable MSAA or SSAA that my GPU% will rise. I have noticed that my CPU performance significantly rises when I go to dock at a station for some reason. Some sectors I get amazing performance and others I don't. My smart chip factory that makes 20k chips an hour is pretty big and I can get 50+ frames there but when I go to a smaller station I get 28 it is really random.

[uscgpeterson]

You could definitely do with more RAM, maybe not for X4 but 8GB is not really sufficient anymore by today's standards.

X4 also uses Vulkan so Direct X is not used, you cannot run the game on DX11 as far as I am aware.

If you're not too much bothered about flashy AAA titles, it may be better to get rid of Win10 and install Win7 instead. Some newer AAA games require DX12, which is Win10 exclusive so, keep that in mind.

If you want to stick with Win10, avoid untrusted background software (unnecessary Google and MS services, social media stuff etc.), try to root out data miners, disable your internet connection before playing and see if that helps. It can actually make a noticeable difference under certain circumstances.

The game will make your CPU sweat, a CPU upgrade may be worthwhile too. Also make sure you have sufficient free space on your HDD, savegames can grow quite large over time.

Remember that X4 is quite a complex game, stable framerates in a game of this type and scope is unlikely, it will always fluctuate depending on where you are and what you do.

Ok yes its running Vulkan on FPS monitor it was stating Direct x 11 but that was probably wrong. I have went through my processes and have turned off everything I know to be safe to turn off and I use razor cortex it usually frees up around 1.2 gb of memory and has increased game performance a little. I will be upgrading to 16gb in a few days. CPU upgrade I believe is not possible on my laptop my laptop model Dell Inspirion 15 7577 can come with a I7-7700HQ and I haven't found a clear answer on if I can just by this processor and stick it in or if I have to buy the complete motherboard. If I could just overclock the i5 that's in it now to get all cores to run at 3.5Ghz that would be awesome haven't figured it out though have been researching my butt off.

[Imperial Good]

If you're not too much bothered about flashy AAA titles, it may be better to get rid of Win10 and install Win7 instead. Some newer AAA games require DX12, which is Win10 exclusive so, keep that in mind.

This will not improve performance and might actually reduce performance. Also not recommended seeing how Microsoft will soon stop supporting Windows 7.

[reanor]

Performance on your map sounds about right for your PC, but you can also verify that specific filters are turned off:

Go to the map, click on "filter settings" (top right). Now click on the "Other Filters" tab. Under "Ship Properties", click off "Show orders", "Show allied orders", and "Crew information".

These filters put a lot more detail on the map, and because it is all simulated in real time, it will bring down even the powerful PCs. I also ran a bottleneck calculator for your setup and it says that you need a more powerful CPU for this type of GTX.

Your processor is too weak for this graphic card.
Intel Core i5-7300HQ @ 2.50GHz (Clock speed at 100%) with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Clock speed at 100%) x1 will produce 24.89% of bottleneck. Everything over 10% is considered as bottleneck. We recommend you to replace Intel Core i5-7300HQ @ 2.50GHz with Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz

Also, I've noticed that OCed CPUs/GPUs sometimes don't behave well in games. You can try to set the speeds to default, if these are not factory OCed. But yeah, The X4 is an odd ball of a game because its running a simulation of the galaxy in the background. No other game can really compare to this today. It will always require a lot more CPU power than other games and efficient GPU to support the rendering of many 3D objecs in sight. It's a game where you need real powerful CPU to render all the math and script processing Out of Site and accordingly powerful GPU to render everything else that you can see, especially during the massive battles. I don't believe there is a computer made yet to run X4 at stable 60fps always. The game engine itself of course chokes up on all the scripts it needs to run and process. I upgraded my PC to minimize the bottleneck to under 3%, powerful i7 CPU, RTX 2080 GPU, 32RAM, SSD m.2 and I still can't get stable fps.get

Hopefully by V.4 they will come up with a way to optimize the game performance in Map at least, since it is one of the biggest complaints so far. But with thousands of ships, I don't know if it's even possible to optimize anything without making a limit on how many ships players can have...

[adeine]

One of the more annoying FPS drops is in fact walking on platforms. Take the HQ for example. So long as your character is looking "north" (no matter where they are at that station, be it dock, elevator rooms, any place really), the performance is great. But as soon as you turn toward "south", performance tanks quite noticeably. What comes to mind is that there's a lot more geometry in sector "south" of HQ (asteroids, clouds, etc.). Most/all of which should be occluded by the station's geometry.

Yeah, gas clouds have a huge impact on FPS, Grand Exchange and Second Contact being some of the worst offenders.

More RAM might keep your game running more consistently (as opposed to slowing down after playing a while) but it won't make any difference to the main performance problems. I don't think a system currently exists that won't struggle with the map and gas clouds, and have noticeably lower FPS on stations.

[uscgpeterson]

More RAM might keep your game running more consistently (as opposed to slowing down after playing a while) but it won't make any difference to the main performance problems. I don't think a system currently exists that won't struggle with the map and gas clouds, and have noticeably lower FPS on stations.

Dang are you saying a threadripper or 9900k paired with a1080ti or 2080ti will still struggle with this game?

[Buzz2005]

More RAM might keep your game running more consistently (as opposed to slowing down after playing a while) but it won't make any difference to the main performance problems. I don't think a system currently exists that won't struggle with the map and gas clouds, and have noticeably lower FPS on stations.

Dang are you saying a threadripper or 9900k paired with a1080ti or 2080ti will still struggle with this game?

CPUs struggle with this game not graphics cards, cards just need enough of VRAM

[ei8htx]

Like others have pointed out, CPU seems to be the limiter here, with the tasks delegated to it (like the map).

I've had absolutely no problems with FPS in even the busiest of sectors.

I do have lots of issues with leaving the map open, and sometimes ships flying OOS seems slow to update. Trade commands on auto traders (station or freelance) seem to pick up more slowly than I remember in a fresh game.

All that said, flying the ship is as smooth as ice. ES seems to have done a real good job separating the logistics of the universe from flying in it.

[uscgpeterson]

16GB of ram should fix some of the stuttering I'm getting in big battles though right? My frames so far have averaged 28 in big battles it just seems to stutter and from what I understand that's the ram I could be wrong though. I can live with the 28fps for large battles just the stutter sucks but it doesn't always happen.

[uscgpeterson]

CPUs struggle with this game not graphics cards, cards just need enough of VRAM

Those CPU's I listed still struggle? I mean it might be a stupid question since you obviously saw them and still said that its just hard to fathom for me.