Jan. 12, 2021 - PC Update (Performance)

[PSNews]

All PC servers will come down for maintenance tomorrow, Tuesday, January 12, 2021, at 6am PST (3pm CET). Downtime is expected to last up to 2 hours.

---

Tomorrow's update introduces potential performance improvements released on PTS last week. These code changes apply better multi-thread support when new trackable objects (like players, NPCs, or projectiles) are introduced within your proximity range. The impact for the player should result in less "server lag" in large-scale battles. We'll be monitoring live servers closely after the patch, so please let us know if you run into any issues (we'll leave this thread open for comments/feedback).

Source: Game Update Notes

[ArcticWinter]

So no more input lag?

[LeadedKarma]

WOW

[Wolkenwand]

This could be a huge one.

[KnowUnknown]

I have high hopes for this one

[MrFFF]

Did anyone hear from some ppl in the community that wen on the PTS any assessment if the patch actually had promising effects?

[Fallengud]

The PTS lacks proper pop anyway, so dont think that it would be even noticable there

[MrFFF]

Im aware of it but the more tech savy ppl might have had a good time testing stuff out

[TowerC]

Incredible good timing.

For a long time, I claimed that the CPU-bound restriction messages being rubbish and that the game is not utilizing more than one to two cores, the rest doing almost nothing. Hence, upgrading a CPU almost meant nothing, despite the message. 

So, a few days back, for the topic of my stream, I set up two systems, with the identical ram, GPU and game settings. Then I created two accounts and set up two chars, which would be at the exact same exact locations and with even the same view. Everything was identical, with special monitoring tools installed with realtime OTDs, except the CPUs. So, I could isolate and test the CPU impact.

One CPU was the newest 16 core Ryzen 9 5950x, the fastest CPU on the market and one a 6 core Intel i7 8700K at same frequencies, with another weaker i7 4 core system as an extra.

Results were 100% clear, which even surprised me. All big battle scenes had identical results, ranging from 60 to 200 FPS, with an average of 120 FPS, but with less than 5 to 10 FPS between the two systems, trading blows.

The test also proved that Core 1 is always 100% utilized and another one much less, while the next 2 cores barely lighting up and the rest doing nothing at all. In such a scenario, frequencies mattered more.

Intel users with 4+  cores should actually disable multithreading in bios to boost performance in an astonishing manner. My i7 8700K jumped 50 - 100 FPS as a result in smaller fights, breaking the 250 FPS barrier. 

So, I am interested in the changes to the code and I will revisit the test once more, to see the improvements. Check out the stream for the announcements. https://www.twitch.tv/towerc

Fe4r the Re4pers! 
     

[Leonpg]

Interesting test   
When using the Ryzen have you tried using the Game Mode in the Ryzen Drive Software? It should disable half the cores to perform better in games that utilize less cores. I guess this won't make a difference because you pointed it out it only uses 2-3 cores.

Is it really worth it to disable multi core just to get more fps? In the end your overall multitasking performance while working  will suffer immensely from the disabled cores.

[TowerC]

Interesting test   
When using the Ryzen have you tried using the Game Mode in the Ryzen Drive Software? It should disable half the cores to perform better in games that utilize less cores. I guess this won't make a difference because you pointed it out it only uses 2-3 cores.

Is it really worth it to disable multi core just to get more fps? In the end your overall multitasking performance while working  will suffer immensely from the disabled cores.

Personally, I find "Game Mode" to be useless, at least for all the games I play and tested. The gains in clock speed are so minimal, in comparison to the extra "umpf" of double the cores, especially if the system has good cooling. Subjectively, most games seem to run somehow smoother with all cores on and most productivity programs benefit from the extra cores, very general speaking, of course.

I cannot see a reason why I would go the route of game mode, ever. I say this after testing it on my new system for only a month now. Also, switching profiles requires a full system reboot, which is annoying and can result in a system freezing. Hence, buying a higher (over-)clocked CPU variant, with half the core (8 cores, 16 threads) and putting a lot of saved money into a much faster GPU makes much more sense, for gaming.

But, I digress … also, I am rather disappointed by "Precision Boost". It does bump up the clocks an extraordinarily little, but it also ads a ton of voltage and temps as a result. The performance gains are very minor and situational. In most use-cases, I get diminished performance after a short while of continuous use, due to the stress on the CPU, once the temps normalize. Sure, a short benchmark might show some small benefits, but what is the benefit of that?

“Manual overclock” is totally useless, at least for my 5950X, as this AMD CPU has little headroom, with 16 cores. The CPU gets so hot at all core manual overclocks, that cooling it is impossible with a big 360 AIO. It cannot handle the temps. AMD chips should not approach 90C, quite different from Intel. Also, performance is degrading too much in real world application.

It depends on how much you stress the CPU continuously. For gaming, I prefer continuous and reliable performance, to avoid sudden big drops in FPS. So, I keep automatic overclocking off and have 100 Mhz less, but enjoy a faster, cooler and more silent system, instead. 

AMD has a vastly different overclocking philosophy than Intel. Intel is straight forward and extremely beneficial. Bumping up the "numbers" on AMD mostly results in diminished real-world performance. AMD is giving the best out of the box experience. This is good for consumers.

However, AMD does so by playing it safe with the voltages. Default voltages, especially when using Precision Boost are EXTREMELY high! Voltages can and should be lowered manually. The CPU will run much faster as a result, as it turbo boosts.

I can overclock my i7 8700K Intel CPU 1500 Mhz over boost clock and 600 Mhz over max Boost clocks, on all cores, and not reach 65C at any time, with linear gains in performance. AMD does not work like that. In PS2, turning off multithreading did give additional performance. I have yet to test the new update, to see id this remains true.

I was testing core-utilization a bit tonight and might see some improvements, as up to 4 cores were are light up, but this is a subjective observation and not held by any data, yet. Nothing mayor changed for me, however. 

So, it is quite a change, switching from Intel to AMD after some generations of CPUs. Personally, I prefer Intel for the better performance in gaming and for the amazing overclocking. But I love AMD for the productivity aspect.   

[LeadedKarma]

this test answers some question i am having since a very long time and i could never find clear and understandable answers for

awesome work tower, thank you very much !

i think you should publish this. im sure a lot of ppl will be interested and benefit from what you did