[waldojim]

SO, it finally came out! I cannot be happier, the new engine produces an amazing looking game.

Now the question, what will it take to get the most out of it?

Fallout 3 easily run at ultra quality on a single 5770 @ 1080P (minus the AA). That was my starting point. No-Go. I am currently using the 'high' preset (0 AA, and 16X AF), and still sluggish once turned loose. Will post back with fraps numbers later. I haven't quite tweaked out the desktop yet, but I am quite curious what others are getting on their gear.

The laptop right now is running 1080P Medium settings... and choking. Seems like a lot has changed. That said, I would like to note that medium settings still look terrific.

SO - for those of us with different gear, what are you finding playable?

[coastie65]

I preordered it, but won't get it until next week sometime.

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 11 November 2011 - 09:57 AM, said:

I preordered it, but won't get it until next week sometime.

I picked mine up at the local Gamestop...

For what it is worth, I may have been too harsh on the game. During very specific events, frame rates drop to the 30's on the 5770, but for the most part, on 'high' quality, the game will run about 45fps out side, and 60 in caves/caverns/etc.

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 11 November 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

coastie65, on 11 November 2011 - 09:57 AM, said:

I preordered it, but won't get it until next week sometime.

I picked mine up at the local Gamestop...

For what it is worth, I may have been too harsh on the game. During very specific events, frame rates drop to the 30's on the 5770, but for the most part, on 'high' quality, the game will run about 45fps out side, and 60 in caves/caverns/etc.

Hate those caves as I always seem to miss those trip wires and get zinged.

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 11 November 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

waldojim, on 11 November 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

coastie65, on 11 November 2011 - 09:57 AM, said:

I preordered it, but won't get it until next week sometime.

I picked mine up at the local Gamestop...

For what it is worth, I may have been too harsh on the game. During very specific events, frame rates drop to the 30's on the 5770, but for the most part, on 'high' quality, the game will run about 45fps out side, and 60 in caves/caverns/etc.

Hate those caves as I always seem to miss those trip wires and get zinged.

Every time, without fail.

I would have thought at 65", they would be easier to see... but that is what I get for thinking.

[waldojim]

WOW. A quick look through Tom's Hardware suggests that my Stock clocks on the i5 may be what is hurting performance! They are seeing CPU bottlenecks @ 4Ghz on the i5.

Simply amazing... we have Battlefield over emphasizing demand on the video cards, and now Skyrim over emphasizing load on CPU's. Not-Quite-So-Wealthy gamers just can't catch a break.

Though it is interesting to note that at 4Ghz, the 5770 CAN handle Ultra quality at 1080P.

Darn those bottlenecks.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 11 November 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:

WOW. A quick look through Tom's Hardware suggests that my Stock clocks on the i5 may be what is hurting performance! They are seeing CPU bottlenecks @ 4Ghz on the i5.

Simply amazing... we have Battlefield over emphasizing demand on the video cards, and now Skyrim over emphasizing load on CPU's. Not-Quite-So-Wealthy gamers just can't catch a break.

Though it is interesting to note that at 4Ghz, the 5770 CAN handle Ultra quality at 1080P.

Darn those bottlenecks.

Is it multithreaded well? I mean, your stock 2.8GHz isn't the highest available now, with the i5 2500K being 3.3Ghz, though it is quad-core. And I thought games weren't very CPU intensive now. I also have a game, Simcity 4, that doesn't really run well no matter what. It ran okay (in more complex cities that you build) on a Pentium 4 2.8GHz with a geforce 6200, the same on this i5 2.66GHz with geforce 210, and still the same with a geforce 550ti. (I don't play this much though) I think it's just poorly optimized (and also a bit cpu intensive, though single-threaded, as I get exactly 25% CPU usage most of the time).

On a side note, any ideas on how Fraps measures the FPS? In a racing game I play, there's a little map thing at the bottom (like a compass) that's constantly turning to show you where you are, like a little GPS thingy, while you drive. At ultra-high settings, 1280x1024, in Need for speed world, it says I'm getting 60fps all the time, which mostly seems to be true (almost always completely fluid), but occasionally gets a tiny bit choppy for a moment (maybe a drop to 30fps or so), but it doesn't change at all (I only saw it drop to 58fps once). Any ideas?

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 11 November 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

Is it multithreaded well? I mean, your stock 2.8GHz isn't the highest available now, with the i5 2500K being 3.3Ghz, though it is quad-core. And I thought games weren't very CPU intensive now. I also have a game, Simcity 4, that doesn't really run well no matter what. It ran okay (in more complex cities that you build) on a Pentium 4 2.8GHz with a geforce 6200, the same on this i5 2.66GHz with geforce 210, and still the same with a geforce 550ti. (I don't play this much though) I think it's just poorly optimized (and also a bit cpu intensive, though single-threaded, as I get exactly 25% CPU usage most of the time).

On a side note, any ideas on how Fraps measures the FPS? In a racing game I play, there's a little map thing at the bottom (like a compass) that's constantly turning to show you where you are, like a little GPS thingy, while you drive. At ultra-high settings, 1280x1024, in Need for speed world, it says I'm getting 60fps all the time, which mostly seems to be true (almost always completely fluid), but occasionally gets a tiny bit choppy for a moment (maybe a drop to 30fps or so), but it doesn't change at all (I only saw it drop to 58fps once). Any ideas?

It takes advantage of no more than 2 cores. It is significantly dependent on those two cores having very high clock speeds and efficiency.

I don't remember exactly where fraps gets the numbers it uses.

[coastie65]

Here is something to read: http://www.digital-d...a_testing_2007/

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 11 November 2011 - 11:32 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 11 November 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

Is it multithreaded well? I mean, your stock 2.8GHz isn't the highest available now, with the i5 2500K being 3.3Ghz, though it is quad-core. And I thought games weren't very CPU intensive now. I also have a game, Simcity 4, that doesn't really run well no matter what. It ran okay (in more complex cities that you build) on a Pentium 4 2.8GHz with a geforce 6200, the same on this i5 2.66GHz with geforce 210, and still the same with a geforce 550ti. (I don't play this much though) I think it's just poorly optimized (and also a bit cpu intensive, though single-threaded, as I get exactly 25% CPU usage most of the time).

On a side note, any ideas on how Fraps measures the FPS? In a racing game I play, there's a little map thing at the bottom (like a compass) that's constantly turning to show you where you are, like a little GPS thingy, while you drive. At ultra-high settings, 1280x1024, in Need for speed world, it says I'm getting 60fps all the time, which mostly seems to be true (almost always completely fluid), but occasionally gets a tiny bit choppy for a moment (maybe a drop to 30fps or so), but it doesn't change at all (I only saw it drop to 58fps once). Any ideas?

It takes advantage of no more than 2 cores. It is significantly dependent on those two cores having very high clock speeds and efficiency.

I don't remember exactly where fraps gets the numbers it uses.

So there IS a use for having an 8GHz Bulldozer cpu with only 2 cores enabled then... I guess they didn't consider how clock speeds haven't increased a whole lot in the past few years, just more cores...

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 12 November 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

waldojim, on 11 November 2011 - 11:32 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 11 November 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

Is it multithreaded well? I mean, your stock 2.8GHz isn't the highest available now, with the i5 2500K being 3.3Ghz, though it is quad-core. And I thought games weren't very CPU intensive now. I also have a game, Simcity 4, that doesn't really run well no matter what. It ran okay (in more complex cities that you build) on a Pentium 4 2.8GHz with a geforce 6200, the same on this i5 2.66GHz with geforce 210, and still the same with a geforce 550ti. (I don't play this much though) I think it's just poorly optimized (and also a bit cpu intensive, though single-threaded, as I get exactly 25% CPU usage most of the time).

On a side note, any ideas on how Fraps measures the FPS? In a racing game I play, there's a little map thing at the bottom (like a compass) that's constantly turning to show you where you are, like a little GPS thingy, while you drive. At ultra-high settings, 1280x1024, in Need for speed world, it says I'm getting 60fps all the time, which mostly seems to be true (almost always completely fluid), but occasionally gets a tiny bit choppy for a moment (maybe a drop to 30fps or so), but it doesn't change at all (I only saw it drop to 58fps once). Any ideas?

It takes advantage of no more than 2 cores. It is significantly dependent on those two cores having very high clock speeds and efficiency.

I don't remember exactly where fraps gets the numbers it uses.

So there IS a use for having an 8GHz Bulldozer cpu with only 2 cores enabled then... I guess they didn't consider how clock speeds haven't increased a whole lot in the past few years, just more cores...

Not really... from what Toms was figuring out, a 4Ghz AMD could NOT keep up with a 3.2Ghz Intel in that game... 8Ghz AMD would still only perform as well as an Intel running OC'd around 4.5Ghz or so...

Kind of depressing if you ask me.

At this stage, I am being forced to accelerate my plans, re-install the EVGA board, use that Zalman cooler, and see what I can coax my i5 into doing...Sadly, the 3.8Ghz that the MSI board is topping out at, is still holding the game back considerably...

[LiveBrianD]

Why'd you remove the MSI board? And basically, what you're saying is that your i5, at the 4.5GHz you got it at, can provide the same performance as an 8GHz bulldozer? (even though the latter sounds more impressive on paper)

Also, what's your GPU usage while playing that game? (I use MSI Afterburner to figure this out)

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 12 November 2011 - 12:39 PM

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 12 November 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 12 November 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

waldojim, on 11 November 2011 - 11:32 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 11 November 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

Is it multithreaded well? I mean, your stock 2.8GHz isn't the highest available now, with the i5 2500K being 3.3Ghz, though it is quad-core. And I thought games weren't very CPU intensive now. I also have a game, Simcity 4, that doesn't really run well no matter what. It ran okay (in more complex cities that you build) on a Pentium 4 2.8GHz with a geforce 6200, the same on this i5 2.66GHz with geforce 210, and still the same with a geforce 550ti. (I don't play this much though) I think it's just poorly optimized (and also a bit cpu intensive, though single-threaded, as I get exactly 25% CPU usage most of the time).

On a side note, any ideas on how Fraps measures the FPS? In a racing game I play, there's a little map thing at the bottom (like a compass) that's constantly turning to show you where you are, like a little GPS thingy, while you drive. At ultra-high settings, 1280x1024, in Need for speed world, it says I'm getting 60fps all the time, which mostly seems to be true (almost always completely fluid), but occasionally gets a tiny bit choppy for a moment (maybe a drop to 30fps or so), but it doesn't change at all (I only saw it drop to 58fps once). Any ideas?

It takes advantage of no more than 2 cores. It is significantly dependent on those two cores having very high clock speeds and efficiency.

I don't remember exactly where fraps gets the numbers it uses.

So there IS a use for having an 8GHz Bulldozer cpu with only 2 cores enabled then... I guess they didn't consider how clock speeds haven't increased a whole lot in the past few years, just more cores...

Not really... from what Toms was figuring out, a 4Ghz AMD could NOT keep up with a 3.2Ghz Intel in that game... 8Ghz AMD would still only perform as well as an Intel running OC'd around 4.5Ghz or so...

Kind of depressing if you ask me.

At this stage, I am being forced to accelerate my plans, re-install the EVGA board, use that Zalman cooler, and see what I can coax my i5 into doing...Sadly, the 3.8Ghz that the MSI board is topping out at, is still holding the game back considerably...

Think I would have stayed with the EVGA as it is a much better board in my opinion.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 12 November 2011 - 01:31 PM

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 12 November 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

Why'd you remove the MSI board? And basically, what you're saying is that your i5, at the 4.5GHz you got it at, can provide the same performance as an 8GHz bulldozer? (even though the latter sounds more impressive on paper)

Also, what's your GPU usage while playing that game? (I use MSI Afterburner to figure this out)

First, getting an AMD bulldozer to 8Ghz requires liquid helium cooling. Sadly, a 3Ghz bulldozer only performs on par with a 2Ghz i7. Do I honestly think it will scale well when under the kind of stress needed for 8Ghz? No.

Now then, the MSI board was initially pulled because of a bad flash. Once I got the board back, it was only installed to verify that it worked. The EVGA board is considerably more stable during high frequency overclocks. We will see just what I can coax this stupid chip into doing for me.

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 12 November 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

Think I would have stayed with the EVGA as it is a much better board in my opinion.

Well, I don't keep multiple 1156 chips laying around, and had to test the board when I got it back from repair. The MSI board is certainly running great, but you are correct, the EVGA is considerably better.

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 12 November 2011 - 02:07 PM, said:

coastie65, on 12 November 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

Think I would have stayed with the EVGA as it is a much better board in my opinion.

Well, I don't keep multiple 1156 chips laying around, and had to test the board when I got it back from repair. The MSI board is certainly running great, but you are correct, the EVGA is considerably better.

I have multiple PentiumD's ( 805, 925, & 945 ) and a spare i7 920. I no longer ahve anything with a 775 socket as I gave that desktop to my sister ( which has a Pentium D 945 installed ).

[LiveBrianD]

I had 3 or so Pentium 4s lying around, 1.8GHz or so. I eventually took them to a recycling center. Coastie, why don't you ebay those Pentium Ds or something?

[coastie65]

LiveBrianD, on 12 November 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:

I had 3 or so Pentium 4s lying around, 1.8GHz or so. I eventually took them to a recycling center. Coastie, why don't you ebay those Pentium Ds or something?

I might, but the 805 probably wouldn't do much: 805 ( 2.6 Ghz ), 925 (3.0 Ghz ), 945 ( 3.4 Ghz ).

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 12 November 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 12 November 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:

I had 3 or so Pentium 4s lying around, 1.8GHz or so. I eventually took them to a recycling center. Coastie, why don't you ebay those Pentium Ds or something?

I might, but the 805 probably wouldn't do much: 805 ( 2.6 Ghz ), 925 (3.0 Ghz ), 945 ( 3.4 Ghz ).

Well, I took the time to get back on the EVGA board tonight... actually did a lot more than that, but will get into that in a minute. Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to describe the night and day difference between them.

I currently have my CPU at 4.2Ghz and am trying to for more. I will make a point of posting back with final performance number in Skyrim, knowing that Skyrim is going to be the beast that tells everything.

EDIT: 4.2Ghz seems to be the limit of the board. Still, it beats 3.8Ghz quite nicely. Will make another performance test shortly.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 13 November 2011 - 12:42 AM

[waldojim]

ok, now I am confused...

I have this machine running full tilt. 4.2Ghz on the CPU and 955/1350 on the GPU. I see an average 75% load on the video card, and 25% load (give or take) on the CPU cores... Yet somehow it still has trouble maintaining 60fps... I don't get it. Neither the CPU or GPU see a full load, yet it cannot maintain smooth rates.

I will live with being confused I think.

Ok, more of the picture is starting to make sense.
I don't this this game is nearly as sensitive to clock speed as I thought it was. More that I think it is sensitive to latency. Outdoors, where the system seems to be pushed the hardest, the game runs pretty darned smoothly - even though the video card peaks to 99% and only 45fps (low of 38). Yet indoors, where everything seems to be a dynamic object (meaning things you can move around), there seems to be latency issues getting the information to the video card. The CPU is barely being touched though.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 13 November 2011 - 01:27 AM