Poor Performance on AMD/ATI systems
#21
Posted December 19 2012 - 05:50 AM
My specs are listed below, so I'll be able to chime in my results based on this fairly recent hardware. I played the game roughly 20 minutes at my friend's house last night, and he's running a Phenom II quad core at stock clocks paired with a GTX 560 Ti, and gameplay/menu navigation seemed pretty smooth, but it did seem like his settings were turned down a bit. He did mention "I don't think my system is powerful enough."
My specs:
Core i5 3570K @4.5ghz
2x4gb Samsung 30nm RAM @1866mhz 9-9-9-24 1.4v
EVGA GTX 660 Ti 3gb Superclocked
Auria 27" IPS @2560x1440
I'll probably leave anti-aliasing off for this game, as at these resolutions, it's not needed. But if necessary, I will enable it for the sake of testing.
#22
Posted December 19 2012 - 06:04 AM
#23
Posted December 19 2012 - 09:44 AM
My specs are as follows:
Processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1090t 3.2Ghz
RAM: 8GB 1600 DDR3
GFX: MSI HD 6950 1GB, factory overclocked
OS: Win 7 latest update
Like I said, I'll do some actual framerate tests when I get home, but I see no reason I shouldn't be able to run this game at Ultra. The only thing I can guess is that my processor is holding me back. As has been said in another thread, AMD chips are designed with multi-core use in mind, which isn't necessarily helpful with most games.
#24
Posted December 19 2012 - 09:48 AM
I did have the game crash a few times when trying to join a match.
My specs:
Core i5 3570K @4.5ghz
2x4gb Samsung 30nm RAM @1866mhz 9-9-9-24 1.4v
EVGA GTX 660 Ti 3gb Superclocked
Auria 27" IPS @2560x1440
#25
Posted December 19 2012 - 09:57 AM
JohnnyGrey, on December 19 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:
I did have the game crash a few times when trying to join a match.
My specs:
Core i5 3570K @4.5ghz
2x4gb Samsung 30nm RAM @1866mhz 9-9-9-24 1.4v
EVGA GTX 660 Ti 3gb Superclocked
Auria 27" IPS @2560x1440
your chiming in here is pointless since you're using an nviidia GPU, while this thread is about issues with AMD GPU's.
#26
Posted December 19 2012 - 10:12 AM
TerranCmdr, on December 19 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:
My specs are as follows:
Processor: AMD Phenom II X6 1090t 3.2Ghz
RAM: 8GB 1600 DDR3
GFX: MSI HD 6950 1GB, factory overclocked
OS: Win 7 latest update
Like I said, I'll do some actual framerate tests when I get home, but I see no reason I shouldn't be able to run this game at Ultra. The only thing I can guess is that my processor is holding me back. As has been said in another thread, AMD chips are designed with multi-core use in mind, which isn't necessarily helpful with most games.
As my tests on the end of the first page have proven, it's not the CPU...in fact, most of the time the CPU is executing things in enough time to allow for 100-200fps or more on my machine. The issue is the game takes too long to draw a frame on AMD GPU's; longer than it should. for example, if it takes 50ms to draw a frame, and there's 1000ms in a second, that means you can only draw 20 frames in that second.
As I have clearly shown in my tests, the CPU and GPU can both be under the same load.....and deliver a different frame rate, while neither the CPU/GPU are maxed out at all. This is a clear sign of an issue not from inadequate hardware, but rather a problem with the game code itself. In fact, it's 2 problems. bad performance and not enough utilization of resources.
#27
Posted December 19 2012 - 10:16 AM
#29
Posted December 19 2012 - 08:10 PM
#31
Posted February 25 2013 - 11:28 PM
#33
Posted February 26 2013 - 04:02 AM
Let’s face facts: AMD are pretty crappy when it comes to offering technical expertise to developers so expecting a small indie dev to brute force ATi cards into performing well isn’t realistic. There is a good reason why everything AMD is on the decline – which is not something that anyone should feel smug about because a market without strong competition doesn’t benefit the consumer, i.e., everyone ends up paying more for less.
#35
Posted February 26 2013 - 09:08 AM
So where does this leave AMD_ Well Nvidia doesn't block AMD from helping out. But since Meteor is getting paid by Nvidia, it will be like 1 dev working on AMD related optimizations while at least 4 devs are working on nVidia optimizations. Perhaps when they get a lighter workload they will put more resources towards AMD graphics. Until then AMD graphic users will have to wait longer
On the flip end of things, AMD could technically make their graphic cards more compatible with Nvidia-style instructions. And to top it all off, I think AMD is waiting for this game to be out of beta before properly committing towards in-house optimizations for the game. So all this could take a while.
Me Built PC | Win 8 Pro | AMD Phenom II X4 B60 | Nvidia Geforce GTX 460 (314.22) | 8GB DDR3
DESKTOP CLEAN Nvidia Driver Install | LAPTOP CLEAN Nvidia Driver Install | PhysX Helpful Info
#36
Posted May 21 2013 - 12:14 AM
So, I started playing Hawken shortly after it went open beta. I really enjoy the gameplay and started spending some money on it. I was playing on a 5870, and performance was choppy at best. Feeling the pinch in other games as well, I upgraded to a 7870. I can now play every game I own on near-max settings with silky smooth frame rate.
Apart from Hawken.
I realise they're part of the Nvidia program, but this has to be the first Nvidia optimized game I've come across that runs so badly on AMD hardware. If there had been some kind of acknowledgment / sticky alerting me to this, I may well have swayed towards an Nvidia card, but there's nothing. No stickys, no official word (that I can find), nothing.
I don't consider myself an AMD fanboy (and I've bemoaned the lack of response from AMD on this issue on their forums), but this lack of communication is only going to hurt Meteor in the long run; a large portion of their target audience is using AMD hardware, after all.
#37
Posted May 28 2013 - 10:06 PM
While I admit I do like nVidia (the AMD 4770 was a steal at the price I got it), I don't like the idea of having to shell out for a new card when I already have hardware that absolutely *should* be able to run this game on High if not Ultra (sans PhysX, obviously).
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users