CPU VS RAM Performance & CPU Threading Benchmarked

[daze23 1]

this thread turned into another copy of http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS

where i posted that low utilization (not MT related) relates to some bugs which need fix first before the MT issues

so instead to have discussion about benchmarking , RAM and threading w/e. it's turning to complain fest about low FPS or else

also, what else is there to say than we know about it and working on it?

+ hint: see difference between

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Alpha

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Beta

you guys have entered into new territory by letting people pay for early access. that's fine, but you can't sit back and appeal to how things are normally done, when you have made a decision to do things differently. I believe the saying is "you can't have your cake and eat it"

there was a time when being in business where you expect people to give you money involved some humility. and not snarky sarcasm directed at your paying customers

[St. Jimmy 272]

Interesting results but discussion about the topic. I don't see much. Only some guys bring up old things about utilization.

[antoineflemming 14]

Since it seems like this will be closed soon, I'll say this (Dwarden, please pass this up to DnA or whoever): Simply add a Performance section to the Known Issues page, and put "LOW CPU/GPU Utilization" or whatever you think the underlying issue is. We've seen you say that the devs are aware of it and are working on it. This is the biggest, and most long-lasting issue with your series, not just game. Players want to see that you not only recognize and are working on it (like you are working on everything else, like UI and such), but that this issue is a major issue in your eyes and that it's a priority for you. If you demonstrate that it's a priority (by putting it on the Known Issues page), then you will have more credibility with players. Because, the issue right now with you, and people still questioning you, is that they don't see you as credible, given that this is an issue that already existed in Arma2 and for which nothing was done.

[Dwarden 1124]

you guys have entered into new territory by letting people pay for early access. that's fine, but you can't sit back and appeal to how things are normally done, when you have made a decision to do things differently. I believe the saying is "you can't have your cake and eat it"

there was a time when being in business where you expect people to give you money involved some humility. and not snarky sarcasm directed at your paying customers

really nothing new, it was done before by many, let's name e.g. Mount & Blade (available since Alpha and cost increasing each milestone) or well known Minecraft and dozens others ...

it's nothing new, but obviously some people have problem with 'get game early for way lower price' ... :rolleyes:

[bangtail 0]

you guys have entered into new territory by letting people pay for early access. that's fine, but you can't sit back and appeal to how things are normally done, when you have made a decision to do things differently. I believe the saying is "you can't have your cake and eat it"

there was a time when being in business where you expect people to give you money involved some humility. and not snarky sarcasm directed at your paying customers

ROFLMFAO.

You didn't pay for early access - you paid for a game that isn't released yet.

As a perk of the pre-order, you got access to the Alpha and the Beta.

You should learn what both those terms mean in relation to game development.

In an industry where the usual preorder bonus is a free TF2 hat or some useless weapon, you are going to come on here and moan about a Dev that gives you a functional product, an Island bigger than all BF3's maps put together, an editor and almost daily updates (if you are on the Dev build)?

It's also interesting to see that most of these 'demands' are coming from people who have registered in the last few months (in some cases, days).

It's just never enough for some people :rolleyes:

PS: Yes, performance could be better but it has been steadily improving through the dev builds and we are probably at least 6 months from release so that is very encouraging.

I'm not here to say that there aren't issues (it is normal at this stage of development), but let's build on the positive, as opposed to tearing down one of the few dedicated PC developers that we have left.

Edited April 22, 2013 by BangTail

[MavericK96 0]

Since it seems like this will be closed soon, I'll say this (Dwarden, please pass this up to DnA or whoever): Simply add a Performance section to the Known Issues page, and put "LOW CPU/GPU Utilization" or whatever you think the underlying issue is. We've seen you say that the devs are aware of it and are working on it. This is the biggest, and most long-lasting issue with your series, not just game. Players want to see that you not only recognize and are working on it (like you are working on everything else, like UI and such), but that this issue is a major issue in your eyes and that it's a priority for you. If you demonstrate that it's a priority (by putting it on the Known Issues page), then you will have more credibility with players. Because, the issue right now with you, and people still questioning you, is that they don't see you as credible, given that this is an issue that already existed in Arma2 and for which nothing was done.

Agree wholeheartedly. I haven't seen a whole lot of long-time users here speak up about this issue because they don't want to be bunched in with the trolls, but that doesn't make it less of a serious issue that needs to be openly addressed.

I think all most of us want to know is that it will be addressed/fixed before Beta and Final. Personally I just want to avoid a situation where we get to Final and then we get the "we decided it was too hard/too much work to fix" thing that we got for OA. That would be utterly devastating to your community.

[Leon86 13]

ROFLMFAO.

You didn't pay for early access - you paid for a game that isn't released yet.

As a perk of the pre-order, you got access to the Alpha and the Beta.

+ a discount.

anyway, I expect performance will improve over time, probably not through better multithreading though.

anyone else done armamark on different cpu/ram speeds?

[Insanatrix 0]

Agree wholeheartedly. I haven't seen a whole lot of long-time users here speak up about this issue because they don't want to be bunched in with the trolls, but that doesn't make it less of a serious issue that needs to be openly addressed.

I think all most of us want to know is that it will be addressed/fixed before Beta and Final. Personally I just want to avoid a situation where we get to Final and then we get the "we decided it was too hard/too much work to fix" thing that we got for OA. That would be utterly devastating to your community.

And that's what I don't want to have happen and why I'm pushing for some clarification and direct responses. It boils down to needing to know if BI is going to fix this for ArmA 3 or let it continue on. I really don't care about being labelled a troll, being an influential member of an internet forum that's like a giant fanboy circle jerk has never much appealed to me.

I have respect for Dwarden, but it's plain and obvious that he doesn't want to give direct answers where direct answers are needed. That in itself tells me they don't intend to actively fix the problem, but rather do what they have done in the past and try to work around the problem. A little integrity and some honesty on the issue wouldn't hurt though.

[bangtail 0]

And that's what I don't want to have happen and why I'm pushing for some clarification and direct responses. It boils down to needing to know if BI is going to fix this for ArmA 3 or let it continue on. I really don't care about being labelled a troll, being an influential member of an internet forum that's like a giant fanboy circle jerk has never much appealed to me.

I have respect for Dwarden, but it's plain and obvious that he doesn't want to give direct answers where direct answers are needed. That in itself tells me they don't intend to actively fix the problem, but rather do what they have done in the past and try to work around the problem. A little integrity and some honesty on the issue wouldn't hurt though.

When you assume etc ;)

But seriously, do you really think they want to release something that doesn't work properly?

A3 already performs significantly better than A2 at this point.

[antoineflemming 14]

When you assume etc ;)

But seriously, do you really think they want to release something that doesn't work properly?

A3 already performs significantly better than A2 at this point.

And do you know for a fact that this is a universal case (performance being better than Arma 2), or are you only talking from your limited perspective? It's easy to dismiss others' problems simply because you have no problems.

[Insanatrix 0]

When you assume etc ;)

But seriously, do you really think they want to release something that doesn't work properly?

A3 already performs significantly better than A2 at this point.

Do I think they really want to? No. Do I think they would if they could? Yes. Most development companies would try to get away with whatever they can. Why waste resources fixing something if you have a hopped up idiotic fanbase that would buy just about anything if it was named ArmA or OFP and came from Bohemia Interactive. You already see users dismissing claims as though having 20 fps is just the norm for Arma because it's well.... ArmA, pretending there are no performance issue's. Massive confirmation bias and idiocy basically because they've been "branded" and lack any and all objectivity or integrity.

ArmA 3 performs a tad worse than ArmA 2 did. In some instances I would say it would be on par with ArmA 2, but generally it performs just a tad worse. Especially when you consider the hardware changes and differences between then and now.

[froggyluv 2130]

ArmA 3 performs a tad worse than ArmA 2 did. .

Ones an Alpha and one is a completed game some 3 years old ;)

Why waste resources fixing something if you have a hopped up idiotic fanbase that would buy just about anything if it was named ArmA or OFP and came from Bohemia Interactive

And what about those people who just honestly have no real performance issue - are they just mindless hopped up fanboys? Just because Alpha doesn't seemlessly scale multiple cores -much like the majority of PC games, doesn't mean it plays badly for all. Alpha's are not meant to register performance perfection as the game is not even feature locked yet -it's the final product where performance is judged. Yes of course, performance feedback is important but repeatedly stomping feet like little girl mad until you get your ice cream isn't helpful either. Man up and wait for the final game rather than screaming for "Dwarden! Dwarden!!" ad nauseum...

[bangtail 0]

And do you know for a fact that this is a universal case (performance being better than Arma 2), or are you only talking from your limited perspective? It's easy to dismiss others' problems simply because you have no problems.

I have a pretty wide experience of A2/A3 on many different systems so yah I am talking from a non limited perspective and I am not dismissing anyone's problems so please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Obviously, mileage may vary and I was not speaking for everyone, but for a game in the Alpha stage, it runs very well and seems to improve per dev updates.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:02 ----------

Do I think they really want to? No. Do I think they would if they could? Yes. Most development companies would try to get away with whatever they can. Why waste resources fixing something if you have a hopped up idiotic fanbase that would buy just about anything if it was named ArmA or OFP and came from Bohemia Interactive. You already see users dismissing claims as though having 20 fps is just the norm for Arma because it's well.... ArmA, pretending there are no performance issue's. Massive confirmation bias and idiocy basically because they've been "branded" and lack any and all objectivity or integrity.

ArmA 3 performs a tad worse than ArmA 2 did. In some instances I would say it would be on par with ArmA 2, but generally it performs just a tad worse. Especially when you consider the hardware changes and differences between then and now.

Again, you are making assumptions and are now resorting to berating people who don't happen to agree that there is some kind of conspiracy to release a less than functional game going on.

How you can cast those kinds of aspersions about a company that supports its products many years after launch is totally beyond me - I'm sure you don't hold other companies to the same ridiculous standards, as we all know how most other companies 'support' their products :confused:

There are performance issues but this game is nowhere near it's final build.

Edited April 22, 2013 by BangTail

[Insanatrix 0]

I have a pretty wide experience of A2/A3 on many different systems so yah I am talking from a non limited perspective and I am not dismissing anyone's problems so please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Obviously, mileage may vary and I was not speaking for everyone, but for a game in the Alpha stage, it runs very well and seems to improve per dev updates.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:02 ----------

Again, you are making major assumptions and are now resorting to berating people who don't happen to agree that there is some kind of conspiracy to release a less than functional game going on.

How you can cast those kinds of aspersions about a company that supports its products many years after launch is totally beyond me - I'm sure you don't hold other companies to the same ridiculous standards, as we all know how most other companies 'support' their products :confused:

There are performance issues but this game is nowhere near it's final build.

You asked me what I thought and I told you what I thought. I'm not berating anyone, I'm simply being truthful and blunt.

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

Ones an Alpha and one is a completed game some 3 years old ;)

And what about those people who just honestly have no real performance issue - are they just mindless hopped up fanboys? Just because Alpha doesn't seemlessly scale multiple cores -much like the majority of PC games, doesn't mean it plays badly for all. Alpha's are not meant to register performance perfection as the game is not even feature locked yet -it's the final product where performance is judged. Yes of course, performance feedback is important but repeatedly stomping feet like little girl mad until you get your ice cream isn't helpful either. Man up and wait for the final game rather than screaming for "Dwarden! Dwarden!!" ad nauseum...

Yeah, the time to report problems isn't now but when the game is fully released and feature locked.... If there's a problem with hardware utilization which is the focus of this thread, I think now is the time to report it. Good try though, 2/10. Maybe next time.

[bangtail 0]

You asked me what I thought and I told you what I thought. I'm not berating anyone, I'm simply being truthful and blunt.

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

Yeah, the time to report problems isn't now but when the game is fully released and feature locked.... If there's a problem with hardware utilization which is the focus of this thread, I think now is the time to report it. Good try though, 2/10. Maybe next time.

It's one thing to voice a concern but you are simply making assumptions/casting aspersions with no basis in fact.

I think BIS are probably aware that the game still needs work - maybe that's why it was postponed for over a year.

Edited April 22, 2013 by BangTail

[ric 1]

well the truth is that we will see....BIS can not! release the game in Q3 in the performance state it is in right now. If the problem(s) is fixable then they will, if it is the same issue from A2..... :(

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:06 ----------

You're exactly the kind of player we don't need here tbh.

It's one thing to voice a concern but you are simply making assumptions/casting aspersions with no basis in fact.

I think BIS are probably aware that the game still needs work - maybe that's why it was postponed for over a year.

Just being truthful and blunt is all ;)

just for the sake of argument you are aware this is not a new issue right? people would understand a true Alpha realted issue ...but this goes back to 2009?

[Insanatrix 0]

well the truth is that we will see....BIS can not! release the game in Q3 in the performance state it is in right now. If the problem(s) is fixable then they will, if it is the same issue from A2..... :(

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:06 ----------

just for the sake of argument you are aware this is not a new issue right? people would understand a true Alpha realted issue ...but this goes back to 2009?

This problem goes back to 2006-2007.

[bangtail 0]

well the truth is that we will see....BIS can not! release the game in Q3 in the performance state it is in right now. If the problem(s) is fixable then they will, if it is the same issue from A2..... :(

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:06 ----------

just for the sake of argument you are aware this is not a new issue right? people would understand a true Alpha realted issue ...but this goes back to 2009?

I've been playing these games since OFP released so I am well aware of the teething problems that every iteration has.

I suspect you are not.

A game this complex that offers a unique sandbox has to overcome technical limitations that your average corridor shooter does not and when you have developed an engine that can do everything Real Virtuality 4 can while pinning 120FPS, feel free to let us know.

No dev has managed a game on this scale since OFP was released almost 13 years ago.

Yes, there are problems for the umpteenth time but some people are more interested in 'I want, I want' than actually bothering to try and understand how difficult this series of games is to make or why these technical limitations exist.

Edited April 23, 2013 by BangTail

[antoineflemming 14]

It's one thing to voice a concern but you are simply making assumptions/casting aspersions with no basis in fact.

I think BIS are probably aware that the game still needs work - maybe that's why it was postponed for over a year.

It was postponed for over a year because the dev team got behind, not because they were fixing issues that existed for a while. A lot of that was the failed implementation of proposed new features. That's pretty much what was said.

---------- Post added at 20:27 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

I have a pretty wide experience of A2/A3 on many different systems so yah I am talking from a non limited perspective and I am not dismissing anyone's problems so please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Obviously, mileage may vary and I was not speaking for everyone, but for a game in the Alpha stage, it runs very well and seems to improve per dev updates.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:02 ----------

Again, you are making assumptions and are now resorting to berating people who don't happen to agree that there is some kind of conspiracy to release a less than functional game going on.

How you can cast those kinds of aspersions about a company that supports its products many years after launch is totally beyond me - I'm sure you don't hold other companies to the same ridiculous standards, as we all know how most other companies 'support' their products :confused:

There are performance issues but this game is nowhere near it's final build.

I certainly admit that, for my system, the game runs very well for an Alpha version. But it does certainly have issues, and everything points to the utilization of the CPU as the problem. Certainly, those with issues shouldn't expect a next-day fix, but it's not wrong to want merely an official acknowledgement that there's a problem with this. And Dwarden making a post is not "official". I understand that this isn't the final build, but I'm tired of developers who want to push off major issues to the final build. I just want to know that they are working on this issue now - not have finished and fixed the issue now, but simply are aware and are actively working on the issue now. To me, this issue being put on the known issues page is official acknowledgement. It's confirmation with the community that they are aware of the issue and are working on it. That's not something that needs to be put off until the final build. Nor is it something that is hindered by new features.

[tvig0r0us 27]

Man, this thread is a downright depressing thread to read. Thus far the alpha, with few enough ai is just this side of the playable line. I'm trying to stay positive by maintaining the notion that there are some optimizations in the future that will make it run better, and I've already seen some. I have to admit though, reading through this conversation has made my hope dwindle a bit. I honestly thought a 965 black @ 4ghz with a radeon 6950 would be more than enough to run this game pretty smoothly, since it runs every other game I've ever tried maxed out. Now all the sudden I'm starting to worry. I hope there's some light at the end of this tunnel, because the way it's shaping up it's going to cost $500 + just to get my rig up to snuff to really be able to play this. What a bummer :(

Call it whining or whatever you want, I just want to be able to enjoy this awesome game without cleaning out my bank account.

[bangtail 0]

It was postponed for over a year because the dev team got behind, not because they were fixing issues that existed for a while. A lot of that was the failed implementation of proposed new features. That's pretty much what was said.

---------- Post added at 20:27 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

I certainly admit that, for my system, the game runs very well for an Alpha version. But it does certainly have issues, and everything points to the utilization of the CPU as the problem. Certainly, those with issues shouldn't expect a next-day fix, but it's not wrong to want merely an official acknowledgement that there's a problem with this. And Dwarden making a post is not "official". I understand that this isn't the final build, but I'm tired of developers who want to push off major issues to the final build. I just want to know that they are working on this issue now - not have finished and fixed the issue now, but simply are aware and are actively working on the issue now. To me, this issue being put on the known issues page is official acknowledgement. It's confirmation with the community that they are aware of the issue and are working on it. That's not something that needs to be put off until the final build. Nor is it something that is hindered by new features.

Like I said, A3 is a complex beast (as is the series).

In response to your request for official acknowledgement, I'm not against it, but it sort of smacks of 'the developers must do what I say' (I realise this may not be your intention, intonation and the internet etc ;) ), and at the end of the day, if you are not happy with the direction the game is taking, my advice would be not to buy it and if you have, Steam gives a one time refund to all customers (You can always pick it up again when it releases, if it is in a state that is acceptable to you).

I don't mean to sound harsh, as you sound polite enough, but at the end of the day, it runs fine for some and not so well for others, so it isn't a BIS conspiracy to purposefully release a terrible experience across the board.

We can agree that optimization must take place before the release but at the same time, this isn't a console port, and many people here weren't around before consoles were the flagship platform, a time when most PC games pushed the limits of PC hardware, not just a select few.

I'm not making excuses, but as I said before, this whole series is very ambitious and allows for an experience that cannot be found in any other game or on any other platform.

Cheers :)

Edited April 23, 2013 by BangTail

[antoineflemming 14]

What? All anyone wants is for BIS to openly acknowledge an issue that's been existing for the past few games. That's not "BIS should do what I want now", nor is it a disagreement with the direction of the game. What it sounds like you are saying is that BIS shouldn't view this as a major issue because there are some people who have no problems with the game, as in they should ignore everyone who has issues. And it sounds like a very elitist attitude. I'm saying that BIS shouldn't ignore those who are having problems with this game and should acknowledge longstanding problems with the series. Who cares if A3 is a complex beast. BIS should acknowledge the performance issues just like they acknowledge animation issues, or issues with fish being on land, or issues with shadows. And how dare you suggest that someone ask for a refund just because they have an issue with the game. I certainly hope that the BIS dev team doesn't have the same attitude towards everyone else who notes a bug, glitch, or other issue with the game. THAT is a slap in the face to customers who contributed to the success of the series (and that contribution is measured in the money people pay for games in this series).

No one is saying that BIS is intentionally making the game perform poorly, but what we don't know or want is for BIS to ignore the issue. It is SIMPLE to view and list this performance issue (poor CPU/GPU utilization) as a known issue. SIMPLE. To want BIS to do this isn't a slap in their face or a demand for them to "do what we want now", as in to "fix the issue now". It's a request for them to put this on the known issues list. It is the most voted for issue on the feedback tracker. Why the hell shouldn't they put it on that list? What's the point of the feedback tracker if BIS wont look at it and respect it? I've been polite, yes, but what pisses me and others off is attitudes like what you have displayed, this "I run the game fine, so you who have issues should just suck it up or get a refund and find another game" attitude. And yes, it's frustrating and disgusting to see devs seemingly display the same attitude. And if I or others find issue with that attitude, it doesn't make us whiners, complainers, or ungrateful players. It makes us customers who are being looked down upon and slighted, even though we've paid the same amount of money as those of you who apparently have no problem at all with the game.

And for your information, I was one of those gamers who was playing tactical shooters and simulators befoe consoles were big. And, most of those games focused on gameplay and playability. Graphics came second for those games. Cool features came second in those games. Those games (do I really need to list them?) Developers made sure their games were playable. Those developers acknowledged and fixed issues with games. Now, sure, they weren't as expansive as OFP/Arma. They certainly didn't have as complex AI or as large a terrain. But at least developers in the past acknowledged and fixed the issues with their games. I simply want acknowledgement that performance problems are seen as a major issue by BIS, reinforced by the number of votes on the feedback tracker, and confirmed by BIS by being added to the Known Issues page. If ultimately BIS can't fix the issue or significantly improve it, then oh well. But at least it's there, documented as being an issue with this game, publicly acknowledged like every other issue, and being something that they at least attempted to fix. Back in 2011 I believe (maybe 2012), BIS said they wanted the game to run on as many systems as possible. Well, I'd like for them to still have that goal. First and foremost, that's making sure the game performs well or as well as possible on as many different ranges of hardware as possible. That includes making sure the game sufficiently uses the hardware to its potential. Will the game run perfectly on every system? No. But at least that can be an aim and goal.

Edited April 23, 2013 by antoineflemming

[bangtail 0]

What? All anyone wants is for BIS to openly acknowledge an issue that's been existing for the past few games. That's not "BIS should do what I want now", nor is it a disagreement with the direction of the game. What it sounds like you are saying is that BIS shouldn't view this as a major issue because there are some people who have no problems with the game, as in they should ignore everyone who has issues. And it sounds like a very elitist attitude. I'm saying that BIS shouldn't ignore those who are having problems with this game and should acknowledge longstanding problems with the series. Who cares if A3 is a complex beast. BIS should acknowledge the performance issues just like they acknowledge animation issues, or issues with fish being on land, or issues with shadows. And how dare you suggest that someone ask for a refund just because they have an issue with the game. I certainly hope that the BIS dev team doesn't have the same attitude towards everyone else who notes a bug, glitch, or other issue with the game. THAT is a slap in the face to customers who contributed to the success of the series (and that contribution is measured in the money people pay for games in this series).

No one is saying that BIS is intentionally making the game perform poorly, but what we don't know or want is for BIS to ignore the issue. It is SIMPLE to view and list this performance issue (poor CPU/GPU utilization) as a known issue. SIMPLE. To want BIS to do this isn't a slap in their face or a demand for them to "do what we want now", as in to "fix the issue now". It's a request for them to put this on the known issues list. It is the most voted for issue on the feedback tracker. Why the hell shouldn't they put it on that list? What's the point of the feedback tracker if BIS wont look at it and respect it? I've been polite, yes, but what pisses me and others off is attitudes like what you have displayed, this "I run the game fine, so you who have issues should just suck it up or get a refund and find another game" attitude. And yes, it's frustrating and disgusting to see devs seemingly display the same attitude. And if I or others find issue with that attitude, it doesn't make us whiners, complainers, or ungrateful players. It makes us customers who are being looked down upon and slighted, even though we've paid the same amount of money as those of you who apparently have no problem at all with the game.

And for your information, I was one of those gamers who was playing tactical shooters and simulators befoe consoles were big. And, most of those games focused on gameplay and playability. Graphics came second for those games. Cool features came second in those games. Those games (do I really need to list them?) Developers made sure their games were playable. Those developers acknowledged and fixed issues with games. Now, sure, they weren't as expansive as OFP/Arma. They certainly didn't have as complex AI or as large a terrain. But at least developers in the past acknowledged and fixed the issues with their games. I simply want acknowledgement that performance problems are seen as a major issue by BIS, reinforced by the number of votes on the feedback tracker, and confirmed by BIS by being added to the Known Issues page. If ultimately BIS can't fix the issue or significantly improve it, then oh well. But at least it's there, documented as being an issue with this game, publicly acknowledged like every other issue, and being something that they at least attempted to fix. Back in 2011 I believe (maybe 2012), BIS said they wanted the game to run on as many systems as possible. Well, I'd like for them to still have that goal. First and foremost, that's making sure the game performs well or as well as possible on as many different ranges of hardware as possible. That includes making sure the game sufficiently uses the hardware to its potential. Will the game run perfectly on every system? No. But at least that can be an aim and goal.

I agreed about them acknowledging it - I was simply pointing out that if things aren't as you expect them to be you should vote with your wallet!

What annoys me is this righteous indignation - the claims that you have been 'slighted' and are 'looked down upon'.

Of course you deserve value for your money, when did I ever dispute that?

As I said, intonation is difficult on the Interweb and you have taken my post largely out of context.

I don't think they are ignoring performance - as we have established - it works well for some and not for others, so it is not a universal problem, if both sides are to be believed.

And 'how dare I', seriously guy, this is a $50.00 video game we're talking about, let's keep things in context, it's not as if BIS stole your firstborn.

PS: Tx for the paragraphs :)

Edited April 23, 2013 by BangTail

[dnk 13]

^^^

he was running at the same timings, but he did a final run with 1333 tighter timings.

Interesting, because it might just be about latency then, not bandwidth.

The 9/1600 has a 7% increase in latency versus the 7/1333 and a 20% higher bandwidth, yet the two have statistically equal performance. If bandwidth was the primary issue, the 1333 should still be considerably lower in performance regardless of timings, yet it's basically the same. Clearly the bandwidth has some importance, as the faster 7/1333 is not actually a better performer, but it's clearly less important than overall latency right now. That's for the CPU, though, which likely is reading lots of small packets of information to run the simulation. I'd be interested in seeing how this might change to a bandwidth issue when it comes to the GPU, which has to stream lots of larger texture files.

[Insanatrix 0]

Interesting, because it might just be about latency then, not bandwidth.

The 9/1600 has a 7% increase in latency versus the 7/1333 and a 20% higher bandwidth, yet the two have statistically equal performance. If bandwidth was the primary issue, the 1333 should still be considerably lower in performance regardless of timings, yet it's basically the same. Clearly the bandwidth has some importance, as the faster 7/1333 is not actually a better performer, but it's clearly less important than overall latency right now. That's for the CPU, though, which likely is reading lots of small packets of information to run the simulation. I'd be interested in seeing how this might change to a bandwidth issue when it comes to the GPU, which has to stream lots of larger texture files.

I've always said it's more an issue of latency than bandwidth, hence why disk streaming is sub-optimal.