|2 years ago :: Mar 1 2012 - 12:09PM|
You are correct. I forgot about AMD CPU's.
I should correct that to indicate it was the case for multi core Intels, quad core and above most likely.
I used to be a AMD user and all but that was back in the days of late model Intel 486 offerings. Yah, stone age .
I hope AMD can be competitive again as a single provider CPU world would not be good.
Last time I had AMD on system *I* built was in the days the Intel 486 was the in thing. In those days
AMD was cheaper and had better performance per buck than Intel. Clear win.
Currently, the only AMD CPU I have is a HP Slimline PC I use for a bedroom media center. I don't game on that.
Sadly, and I do mean it, it is SAD, the only clear choice for anyone building a gaming pc for some years now, has been Intel.
Oh hell, what have I done? I said something that will get me in trouble again. ..
|2 years ago :: Mar 1 2012 - 4:50PM|
Yes, you're getting into trouble because the large majority of games are not CPU limited. An AMD CPU is fine for most gaming purposes except for GTA4, I've heard that Witcher 2 can get CPU limited, StarCraft 2, and maybe SR3.
I'd like to see someone with an AMD CPU to see what happens to their fps if they drop their screen resolution to the lowest that they can. If their fps changes, then either they are not CPU limited or Volition is rendering some graphics using CPU. That would be interesting to narrow down.
|2 years ago :: Mar 1 2012 - 10:35PM|
Again not what I've noticed.
AMD CPUs in fact work better for GTA IV, Battlefield 3, or any other game that utilizes all 4 cores.
However recent games including Fallout, Skyrim, and yes Saints Rows the Third lack the ability to utilize all 4 cores, and instead only uses 2 cores, that is when it causes problems.
In Skyrim for example, staring at the mountains gets me full GPU usage, where as as soon as I stare at NPCs, or intense shadows, which by the way ARE Ran on the CPUs, GPU usage drops like a stone, down to 20-30% in worst cases.
Let me give you a little perspective.
An Intel Core-i3 @ 3Ghz with 2 cores WILL Outperform an AMD Phenom II X4, using ALL 4 cores.
Now imagine the difference between 2 of the core-i series cores compared to 2 of Phenoms cores.
|2 years ago :: Mar 2 2012 - 1:04AM|
4 cores working on a CPU is better than 2 cores of that same CPU: how is this revelatory?
Relative performance is not important if you already exceed what the game requires. A Phenom II x4 CPU is no slouch. As Getsumbent has done here, try overclocking and underclocking your CPU and note your fps. You could also compare your fps at max and min resolution. I think I'm going to go underclock my Core i5 750, which is only 15% faster than your Phenom II x4 940 and see if that makes a difference.
|2 years ago :: Mar 2 2012 - 2:21AM|
I have just finished quickly testing how my framerate varies with CPU clockspeed. First, my specs:
Intel Core i5 750, stock is 2.66 GHz
For consistent testing, I got into a Vulture helicopter at the Saints HQ and allowed the camera to centre itself just as you instantly get into the vehicle. I did this because the framerate varies hugely based on where you're looking such that even small variations in directions can lead to > 10 fps differences. All measurements were done during the day.
Normally, I overclock my Core i5 to 3.2 GHz, RAM @ 1600 MHz. Here are fps measurements from FRAPS under different conditions:
Ultra, 2048x1152 - 59 fps
The following are for my Core i5 at 2.0 GHz, RAM @ 1333 MHz:
Ultra, 2048x1152 - 49 fps
So it does appear that there is some variance with CPU speed. It is, however, not linear over the full range of speeds tested here given that a change of ~37% CPU speed led to a ~17% (Ultra, 2048x1152) to ~31% (Ultra, 720x480) difference in fps. The only clear signs of being absolutely CPU-limited is in the Low, 2048x1152 vs. Low, 720x480 for both 3.2 and 2.0 GHz. At that level of detail, there is no significant difference between the fps at the two resolutions such that the rendering is basically limited by the CPU - the difference between clockspeeds at each resolution at Low detail, however, is only ~22% which doesn't completely account for the 37% change in speed. Some of that might be accounted for by the change in memory speed (~16%) which I couldn't easily control for.
In other comparisons between 3.2 GHz and 2.0 GHz, there are slightly significant differences which aren't traditional CPU-limiting given that the fps changes with resolution. I'm not sure what to make of this except to say that the situation is more complicated than the usual CPU-limiting cases.
Suffice to say, however, that CPU-limiting was only occuring for me with a Core i5 750 @ 2.0 GHz (which should be less powerful than a Phenom II x4 @ stock by ~15% using this site as a guide - www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html) when my GPU was powerful enough to output 74-78 fps: you should not be CPU-limited unless you are rendering at this framerate. In conclusion, CPU speed does play a slight role in the framerate but does not limit the framerate in the traditional sense unless you have a ridiculously powerful video card (which I have).
|2 years ago :: Mar 2 2012 - 11:30AM|
Does thread only address the lag when driving or does it also include lag when not driving. Because me and my GTX 460 get the lag either or. I've yet to play the mission where you acquire Zimos, Kenzie, and Angel without significant lag at the boat jump and DeWynter's house.
|2 years ago :: Mar 2 2012 - 11:07PM|
A bit of both. So far, with my Core i5 750 & Radeon 7970, I've noticed two framerate issues: a huge drop when driving fast or flying and a huge drop when looking in certain directions in the game world (mostly when looking toward the middle islands with the huge skyscrapers).
Not sure why you're seeing performance issues with a GTX 460 unless some Nvidia cards are also affected by what appears to be purely an AMD GPU issue. You may want to update your graphics drivers if you haven't already.
|2 years ago :: Mar 3 2012 - 1:49AM|
So, your story is, you get 80 fps, god knows where, and 27 fps when driving fast.
Here is the thing, that is about the same as my fps.
Go test your rig when driving at different clock speeds, then report back to me.
the 80 fps I bet is indoors, which as I said, does not have much running on the CPU.
As for my friend, yes, he does get solid 40-50 fps everywhere on 2 ati mobility GPUs (6830s i think) with corei7.
|2 years ago :: Mar 3 2012 - 2:40AM|
Latest nVidia drivers, problem persists. Moment ago took a motorcycle out of a garage and lagged on the door opening, driving out, and after a minute of driving lagged.
|2 years ago :: Mar 3 2012 - 1:42PM|
Word of advice: always be respectful on forums because one day you'll end up an idiot.
My story is that you can't read.
Now, I'm not sure if you know how vehicles work in this game, but helicopters don't do so well indoors.
27 fps is about the lowest I get to now in certain circumstances with my 7970 (vs. my 5850) when driving fast and looking in certain directions or standing still looking in certain directions (eg. looking at the city skyline to the left as you exit Shaundi's Ex's Apartment crib. Run toward the intersection there for a huge framerate drop). On average, I'm probably closer to 45 fps over extended play at 2048x1152 Ultra.
You have made a claim that the game is CPU-limited: the onus is on you to prove your claim. I have attempted to investigate this purely because both GetsumBent and myself were interested if CPU was a factor since he has a Sandy Bridge Core i7 which is about double the performance of my Core i5 and he doesn't have these problems (with an Nvidia GPU).
At this point, I don't really care anymore: the problem is for Volition to identify and solve. I have stopped 'advertising' the game for them and recommending it to friends, even with the Steam sale on right now, due to their inability to fix the game after 3 months for 40% of their users (AMD users according to Steam survey).
GetsumBent's data pretty much matches mine (ie. See page 54 of this thread. Going from his stock 3.4 GHz to 4.6 GHz nets him a difference of about 3-8 fps or roughly max 15% with a 26% difference in clockspeed - he didn't test going to different resolutions, however). GetsumBent has been very good with providing evidence for his claims: I suggest that you do the same.