FPS improvement from core i3 to core i5

[sasya neko.1985]

i use a i7-3350 and it runs poorly, my vid card is a 1080 so any and all graphic problems are solved.but since DX9 is really outdated and GW2 runs on it, any and all problems i now have is to blame on GW2, not my pc.i can run star citizen quite well and that game is really unstable with mind blowing realistic graphics, GW2 isn't even as hard on my pc and runs really bad in terms of loading speed......

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

@sorudo.9054 said:i use a i7-3350 and it runs poorly, my vid card is a 1080 so any and all graphic problems are solved.but since DX9 is really outdated and GW2 runs on it, any and all problems i now have is to blame on GW2, not my pc.

You are right to blame GW2. You are wrong to blame DX9.

[crepuscular.9047]

@theSacred.1942 said:Since GW2 is mostly single core heavy due DX9 you should 1st check witch CPU have higher single core performance.

@"crepuscular.9047" said:

CONCLUSION: upgrading from DX9 will only provide minuscule improvement with massive financial investment.

(which would send a development studio bankrupt and the game shutdown)

Just to remind, Blade and Soul that was released in similar time as GW2 is switching from UE3 to UE4. Updating from DX9 to DX11 should be much easier and cost less than that. As for low level API, DX12 is no go since its chained to Win10 so only real choice would be Vulkan available on all platforms (not sure how it look on Mac).

Rendering Engine ≠ Game Engine

 

 

GW2's engine was built upon GW1's engine, so it has inherited a lot of the nasty mess and limitations of GW1's engine; the logical thing to do would be creating a brand new engine from ground up, which requires a lot of R&D investment

Unlike Unreal Engine, GW's engine is only used by GW franchise, not sold to any other party, there is no way to recoup the massive investment into R&D except by selling more GW2 and micro transactions, but there's the competing interest of creating more contents.

Where as Unreal Engine, though it is now 'free', Epic Games is able to recoup their investment from royalties they collect from games sold that uses Unreal Engine.

In the case of B&S, they are using an off the shelf product, not proprietary technology, so there is no upfront cost the company need to absorb for R&D into game engine.in addition, it's a game engine by the same company, so they will be able to get expert support for any issues they encounter during the transitionwhile proprietary game engines have no such luxury, every issue has to be resolved internally.

Just look at how long Square Enix spent on developing Final Fantasy 15 due to issues they ran into with their own proprietary game engine, 10+ years.http://fandom.wikia.com/articles/final-fantasy-xv-games-development-hell

 

 

Yes, transitioning from DX9 to something more modern could cost less compared to game engine, but like I said, the improvement will minuscule because it's a rendering engine.

Not sure if you play BDO, that game runs on DX11, and the game turns into $H!7 at mass PvP or at world boss, even GW2's WvW runs better despite having more than 3 times the player numbers.

Also, the transition would take 1-2 years even for rendering engine, because it will require a lot of dev and testing both in number and time to ensure it is stable.

any PC game would know the result of shoving something not done properly out the door, just look at batman arkham knight's PC port; doing so will create a player exodus, meaning fewer people spending their real cash in cash shop to fund future content.

Here's the question, do you want "free content every 3-4 months at playable performance" OR "No content for 1-2 years"Remember, this is not an Action RPG or First Person Shooter

[crepuscular.9047]

@SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

@sorudo.9054 said:i use a i7-3350 and it runs poorly, my vid card is a 1080 so any and all graphic problems are solved.but since DX9 is really outdated and GW2 runs on it, any and all problems i now have is to blame on GW2, not my pc.

You are right to blame GW2. You are wrong to blame DX9.

Well said, glad to see someone else beside me here understand the technologies behind game designs

[Malediktus.9250]

@Fat Disgrace.4275 said:game is heavy cpu over gfx. went from a nvidia gtx 660 (years old) to a modon 1050 and gained nothing in performance wise, only got it as I also upgraded to a 2k resolution screen.

That is kind of wrong. Even a 1080ti OC will bottleneck in some of the new maps if your goal is 165Hz 1440p at max settings. Since a 1050 is much worse than that I bet that it sometimes bottlenecks in 60Hz 1080p (an 1080ti OC is like 5 times faster than a 1050 OC).

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

@Malediktus.9250 said:

@Fat Disgrace.4275 said:game is heavy cpu over gfx. went from a nvidia gtx 660 (years old) to a modon 1050 and gained nothing in performance wise, only got it as I also upgraded to a 2k resolution screen.

That is kind of wrong. Even a 1080ti OC will bottleneck in some of the new maps if your goal is 165Hz 1440p at max settings.

Huh. I have not observed it going over ~ 75 percent in that situation, even driving a second screen, but that is interesting. (Well, 144FPS, not 165, but close enough that I wouldn't expect those 21 FPS to make the difference.)

Not that you are wrong, I'm just being pedantic and curious here. Regardless, you can definitely load down even the 1080Ti, so yeah, 1050 is absolutely fine, but it can be capped out with a sufficiently fast CPU. (Uh, like, a CPU that exists in the real world, and doesn't require liquid nitrogen cooling.)

[Malediktus.9250]

@SlippyCheeze.5483 do you have super sampling and everything turned up? But then again I have a 8700k@5GHZ (4,8GHz cache, 4266CL17 RAM), so my CPU limitting at a later stage than of the average user.

A 1050 is just slightly faster the 7 year (i think) old GTX 580 which i had before. And it definitely was not always good enough at 1200p@60hz for this game.

[Fat Disgrace.4275]

@Malediktus.9250 said:

@Fat Disgrace.4275 said:game is heavy cpu over gfx. went from a nvidia gtx 660 (years old) to a modon 1050 and gained nothing in performance wise, only got it as I also upgraded to a 2k resolution screen.

That is kind of wrong. Even a 1080ti OC will bottleneck in some of the new maps if your goal is 165Hz 1440p at max settings. Since a 1050 is much worse than that I bet that it sometimes bottlenecks in 60Hz 1080p (an 1080ti OC is like 5 times faster than a 1050 OC).

you have the best or worst gfx card (modem) and you will stuggle in wvw, thats the game mode I personally focus on.

[mindcircus.1506]

Armchair game devs make the best french fries.

[Malediktus.9250]

@Fat Disgrace.4275 said:

@Malediktus.9250 said:

@Fat Disgrace.4275 said:game is heavy cpu over gfx. went from a nvidia gtx 660 (years old) to a modon 1050 and gained nothing in performance wise, only got it as I also upgraded to a 2k resolution screen.

That is kind of wrong. Even a 1080ti OC will bottleneck in some of the new maps if your goal is 165Hz 1440p at max settings. Since a 1050 is much worse than that I bet that it sometimes bottlenecks in 60Hz 1080p (an 1080ti OC is like 5 times faster than a 1050 OC).

you have the best or worst gfx card (modem) and you will stuggle in wvw, thats the game mode I personally focus on.

True, anything with a lot of players gets CPU bound in this game. But in PVE areas with few players you can definitely hit GPU bottlenecks. Also the desert borderlands seem to be much more GPU demanding than EBG and alpine borderlands, but that should be obvious when you compare the visuals of those maps.I guess we are lucky that this is the kind of game you can totally play at 30 fps without being at a competitive disadvantage in WvW/PvP

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

@Malediktus.9250 said:@SlippyCheeze.5483 do you have super sampling and everything turned up? But then again I have a 8700k@5GHZ (4,8GHz cache, 4266CL17 RAM), so my CPU limitting at a later stage than of the average user.

Oh, that'd do it. No, I'm rendering at the natural resolution of the screen. Pushing it up further would definitely cap it out. (I'm in almost the same bucket there CPU-wise, too.)

[sasya neko.1985]

@crepuscular.9047 said:

@SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

@sorudo.9054 said:i use a i7-3350 and it runs poorly, my vid card is a 1080 so any and all graphic problems are solved.but since DX9 is really outdated and GW2 runs on it, any and all problems i now have is to blame on GW2, not my pc.

You are right to blame GW2. You are wrong to blame DX9.

Well said, glad to see someone else beside me here understand the technologies behind game designs

you would be wrong tho, DX9 is made back when windows XP was the best thing around, nowadays if you use an engine with DX9 your game will lack behind.if i take DX11 for instance, it can load and streamline the game much faster and more organized delivering a smoother experience.DX9 is not as steam lined, it is better then 8 that's for sure but it was never made to work with computers that have more then 4GB RAM let alone games that would need more, not to mention the part where advanced rendering needs allot more time then in DX11.

to conclude, if i would take a game and play it in DX9 mode it would be much slower then when i play it with DX11 (or 12 as win 10 has it).even if i lowered the req the game had to load, DX9 would be miles slower then any higher DX version.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

@sorudo.9054 said:

@crepuscular.9047 said:

@SlippyCheeze.5483 said:

@sorudo.9054 said:i use a i7-3350 and it runs poorly, my vid card is a 1080 so any and all graphic problems are solved.but since DX9 is really outdated and GW2 runs on it, any and all problems i now have is to blame on GW2, not my pc.

You are right to blame GW2. You are wrong to blame DX9.

Well said, glad to see someone else beside me here understand the technologies behind game designs

you would be wrong tho, DX9 is made back when windows XP was the best thing around, nowadays if you use an engine with DX9 your game will lack behind.if i take DX11 for instance, it can load and streamline the game much faster and more organized delivering a smoother experience.

The keyword there is "can", and that is a very, very important word to be aware of in this discussion.

DX9 is not as steam lined, it is better then 8 that's for sure but it was never made to work with computers that have more then 4GB RAM let alone games that would need more, not to mention the part where advanced rendering needs allot more time then in DX11.

Which particular parts of the rendering pipeline in DX9 are slower than DX11? Oh, there are definitely features in DX11 not present in 9, don't get me wrong, but performance features, which one?

PS: the 4GB limit (on accessible VRAM) has been fixed. Not that it would be a significant limit for GW2 in any case, because guess what? Doesn't use all 4GB, let alone more.

to conclude, if i would take a game and play it in DX9 mode it would be much slower then when i play it with DX11 (or 12 as win 10 has it).even if i lowered the req the game had to load, DX9 would be miles slower then any higher DX version.

You would be correct if, say, this was Path of Exile, and the developers had stopped improving the DX9 version, to work on the DX11 one. Simply swapping the version with on other changes would make no performance difference.

You can do things with DX11 that you can't with DX9. Those are not an inherent property of the DX9, DX11, DX12, Vulkan, or whatever else, graphics layer.

[rng.1024]

Alright, alot of the discussion here is irrelevant to your request op. What everyone is saying is that you need better single core performance. This can be seen on product descriptions as:"Intel Core i5 3.5GHz"f.exThe number to pay attention to is the GHz

You need to find out what that number this is on your current i3 - processor. If that number is higher on the one you are thinking of buying, then you will see an increase in performance. Remember to make sure the amount of RAM and videocard are about the same as you have or better, else it might come back to bite you.

If it clocks higher (more GHz) = yes, buy itIf it clocks below (same or less GHz) = don't

To find this number for the i3 (assuming you use windows 10), locate "Start/Windows" button on the bottom left of the screen, right click it and choose "System". All your processor information will be listed there.

[Yamazuki.6073]

@"rng.1024" said:Alright, alot of the discussion here is irrelevant to your request op. What everyone is saying is that you need better single core performance. This can be seen on product descriptions as:"Intel Core i5 3.5GHz"f.exThe number to pay attention to is the GHz

You need to find out what that number this is on your current i3 - processor. If that number is higher on the one you are thinking of buying, then you will see an increase in performance. Remember to make sure the amount of RAM and videocard are about the same as you have or better, else it might come back to bite you.

If it clocks higher (more GHz) = yes, buy itIf it clocks below (same or less GHz) = don't

To find this number for the i3 (assuming you use windows 10), locate "Start/Windows" button on the bottom left of the screen, right click it and choose "System". All your processor information will be listed there.

Frequency isn't the only thing that matters. There are some differences between cpu design that have an impact on performance beyond just their frequencies. This is why even if you took two different Intel cpus of the same line (i.e i5s) but different generations and overclocked them to the same point you would still see some performance differences. Then, since we're talking about laptops, thermals will be extremely important. A lot of laptops can not sustain the cpus boost clocks over extended periods, which means any gain in frequency may not actually be present at all if the cooling is sub-optimal.

[rng.1024]

@Yamazuki.6073 said:

@"rng.1024" said:Alright, alot of the discussion here is irrelevant to your request op. What everyone is saying is that you need better single core performance. This can be seen on product descriptions as:"Intel Core i5 3.5GHz"f.exThe number to pay attention to is the GHz

You need to find out what that number this is on your current i3 - processor. If that number is higher on the one you are thinking of buying, then you will see an increase in performance. Remember to make sure the amount of RAM and videocard are about the same as you have or better, else it might come back to bite you.

If it clocks higher (more GHz) = yes, buy itIf it clocks below (same or less GHz) = don't

To find this number for the i3 (assuming you use windows 10), locate "Start/Windows" button on the bottom left of the screen, right click it and choose "System". All your processor information will be listed there.

Frequency isn't the only thing that matters. There are some differences between cpu design that have an impact on performance beyond just their frequencies. This is why even if you took two different Intel cpus of the same line (i.e i5s) but different generations and overclocked them to the same point you would still see some performance differences. Then, since we're talking about laptops, thermals will be extremely important. A lot of laptops can not sustain the cpus boost clocks over extended periods, which means any gain in frequency may not actually be present at all if the cooling is sub-optimal.

You are very right that it's not the only thing that matter, but when it comes to increase in single core performance it is the major contributing factor. If you scroll up abit, you will see op express his concern about all this being confusing and asking for a yes/no answer - which is why I chose to use frequency. Chances are the pc in question will be a newer model and therefore have improved cooling capabilities. I'm fairly certain based on his comments overclocking isn't an option, so pure computations per second will win over the efficiency of next generation improvements (as this we can directly say affect gw2 performance)