Did they end up figuring out the reason for the poor performance on large battles?

[Buggsy]

"Did they end up figuring out the reason for the poor performance on large battles?"

Yeah each additional player has to have their position, orientation, what they are doing sent over the internet to your computer to be rendered; and it all adds up.

[Eduard Khil]

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

I didn't always have my FPS display up, because performance wasn't bad enough for me to be interested in it. When I did have it up and was watching, I was getting probably 30-40 FPS during large battles. That includes flying in the middle of them. Rarely did it dip below that. I ran my graphics settings on high.

As far as performance issues go, server-side warping / vanishing / lag was always the one that affected me the most. Especially the first weekend they went without taking the servers down (when the character rollback happened). The game was simply not playable for me. I was in a heated bio lab fight and would find I got teleported back to where I was 30 seconds prior constantly.

And ever since then I don't think there was a single stretch when the servers were up for more than 48 consecutive hours.

I have an I5 2500k, 16 gigs of ram and a gtx 680, I can't even get 40 frames on large battles setting graphics to low, while flying, the game takes dumps of bottlenecks everytime I get close to anything half zergy.

Seriously, it's not my system and yours suffers from the same problem, you just haven't seen the frames.

The last few days before they closed the beta I was even getting 20-30 frames, again, low settings.

Where did you buy your parts? Nasa?

[AThreatToYou]

To the above poster, lowering your settings won't increase your frames on a GTX 680. What's cutting your frames down is CPU usage, not GPU usage; so kick your settings back up so it at least looks pretty.

What's odd is, I get essentially the same frames running on High with a Phenom II X4 3.5 GHz and a GTX 460. I make sure to cut off all background programs and run the game from an SSD, though.

[Eduard Khil]

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

To the above poster, lowering your settings won't increase your frames on a GTX 680. What's cutting your frames down is CPU usage, not GPU usage; so kick your settings back up so it at least looks pretty.

What's odd is, I get essentially the same frames running on High with a Phenom II X4 3.5 GHz and a GTX 460.

I know, lowering the settings doesn't change much but shouldn't it? there is way too much focus on the CPU to run this game, the videocards barely do a thing.

This is what I meant by optimizing the game.

[QuantumMechanic]

Making CPU-heavy games seems to be SOE's way of doing things. When EQ2 came out it was the same story, maybe even worse. Your GPU had little effect on the game performance.

Right before tech test started I built my new machine, with the advice of the good folks here at the tech forum. I ended up building an i5 3570k with a GTX 670. Like I mentioned I ran on high settings the whole time, and never had any bothersome client-side performance issues.

I am glad that I stuck with Intel / Nvidia. A lot of people will argue against that, but as I suspected there seems to be a lot of AMD-related performance issues. And I know many games in general have ATI related graphics bugs.

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Eduard Khil

I know, lowering the settings doesn't change much but shouldn't it? there is way too much focus on the CPU to run this game, the videocards barely do a thing.

This is what I meant by optimizing the game.

You can't just go "Oh I'll take this load and give it to the GPU".
GPUs aren't good at the same things CPUs are. When you start talking keeping track of players the GPU isn't in a situation to do much of anything.

Changing graphics settings has fairly little to do with the numbers the CPU has to crunsh. That's why, for many people, you end up with the same frame rate regardless of graphics settings.

[Knocky]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

You can't just go "Oh I'll take this load and give it to the GPU".
GPUs aren't good at the same things CPUs are. When you start talking keeping track of players the GPU isn't in a situation to do much of anything.

Changing graphics settings has fairly little to do with the numbers the CPU has to crunsh. That's why, for many people, you end up with the same frame rate regardless of graphics settings.

Why can't people wrap their mind around the fact that a GPU doesn't keep track of the hundreds of people around you.

Eduard Khil, why do you running a GTX680 on a 2500 CPU? Your CPU is bottlenecking that card.

[Dkamanus]

Originally Posted by Knocky

Why can't people wrap their mind around the fact that a GPU doesn't keep track of the hundreds of people around you.

Eduard Khil, why do you running a GTX680 on a 2500 CPU? Your CPU is bottlenecking that card.

And does noone finds this statement an absurd? A middle-high end CPU to be causing bottlenecks? The problem is in the game engine itself, which needs a LOT of ironing still to make it what the devs want it to be.

[Knocky]

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

And does noone finds this statement an absurd? A middle-high end CPU to be causing bottlenecks? The problem is in the game engine itself, which needs a LOT of ironing still to make it what the devs want it to be.

I said the CPU from Jan 2011 is bottle-necking the GPU from March 2012.

This has nothing at all to do with this game.

If you are going to be running a GTX680, then you should have a i7-3820 CPU to go along with it. Not a i5-2500