Vinceant wrote:As for my internet... well, wouldn't a tracert be more revealing than a ping? Also, one of my friends and fellow tech dudes has a similar connection to me. He's the one with the 780. He can run the game better than I can.
Vinceant wrote:Also while trying to push the bus, I noticed that with shadows on ultra, I can spike the bus load to 14%, but that's the highest I managed to get it. Would dropping to PCIe gen 2 on the firmware of the mobo break anything? I could probably see how bad the issue got if it was indeed a bus throughput issue.
Vinceant wrote:I suppose I'll test Planetside 2 here in a bit. These are some great suggestions thus far.
I'd think if WDDM was cutting DX9 performance potentially in half it would be a much wider reported issue, though.
synthel2's thoughts sound like a good track to go down. Any ideas on how one would go about testing or monitoring the PCIe bandwidth? I've never heard of such a thing personally. I know GPU-Z definitely reports gen 3 at 16x, but that's not exactly testing it. Any ideas why GW2 alone would suffer so badly?
I'll see if I can carefully study thread distribution more, maybe that'll give a clue. I want to say that it seemed to be evenly distributed before, but I didn't look TOO carefully at it. Windows does switch threads a lot from what I understand so this may not be easy.
Edit= So as a quick aside, I did some benchmarks in passmark just now. The DX9 test and the memory and processor tests seem to fall in line with similar hardware other users have benchmarked with the software.
credible wrote:A fresh win 10 install still needs close to 100mb of directx 9 files.
JustAnEngineer wrote:I have noticed that fires (and the flickering light and shadows that they cast) tend to drag down my fps significantly. I wonder if there are technical as well as artistic reasons that they changed the way that fires are rendered in the new Path of Fire expansion?
Other than that, the typical developer's answer to software coding issues these days is to throw hardware at the problem. Put a Core i7-8700K on your Christmas wishlist.
Vinceant wrote:Ok, so I have a weird problem and I thought maybe a bunch of tech guys might be able to help me here...
Since the announcement of the new Guild Wars 2 expansion I've been trying to get back into the game. I haven't played in a few years and not since upgrading my hardware significantly and the release of the 64 bit client. Upon my return I was rather disappointed with the performance. Regardless of settings sometimes I don't get more than 30-40 FPS. I have an i7-3770K running at 4.4, and a 980 with 16 gigs of RAM. At first I just assumed the engine was ****, but talking to people with slightly lesser hardware has revealed that no, it's supposed to run at 60 or higher at any decent hardware specc. The question now is, why can't I?
Vinceant wrote:All good thoughts, but alas, they've been done. No, even at low and subsample it does not run at 100+. All the more indication that something is wrong. But with all the tests and ideas that have been thought out and tried in this thread I can't come to a conclusion except that the game is broken in some way that I cannot fix.
I believe you though. My hardware SHOULD run this game amazingly. It just doesn't. At this point I cannot but conclude that this is no fault of my hardware or me.
Vinceant wrote:I've been eyeing the latest processor releases carefully. Threadripper is pretty awesome, but I have almost nothing that would push that very hard. I was thinking about the 1800X and came to the conclusion that covfefe lakes release will make it obvious which top end proc to buy in that range. Either the 1800x or the 8700k. If the 8700k is around the same price, I'll sacrifice 2 cores for the raw per core performance lead that Intel has enjoyed.
Vinceant wrote:In slightly better news I did manage to improve the performance in GW2 decently. In all this faffing about with hardware settings I found that Gigabyte has an OC tool. When I used that I found that my "factory OC" wasn't on this whole time owning the card. lol Thanks Gigabyte. Anyway, boosting the clocks by about 25-30 MHz and putting shadows on high improved performance significantly. Verdant Brink actually runs at 60 FPS in some places. I still get dips quite often to 30, but it's still an improvement.
Putting shadows on Ultra automatically makes the FPS go to 40 or less no matter the view or resolution though. Basically nothing else in the graphics settings seems to have much effect on performance other than shadows at this point.
Vinceant wrote:AMD doesn't have feature parity with Nvidia enough for me to even consider them. The only thing AMD has that Nvidia doesn't is Freesync, which IS nice, but not nice enough for me to drop the rest of the niceties of green team.