ARR PC Performance (Gridania ONLY)Follow

I have a gtx 470 and mid-weekend upgraded to a 660 TI. Both scored me between 4k- 5k and Gridania ran like trash on 1920X1080 on maximum settings. A bit disappointing considering I ran 1.0 on max with relatively no slow down. The only thing I would disable on that version was ambient occlusion because for the life of me I couldn't tell a difference in appearance, only in frame rate. Anyways. I'm guessing to run Gridania at max settings and in all it's beauty you'll need a score of at least 6-7k on the benchmark.

Yeah I was thinking something similar. That would account for the benchmark scores not changing much between cards. It kinda indicates that the slowdown is coming from somewhere else.

Edited, Apr 29th 2013 8:37pm by desmar

I'm not posting my benchmark score because it would be pointless, my reasoning being is that my CPU bottlenecks my GPUs, and Crossfire/SLI are not implemented yet as far as I know, also, the game handled better than what the score gave me credit for. However with my build, inside Old/New Gridania, everything held up well with a little lag when certain areas were heavily populated on Medium-High(custom) settings. I was using 2 screens, 1 for FFXIV and the other for internet, also never turned off Aero.

Win7 Home
6GB Ram(4Corsair/2OCZ)
XFX 5770HDx2(crossfire unavailable for FFXIV atm)
E7500 Core2Duo(2.93GHz)
1920 x 1080 Fullscreen/Borderless

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 12:43am by Demonadrastos

My experience with the game in the beta has been very positive. I've left everything at max settings and like I said in my Q&A thread, I average between 45-60 FPS.

Intel i7 2600k (stock clock)
EVGA P67 FTW
8GB DDR3 2133 Ripjaws RAM
EVGA 650 Ti BOOST Superclocked 2GB (2x)
180GB Intel 520 Series SSD

Benchmark
Max Settings, resolution 1920 x 1080, Full screen
Score 5676

Your cpu can be at 50% and still bottleneck your gpu for example: the Source engine uses two threads/cores, so it will hit about 50% usage (50% on a four core, 100% on a dual core, 33% on a hexa core, 25% on a 8 core, 66% on a tri core) and then start bottle-necking the GPU.

I really don't know what else it could be that limiting your performance as we both have 16gb of ram and gtx 660's (yours even a Ti)

Now I don't know specifics on ARR's engine nor can I check out Gridania until phase 4 but what CPU do you have in your system?





Edited, Apr 30th 2013 9:41am by WoodGooner

I can confirm that the benchmark doesn't necessarily reflect how your system will perform in the game.

The actual game is much more CPU intensive than the benchmark.

With an old Phenom ii 955 and a GTX 460, I scored about 3700 on the benchmark on max settings 1080p.
According to the benchmark this score is "High: Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions."

However, when I run the game at 1080p max settings, I stand at the main aetheryte in town where there are a bunch of people standing around, and I just hold down my arrow key so my camera keeps spinning around and around. I get an average of about 18 fps. Now -that- is not what I'd consider "High" performance.

Next I switched the GTX 460 out for a GTX 660, overclocked it to 1221Mhz core and +300 memory. I scored about 5700 on the benchmark on max settings 1080p.
According to the benchmark, this score is "Very High: Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions."

However, in the actual game itself, doing the same thing as I did before, my average fps went up to only about 22fps. GPU usage fluctuated between 45-55% only. Highest it ever went was about 60%. Huge CPU bottleneck.

So yeah, the game itself is way, way more CPU intensive than the benchmark.

Edit: One of the CPU's cores was running over 90% while the other 3 cores were about 60%. So the game isn't optimized well enough for multiple cores.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 12:06pm by Threx

That all makes sense. As I said the 660ti I bought was probably a low end version while the 470 I have is actually a pretty beefed up high end version that I installed a Zalman dual fan cooler on. While both cards scored between 4k and 4.9k on the benchmark, and while the 660Ti did show SOME improvement in the game itself, it ultimately would not have been worth the $350 to upgrade. I will probably wait to see how much better they have optimized Phase 3 for various systems before I decide on any upgrades.

And like I said before, aside from ambient occlusion I ran 1.0 on 1080p with all settings maxed and it rarely ever slowed down like I experience in 2.0. Odd considering 2.0 should be "easier" on systems. My best guess at this point in time is that the game simply isn't optimized for every system out there yet. Mine happens to be one that runs it pretty poorly

Same here. Our CPUs are identical. Yours is the Phenom 965, which is is basically my 955 clocked a bit higher from 3.2 to 3.4. Our GPUs were also almost the same, with your GTX 470 being a tier higher than my 460, hence your 4k benchmark results being a bit higher than my 3.7k results. Even upgrading to a GTX 660, in-game performance barely changed.

And since Wint's 2600k + GTX 650 Ti boost is getting 45-60 fps, I can only assume our CPUs are the big bottleneck. There is no other explanation.

Gotta wait and see how much they optimize the game over the next few months. I'm already planning on getting a new CPU once Haswell is released, so my CPU bottleneck will be gone. Expecting to see a solid 60 fps with an overclocked i5-4670k + GTX 660 combo. :)

Core i5 3570k
GTX 680 x2 SLI
16 GB Ram

7200 benchmark high. Some absurd number on low.

Zero lag in Gridania, 6000 x 1080 or 1920 x 1080. I didn't have my FPS setting on in afterburner for the 2d surround set up so I can't say FPS wise where I was at but it always seemed to be above 30 with zero spikes the whole time. 1920 x 1080 always 50+ fps. I'll cap some screenshots of my GPU stats next phase.

Definitely a GPU dependent game.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 3:23pm by burtonsnow

Dunno how small you need but there are a bunch of micro atx boards on newegg that support amd fx cpus. However, none of them have pcie 3.0 slots.

Time to buy a new case. =P

Saving up for that EVGA Titan Hyrist?

Interesting. I am looking at a 680 4gb card. Hopefully that will be the only thing I need to upgrade, if anything at all.

$350 was from best buy....about $60 more than what I saw it on newegg for. However I bought it with the intention of testing and taking back and since Best Buy is .25 miles from my house.....it was much quicker than newegg shipping.