Games not being optimized or...

[Cybertox]

Hello guys.

I have completely switched to PC gaming only and I must say that my transitioning experience was awful and still kind of is. I dont even understand whether the problems are on my end or developers dont optimize games at all, meaning that some games cant be run at expected performance due to lack of optimization on any type of hardware.

First I would like to say that pretty much all the new games are not optimized and run like crap even on good hardware. Multicore processors are out for about 4 years already but still most games ( 95% ) of the games run at one core or on two. Lets make an example with SC2 HOTS. This games was released in 2013 and uses only 2 cores which is something pathetic. Games have to finally run on those 4 or more cores because otherwise performance will still suck and graphics processing will till be slow and ugly.

Secound. I am tired of playing 32 bit games on my 64 bit operating system. I dont care about the other people majority who still uses 32 bit systems and run games on their integrated gpus and with 2gbs of ram. Most of the games run like shit because they dont offer 64 bit. Developers dont realize how much 64 bit users suffer from such games. Its 2013 damn, its time to transition or at least offer 64 bit versions. I have 16 Gbs of ram and i can tell you that 60 % of my whole amount of ram isnt even being used. Games use barely 4 - rarely 6 gbs of ram while the other remaining amount just sits there empty. Whats the point of even having o much ram if you dont even benefit from it, looks like i got it only because i was able to afford it.

Third point of my complaints. GPU usage increases graphics look the same. No really if you compare 2008 games graphics to 2011-12 there is absolutely not difference, the only thing that changed is that games require more powerful gpus but the graphics look the same. There is a big exception which is Crysis 3, that game really shows next gen graphics and advances to a whole new level of graphics but look at games like StarCraft 2 and Arma 3. They look like a game from 2007 and run like pure crap. I know arma is in alpha but i am 100% sure there will be no performance improvements made.

I am sorry maybe I complain too much but believe me I have my reasons. I would be glad to discuss this topic with you and learn more about the process of optimization.

I also have a question concerning resolutions. From my experience high resolutions require extremely powerful gpus or even multiple gpus to run games decently enough. I have a resolution of 2560x1440 and damn does it requires a lot of power. Looks like high resolutions are only for those with extremely powerful gpus.
So my questions is, do high resolutions require an immense amount of gpu power or is it just in my case?

 

[Traciatim]

We are not even speaking about AIs we are speaking about optimization. People with good hardware look at their cpu usage which is at 15% while their games runs at a frame rate of 20, thats what people with good hardware are seeing in most games, of course there are exceptions and I dont blame those who optimize their games properly. If developers want to make better graphical details they should at least optimize the game so that every part of the hardware is running at its maximum possible efficiency. It has nothing to do with AIs and their difficulty behavior.

So you don't want the game play to change based on machine, you don't want the AI to change based on the machine, and you don't want the graphics to change based on the machien... but you want it to scale perfectly with hardware . . . Hmmm, have you tried pixie dust?

 

[USAFRet]

The basic problem is...
You are buying too much hardware for current software. Why? Someone convinced you that you need the newest, fastest stuff out there.

Software devs need to build to the bell curve. Outliers on either end, in terms of hardware, do not count. Taking the tie to build in basically a whole other version for the cutting edge specs of today takes time. Time costs money.

 

[Stringjam]

First of all, I think this is a good topic for discussion, but there's no need for the animosity. A little chill goes a long way!

I understand what Cybertox is saying. We load up a game and watch our resource usage (if we care) and some games run at very low framerates while not pushing the hardware, so we think "Why is this game running so poorly while my hardware isn't being pushed? What specifically is bottlenecking?"

For example, when CryEngine2 came out, it was optimized for 2 cores. Since A.I. processing is largely CPU driven, when too many AI would come on screen, we would see severe performance problems as the CPU got slammed, but even if we had a quad core proc, it didn't matter - - CE2 was only going to use two of those cores.

Fast forward to CryEngine3, now specifically optimized to utilize 8+ cores, and the AI issue no longer brings the FPS to a crashing halt. This would be an example of hardware specific optimization.

I also believe I understand what Traciatim is saying about parallelism. It is an extremely complex issue and I doubt anyone short of a real game engine architect could actually explain the problems well enough. It was like I said earlier, parallel processing is an incredibly difficult task to accomplish. It would seem in games that there is simply so much data processing that depends on the results of other calculations, which is why fewer cores running faster performs better than more cores being unused.

It would be nice if game rendering lended itself to being broken up in nice chunks to send to various cores, but it just doesn't work out that nicely.

I think the real headway will come with the introduction of the new consoles. The lowest denominator is going to move up significantly, and engine makers will likely be able to focus more time and resources into parallel processing techniques.

 

[Cybertox]

The basic problem is...
You are buying too much hardware for current software. Why? Someone convinced you that you need the newest, fastest stuff out there.

Software devs need to build to the bell curve. Outliers on either end, in terms of hardware, do not count. Taking the tie to build in basically a whole other version for the cutting edge specs of today takes time. Time costs money.

Hahahahaha what? Are you kidding me?

First of all there was no solution found so cancel that crap. Second why do games run like shit if my hardware is too much for current software? I tell you why, its optimization which we are currently discussing. You cant tell me my hardware is too up-to date compared to software, if that would be the case i would run all the latest games maxed at 2560x1440 with 120 fps, then i would say the software cant keep up with my hardware. But the performance are exactly the opposite. I will list the thing i want to be improved in optimization later on, dont have time to do that now.

 

[bruniss]

What I mean about optimization isnt the ability to change graphic settings, those are just available options. What I mean by optimization is the engineering of the game and its engine to maximize its performance on certain hardware individually

Yeah, of course, they all just make their game engine and say "Good, we're done, no need to tune performance ever again". I think you need to make this awesome game that scales perfectly on everyone's hardware and threads, but still plays the same on every persons hardware.

Amen.
Pretty much the only thing that you can change is the graphics, because if you change how everything else functions then the game will play differently on each persons computer. Some chess engines already work the way you describe, maybe you should take that up so you can play a game that scales pretty much linearly with hardware (though, in general the 3770(k) is exactly the same as the 3570(k) even there, since HT generally doesn't work well for chess engines). '

How exactly is this indie developer going to live if he's working on the game for 18 years? If they set a time frame of 2 years then how exactly much time do you want them hand tuning assembler to run with each CPU and then each clock speed per CPU? Of course, by the time they were done a whole new set of CPU's are out.

I think the real problem here is that you have no clue how it works and are just complaining to hear yourself talk.

If you have nothing to post other than just quotes then dont even bother...

I miss-clicked and erased my post un-willingly.. what the hell dude, chill the f**out.

 

[Traciatim]

First of all there was no solution found so cancel that crap. Second why do games run like shit if my hardware is too much for current software? I tell you why, its optimization which we are currently discussing. You cant tell me my hardware is too up-to date compared to software, if that would be the case i would run all the latest games maxed at 2560x1440 with 120 fps, then i would say the software cant keep up with my hardware. But the performance are exactly the opposite. I will list the thing i want to be improved in optimization later on, dont have time to do that now.

Games run like shit because you bought first and asked about performance later. If you asked first you would have a 3570k at as high as you can possibly clock it and not a 3770 at 3.4. If you are driving that many pixels you probably want more graphics horsepower too, hence the 2x670's I stated before.

 

[Traciatim]

As an example, of 2560x1440 gaming on single video cards, here are some charts:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/N/328811/original/BF3%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Q/B/328835/original/M2033%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/H/328805/original/AvP%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/R/328815/original/Crysis2%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Q/E/328838/original/Mafia2%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Q/1/328825/original/GTAIV%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/K/328808/original/Batman%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/X/328821/original/DiRT3%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Q/K/328844/original/SC2%202560.png

Only one of those games (SC2) was a single video card able to drive 2560x1440 at over 60FP average. The were using either a Intel Core i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge), @ 4.5 GHz or a Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) @ 3.6 GHz.

What made you think your stock 3770 with a 7950 would magically do better? Do you honestly think all of those manufactures don't try to make their games perform as best as they possibly can for the most users?

 

[Cybertox]

As an example, of 2560x1440 gaming on single video cards, here are some charts:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/N/328811/original/BF3%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Q/B/328835/original/M2033%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/H/328805/original/AvP%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/R/328815/original/Crysis2%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Q/E/328838/original/Mafia2%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Q/1/328825/original/GTAIV%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/K/328808/original/Batman%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/X/328821/original/DiRT3%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Q/K/328844/original/SC2%202560.png

Only one of those games (SC2) was a single video card able to drive 2560x1440 at over 60FP average. The were using either a Intel Core i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge), @ 4.5 GHz or a Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) @ 3.6 GHz.

What made you think your stock 3770 with a 7950 would magically do better? Do you honestly think all of those manufactures don't try to make their games perform as best as they possibly can for the most users?

My average with SC2 is way below 80 fps and SC2 uses only 2 cores...
SC2 looks like crap in terms of graphic and runs the same.

My CPU is 3.4 ghz factory clocked because I dont overclock CPUs.
7950 is a decent gpu and I understand that I need some more horsepower for such a resolution. The problem is that I have not really that of a powerful power supply. I would need to build a new system with a new power supply. I will probably need an 7970 ghz edition if not something more powerful.

SC2 runs at 2 cores only, how can that be as good as possible? The rest of some certain games also dont run at their best.

 

[bystander]

You see these types of posts from time to time, almost always from a user who switched to PC gaming. They fail to understand that PC games are not meant to play at their highest settings for most people. Even with the system I have, I rarely play a game at its highest settings. Dev's just toss us a lot of options and let us choose.

Of course there are people who are happy with 30 FPS, and you'd think a console gamer would be one, but apparently they recognizes the improvements that high FPS make.

You'd save yourself a lot of frustration if you recognize a couple ideas here:
1) Don't expect to play at max settings. The dev's do not expect you to play at max settings.
2) Games make very little profit. Further optimizations cost money, which they would not make back.
3) Any game could be made to be playable at max settings, but that does not mean it would look better than medium settings on a game you are complaining about. They simply would take away visual improvements and call it optimized.
4) Play the game and have fun. Stop worrying about that FPS meter.

 

[Traciatim]

My average with SC2 is way below 80 fps and SC2 uses only 2 cores...
SC2 looks like crap in terms of graphic and runs the same.

My CPU is 3.4 ghz factory clocked because I dont overclock CPUs.
7950 is a decent gpu and I understand that I need some more horsepower for such a resolution. The problem is that I have not really that of a powerful power supply. I would need to build a new system with a new power supply. I will probably need an 7970 ghz edition if not something more powerful.

SC2 runs at 2 cores only, how can that be as good as possible? The rest of some certain games also dont run at their best.

The 7950 is a great GPU, specifically for 1080P gaming for a good majority of users. You want 77% more pixels . . . you need more power. You want to play the games that started development 2-4 years ago that are designed from the ground up to support the vast majority of users then you want the fasted single thread performance. The games that are starting now and coming out 2-4 years from now will probably scale better as game designers switch to more thread scalable designs (as described http://software.intel.com/en-us/videos/dont-dread-threads-part-1 . . . but even then they say you want to limit your interactivity between units. So while they had good performance scaling making a flock of fireflies fly around, even then it wouldn't scale if it was 2 teams of space fighters chasing each other and shooting each other. )

Another question is what monitor you have? I'm not sure I know of many 1440p 120hz monitors. So what does it matter if you get more than 60FPS anyway?

 

[bystander]

Another thought for you. Why don't you try playing games that are demanding at 720p. 720p is good enough for you with your console, and 720p divides evenly into 1440p, so there is no scaling issues.

Back before LCD's, which only came out a few years ago (it feels like forever), we always changed resolutions in demanding games. We got high end CRT's for high resolution desktops, but used lower resolutions to game with. There is no reason for you can't do that now.

 

[Cybertox]

My average with SC2 is way below 80 fps and SC2 uses only 2 cores...
SC2 looks like crap in terms of graphic and runs the same.

My CPU is 3.4 ghz factory clocked because I dont overclock CPUs.
7950 is a decent gpu and I understand that I need some more horsepower for such a resolution. The problem is that I have not really that of a powerful power supply. I would need to build a new system with a new power supply. I will probably need an 7970 ghz edition if not something more powerful.

SC2 runs at 2 cores only, how can that be as good as possible? The rest of some certain games also dont run at their best.

The 7950 is a great GPU, specifically for 1080P gaming for a good majority of users. You want 77% more pixels . . . you need more power. You want to play the games that started development 2-4 years ago that are designed from the ground up to support the vast majority of users then you want the fasted single thread performance. The games that are starting now and coming out 2-4 years from now will probably scale better as game designers switch to more thread scalable designs (as described http://software.intel.com/en-us/videos/dont-dread-threads-part-1 . . . but even then they say you want to limit your interactivity between units. So while they had good performance scaling making a flock of fireflies fly around, even then it wouldn't scale if it was 2 teams of space fighters chasing each other and shooting each other. )

Another question is what monitor you have? I'm not sure I know of many 1440p 120hz monitors. So what does it matter if you get more than 60FPS anyway?

I have the Samsung LED S27B970D Series 9 27 Inch. I am aiming only for a steady 60 fps frame rate. I would like to use a single GPU only. I dont feel like down scaling to 720p.

 

[bystander]

If 720p is off the table, expect to lower settings and don't use AA.

 

[Traciatim]

I have the Samsung LED S27B970D Series 9 27 Inch. I am aiming only for a steady 60 fps frame rate. I would like to use a single GPU only. I dont feel like down scaling to 720p.

Then you need to lower other settings.

Even the GTX Titan (Running with a Intel Core i7-3970X at 4.5Ghz), which pulls far ahead of pretty much everything else on most benchmarks (As an example, http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html ) can't pull min 60 FPS on everything. Though these are 2560x1600, but that's only 11% larger.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/D/373585/original/bf3-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/N/373595/original/border-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/X/373605/original/fc3-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/A/B/373619/original/hotman-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/A/R/373635/original/skyrim-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/B/1/373645/original/wow-2560-average.png

What you are asking for is not possible if you want to play the highest settings. The high and ultra settings in these types of games are designed for people with insane gear, or as an example of what will be possible with gear in the future.

I think you need to keep in mind that 2560x1440p on the lowest settings in PC games is already so far above what any current console could even imagine doing and set your expectations from there.

 

[Cybertox]

I have the Samsung LED S27B970D Series 9 27 Inch. I am aiming only for a steady 60 fps frame rate. I would like to use a single GPU only. I dont feel like down scaling to 720p.

Then you need to lower other settings.

Even the GTX Titan (Running with a Intel Core i7-3970X at 4.5Ghz), which pulls far ahead of pretty much everything else on most benchmarks (As an example, http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html ) can't pull min 60 FPS on everything. Though these are 2560x1600, but that's only 11% larger.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/D/373585/original/bf3-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/N/373595/original/border-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/X/373605/original/fc3-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/A/B/373619/original/hotman-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/A/R/373635/original/skyrim-2560-average.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/B/1/373645/original/wow-2560-average.png

What you are asking for is not possible if you want to play the highest settings. The high and ultra settings in these types of games are designed for people with insane gear, or as an example of what will be possible with gear in the future.

I think you need to keep in mind that 2560x1440p on the lowest settings in PC games is already so far above what any current console could even imagine doing and set your expectations from there.

So pretty much the best option for me would be to wait till next-gen gpus come out and then buy a 1000$ dollar beast. Hm that is an option but not really a good one, dont feel like wasting so much money just for a single gpu. Is there something even more brutal than a titan or gtx690?

 

[bystander]

So pretty much the best option for me would be to wait till next-gen gpus come out and then buy a 1000$ dollar beast. Hm that is an option but not really a good one, dont feel like wasting so much money just for a single gpu. Is there something even more brutal than a titan or gtx690?

Your best options are:
1) lower settings.
2) use a lower resolution.
3) go SLI. If you use v-sync, crossfire may be ok.

The problem seems to be that you are unwilling to compromise, which means you have to have the most insane setup and still be unsatisfied. I think you may be best off selling your PC and getting a console. Your graphics and game play will be severally lower, but at least you are playing at max settings.

 

[Traciatim]

So pretty much the best option for me would be to wait till next-gen gpus come out and then buy a 1000$ dollar beast. Hm that is an option but not really a good one, dont feel like wasting so much money just for a single gpu. Is there something even more brutal than a titan or gtx690?

No, the best option would be to realize how unreasonable you are being and stop complaining about nothing.

 

[iplikator3333]

Hello guys.

I have completely switched to PC gaming only and I must say that my transitioning experience was awful and still kind of is. I dont even understand whether the problems are on my end or developers dont optimize games at all, meaning that some games cant be run at expected performance due to lack of optimization on any type of hardware.

First I would like to say that pretty much all the new games are not optimized and run like crap even on good hardware. Multicore processors are out for about 4 years already but still most games ( 95% ) of the games run at one core or on two. Lets make an example with SC2 HOTS. This games was released in 2013 and uses only 2 cores which is something pathetic. Games have to finally run on those 4 or more cores because otherwise performance will still suck and graphics processing will till be slow and ugly.

Secound. I am tired of playing 32 bit games on my 64 bit operating system. I dont care about the other people majority who still uses 32 bit systems and run games on their integrated gpus and with 2gbs of ram. Most of the games run like shit because they dont offer 64 bit. Developers dont realize how much 64 bit users suffer from such games. Its 2013 damn, its time to transition or at least offer 64 bit versions. I have 16 Gbs of ram and i can tell you that 60 % of my whole amount of ram isnt even being used. Games use barely 4 - rarely 6 gbs of ram while the other remaining amount just sits there empty. Whats the point of even having o much ram if you dont even benefit from it, looks like i got it only because i was able to afford it.

Third point of my complaints. GPU usage increases graphics look the same. No really if you compare 2008 games graphics to 2011-12 there is absolutely not difference, the only thing that changed is that games require more powerful gpus but the graphics look the same. There is a big exception which is Crysis 3, that game really shows next gen graphics and advances to a whole new level of graphics but look at games like StarCraft 2 and Arma 3. They look like a game from 2007 and run like pure crap. I know arma is in alpha but i am 100% sure there will be no performance improvements made.

I am sorry maybe I complain too much but believe me I have my reasons. I would be glad to discuss this topic with you and learn more about the process of optimization.

I also have a question concerning resolutions. From my experience high resolutions require extremely powerful gpus or even multiple gpus to run games decently enough. I have a resolution of 2560x1440 and damn does it requires a lot of power. Looks like high resolutions are only for those with extremely powerful gpus.
So my questions is, do high resolutions require an immense amount of gpu power or is it just in my case?

As for most games being only 32 bit, that's mainly because of 7th generation condoles, but EA(If I remember correctly) has already promised that some of their upcoming games(most likely 8th generation ports) will be 64 bit, and so will most likely also other 8th generation ports

 

[bruniss]

Dude, with an extremly overclocked 3570k with watercooling, 2 GTX 680 (or a 690 or a Titan), 8 gigs or 2400Mhz RAM and everything installed on SSDs you should run 99% of games at really REALLY high settings. I'm talking about Crysis 3 at 45 FPS or more (very VERy OCed CPU). Far Cry 3, Hitman Absolution, Skyrim, BF3-and 4 and all the other demanding games will run very smoothly.

 

[bystander]

Hello guys.

I have completely switched to PC gaming only and I must say that my transitioning experience was awful and still kind of is. I dont even understand whether the problems are on my end or developers dont optimize games at all, meaning that some games cant be run at expected performance due to lack of optimization on any type of hardware.

First I would like to say that pretty much all the new games are not optimized and run like crap even on good hardware. Multicore processors are out for about 4 years already but still most games ( 95% ) of the games run at one core or on two. Lets make an example with SC2 HOTS. This games was released in 2013 and uses only 2 cores which is something pathetic. Games have to finally run on those 4 or more cores because otherwise performance will still suck and graphics processing will till be slow and ugly.

Secound. I am tired of playing 32 bit games on my 64 bit operating system. I dont care about the other people majority who still uses 32 bit systems and run games on their integrated gpus and with 2gbs of ram. Most of the games run like shit because they dont offer 64 bit. Developers dont realize how much 64 bit users suffer from such games. Its 2013 damn, its time to transition or at least offer 64 bit versions. I have 16 Gbs of ram and i can tell you that 60 % of my whole amount of ram isnt even being used. Games use barely 4 - rarely 6 gbs of ram while the other remaining amount just sits there empty. Whats the point of even having o much ram if you dont even benefit from it, looks like i got it only because i was able to afford it.

Third point of my complaints. GPU usage increases graphics look the same. No really if you compare 2008 games graphics to 2011-12 there is absolutely not difference, the only thing that changed is that games require more powerful gpus but the graphics look the same. There is a big exception which is Crysis 3, that game really shows next gen graphics and advances to a whole new level of graphics but look at games like StarCraft 2 and Arma 3. They look like a game from 2007 and run like pure crap. I know arma is in alpha but i am 100% sure there will be no performance improvements made.

I am sorry maybe I complain too much but believe me I have my reasons. I would be glad to discuss this topic with you and learn more about the process of optimization.

I also have a question concerning resolutions. From my experience high resolutions require extremely powerful gpus or even multiple gpus to run games decently enough. I have a resolution of 2560x1440 and damn does it requires a lot of power. Looks like high resolutions are only for those with extremely powerful gpus.
So my questions is, do high resolutions require an immense amount of gpu power or is it just in my case?

As for most games being only 32 bit, that's mainly because of 7th generation condoles, but EA(If I remember correctly) has already promised that some of their upcoming games(most likely 8th generation ports) will be 64 bit, and so will most likely also other 8th generation ports

64-bit barely matters for gaming. The only advantage is higher amounts of addressable RAM, but if the game doesn't need more, it doesn't help one bit. Since games are designed around only needing at most 4gb of RAM, 64-bit is a non-discussion point.