Jump to content
  • Sign Up

DX12 for GW2. Do yourself a favor, try this out.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Installed the latest version last night. I haven't been in super high lag areas yet like after you kill the Auric Basin vinetooth and a lot of the areas I visited were still loading up the shader cache. I will need to test it more extensively but so far my game has been running a lot smoother and the things seem to render a lot faster in the areas where the shader caching was complete. Looks promising. I'm curious to seem if I will be able to crank up some some settings and still be able to maintain 30+ in world boos fights and WvW zergfests.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bassdeff.1895 said:Installed the latest version last night. I haven't been in super high lag areas yet like after you kill the Auric Basin vinetooth and a lot of the areas I visited were still loading up the shader cache. I will need to test it more extensively but so far my game has been running a lot smoother and the things seem to render a lot faster in the areas where the shader caching was complete. Looks promising. I'm curious to seem if I will be able to crank up some some settings and still be able to maintain 30+ in world boos fights and WvW zergfests.

So last night I had some time to do some more extensive testing. When I originally tried it out I was using the in game FPS numbers cause I was short on time and didn't want to bother loading up afterburner. Well, it turns out that the in game numbers are wrong when using D129pxy. For this test I maxed all my settings @1080p cause that is the baseline I previously used when I last upgraded my PC. I test FPS in LA, WvW, world boss events. In LA, used to get between 20 and 25 fps and the game still reports 20 to 25 fps but afterburner reports 60+ (I have fps limited to 60 in nvidia control panel). In meta events and world bosses where fps used to drop down to 10 -15 the game is still report 10-15 but I'm still get 60+ in afterburner. Given how fluid the motion is I would tend to believe the afterburner readings. I noticed a much better utilization of my cpu with the load spread out much more evenly across all cores and CPU usage climbed up to 85% on a few occasions which is something I have never seen in GW2 since I upgraded. So far I am quite impressed with the performance I've been getting. Tonight I will really put it to the test and take it to AB where FPS drops down to 3 when I have everything maxed out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo.3428 said:

@Bassdeff.1895 said:Well, it turns out that the in game numbers are wrongI'm having a hard time guessing why. Could it be that the DirectX replacement interpolates frames? Does it have enough data to do that?

I really don't know, I've been trying to wrap my head around how this all work but visuals and responsiveness definitely did not feel like 15 fps during the world boss events. Today I'm testing and afterburner is keeps showing both dx11 and dx12 number overlapping each other so I can't tel;l what the hell I'm getting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bassdeff.1895 said:

@Leo.3428 said:

@Bassdeff.1895 said:Well, it turns out that the in game numbers are wrongI'm having a hard time guessing why. Could it be that the DirectX replacement interpolates frames? Does it have enough data to do that?

I really don't know, I've been trying to wrap my head around how this all work but visuals and responsiveness definitely did not feel like 15 fps during the world boss events. Today I'm testing and afterburner is keeps showing both dx11 and dx12 number overlapping each other so I can't tel;l what the hell I'm getting.

Forget everything I said, I was playing around at different resolutions and I noticed that Afterburner was displaying 2 sets of numbers (dx11 and dx12)perfectly overlapping each other. It wasn't until I played around with the scaling did it they kind of separate. So everything would have looked like, with both number changing out of sync everything look like a constant 60fps. It just curious to know why it is so smooth it it truly is displaying 20 fps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. One mystery down. Regarding the smoothness, 20fps at a regular pace looks comfortable compared to a scattered 30fps. Also, even if the game doesn't send more frames, it might now have more time for other calculations such as movements, making the whole smoother - supposing that the game performs several updates in parallel as opposed to cramming everything into one pipeline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo.3428 said:LOL. One mystery down. Regarding the smoothness, 20fps at a regular pace looks comfortable compared to a scattered 30fps. Also, even if the game doesn't send more frames, it might now have more time for other calculations such as movements, making the whole smoother - supposing that the game performs several updates in parallel as opposed to cramming everything into one pipeline.

That makes sense. I toned back my settings to what I usually play and I do get a respectable FPS gain. An extra 5 to 10 on the low end and finally seeing the game use more than 50% of my CPU is a welcome sight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying this for the last few days in my regular routine. Based on an FPS counter and my subjective impression, I want to say it has somewhat increased overall average FPS. It seems like I'm seeing higher frame rates more often.

Unfortunately, the lows remain the same according to the counter. In things like map-capped world bosses such as post-reset Tequatl and Ley Line Anomaly, frame rates dip to the same lows they always did. However, I want to say it doesn't feel as choppy as I remember, and as sluggish as the rates themselves would imply. Even during the lowest frame rates, my CPU and GPU usage still hover around 40-45%. I don't recall what they were prior, but I don't think there has been a huge change.

I was hoping this would help with the lows a bit more and maybe make more use of my seemingly underutilized hardware. But there does seem to be some noticeable improvement, and I have yet to encounter issues besides the initial missing shaders on the character portraits on each startup. Keeping it installed for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"galuf.5741" said:I run at full fps anywhere and at any time. I've got 64GB ram, an i9, a 2nd gen ssd and a 2080TI. Also, I want to note that most of the time I feel like the youtubers don't run the game nearly as well as I do.

You're not, it's impossible.You dont get it.

Hes getting full fps.

Full
.
Fps
.

Any time
.

Kind of like how you can sit and watch TV.
All the TV
.

It will be Nvidia's next marketing phrase. "You can play with Full FPS,everywhere at anytime. All the FPS belong to you".

I tried this tool months ago,didnt see much improvement besides slower loading of textures. I think this is only beneficial when you have a potato pc. Or atleast,a Pc that is unable to get "All the full fps everywhere".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

It is good, but:

  1. it's not as good as some people try to make it seem to be.
  2. it doesn't work for all the systems (works for win 10, partially works for win 7, doesn't work for win 8/8.1)
  3. there are some edge cases with hardware/software configurations where it still doesn't work even for the systems it theoretically should. And by "not working" i mean that the whole game doesn't run with this enabled.
  4. there are some cases where you can end up with weird graphics artifacts on screen.

point 2 can possibly be ignored. Point 1 is relevant only towards the cost/gain calculations of implementing the solution. 3 and 4 however are a big problem. Those are issues that can be ignored in a third party solution, but not in an official one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Lumikki.1725" said:What's the hardware and OS requirements?

https://github.com/megai2/d912pxy/wiki/Installing

Minimum:Windows 7 x64 with the Platform update or Windows 10 x64 (update to the latest build) - No Windows 8 support folksDirectX 12 capable GPU with at least feature level 11_0 support and shader model 5.1 support1GB VRAM6GB RAMCPU with AVX support (since v2.0)Please note: the minimum requirements listed above are just an estimate - it is not guaranteed that it will work with these specs.

Recommended:Windows 10 x64 (update to the latest build)DirectX 12 capable GPU with feature level 11_1 support4GB VRAM16GB RAMCPU with AVX support (since v2.0)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Lumikki.1725" said:I think that doesn't work in my computer, CPU is too old.

What's your CPU/GPU?

edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_ExtensionsCPUs with AVXIntelSandy Bridge processors, Q1 2011Sandy Bridge E processors, Q4 2011Ivy Bridge processors, Q1 2012Ivy Bridge E processors, Q3 2013Haswell processors, Q2 2013Haswell E processors, Q3 2014Broadwell processors, Q4 2014Skylake processors, Q3 2015Broadwell E processors, Q2 2016Kaby Lake processors, Q3 2016(ULV mobile)/Q1 2017(desktop/mobile)Skylake-X processors, Q2 2017Coffee Lake processors, Q4 2017Cannon Lake processors, Q2 2018Whiskey Lake processors, Q3 2018Cascade Lake processors, Q4 2018Ice Lake processors, Q3 2019Comet Lake processor (only Core branded), Q3 2019Tiger Lake processor, 2020Not all CPUs from the listed families support AVX. Generally, CPUs with the commercial denomination "Core i3/i5/i7" support them, whereas "Pentium" and "Celeron" CPUs don't.

AMD:Jaguar-based processors and newerPuma-based processors and newer"Heavy Equipment" processorsBulldozer-based processors, Q4 2011Piledriver-based processors, Q4 2012Steamroller-based processors, Q1 2014Excavator-based processors and newer, 2015Zen-based processors, Q1 2017Zen+-based processors, Q2 2018Zen 2-based processors, Q3 2019Zen 3 processors, 2020

So a CPU from around 2011 should have AVX unless it's an Intel Pentium or Celeron one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Dragon Priestess.9760" said:Mmoprgs require PC investment. That's all on you to do. It's not Anet's problem that you are too lazy and cheap to upgrade your PC.It's not about been "too lazy and cheap to upgrade" PC. It's more about choise as is it worth of doing. I don't consider mmorpgs, so important part of my life that I would spend a lot of money because of some games. I can very easyly be without some modern games and play old ones. I also agree, that it's not Anet's problem, but I don't understand why you are so "angry" by other peoples choises. Anet loose some customers, but that's just normal. Anet can't stay in old technology forever, they need to be able compete with they mmorpgs agaist other companies mmorpgs. Also, it's Anet's choise when they are ready to upgrade they games to DX12. I play GW2 because I can play it with this computer. There are DX12 mmorpgs what I can't play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...