Jump to content
old_Sneakers

CPU performance monitor on 6 core @ 4.7 ghz - SQUAD PROBLEM IN A NUTSHELL

Recommended Posts

Ran some monitoring with some pretty graphs to keep reminding the devs how bad the game currently scales. 

 

We need this performance patch more then anything right now.

 

All cores/cpu average:

 

V8dyVns.png

 

Highest utilized core(runs the game basically alone):

 

OXpUTpe.png

 

OS main thread core:

0DtxryL.png

 

Low utilization core 3:

3Uc6BI7.png

 

Low utilization core 4:

GD0oSQD.png

 

Low utilization core 5:

Ww3c9Cu.png

 

Low utilization core 6:

j8BNrfN.png

 

 

 

4.7 GHZ hexa core cpu

2w81G6f.png

 

 

 

Really hope you have a magic bullet to fix this. This will not work with 100 players, helis, arty, APC/IFV, laser guided missles and so on.

 

Might as well have a Pentium 3 under LN2 clocked to 10 ghz and run the game better...

 

Edit

I am running the CPU currently as 6 cores 6 threads.

 

 

 

Edited by old_Sneakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squad is single core heavy, as most games are. There's nothing wrong here. This is how DX11 works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your CPU is also very bad at the single core performance (as most xeons are).

This game is set to be released Summer 2017, the game is being built for hardware that's in market AT THAT TIME.

Your CPU is already 6 years old, at release it will be 7 years old. It will not be enough to run this game.

There's nothing weird going on here, your machine is not strong enough to handle this game.


Also: GHZ is pretty irrelevant, it's all about IPC.
A 1 GHZ CPU can be faster than a 2 GHZ cpu if it does more calculations in one cycle than the other does in 2. Which is the case with yours.

Edited by Nordic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nordic said:

Squad is single core heavy, as most games are. There's nothing wrong here. This is how DX11 works.

 

3 hours ago, Nordic said:

Your CPU is also very bad at the single core performance (as most xeons are).

This game is set to be released Summer 2017, the game is being built for hardware that's in market AT THAT TIME.

Your CPU is already 6 years old, at release it will be 7 years old. It will not be enough to run this game.

There's nothing weird going on here, your machine is not strong enough to handle this game.


Also: GHZ is pretty irrelevant, it's all about IPC.
A 1 GHZ CPU can be faster than a 2 GHZ cpu if it does more calculations in one cycle than the other does in 2. Which is the case with yours.

 

Feels like you are defending the utter lack-luster state the game is in so far, performance-wise.

As I hinted before, they are gonna need a magic bullet to get their modified engine to run on more then one leg (run..I mean skipping along like a gimp).

 

Squad is not only single core heavy mate, it basically runs on one single core alone, literally.

 

As you say it might be out of alpha stage and into a gold state in 2017 and it cannot be running like a dog in a wheelchair by that time. Having the engine "basically" run on a single core like this is unacceptable for a 100 player fps with 10 km square maps packed with players, individual ballistic calcs, helis, physics, animations, sophisticated net code and so on. This will never work.

 

No machine will be strong enough to handle this without more parallellism.

 

Talking about IPC as if the difference is 200% going from Westmere to Skylake is ridiculous. The truth is closer to 40-45% which I admit  is significant in a single threaded application but its not a wide enough gap once parallellism is brought into the picture to make one "ancient" in comparison to the other.

 

Bottom line is we need more parallellism in the code for this game to go anywhere. In this state no cpu will be strong enough to carry this mess on a single core.

 

144 hz screens

120 hz screens

 

You might as well go back and get your old 60 hz tft from 2002, because you won't see no 60+ fps ever.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree. Have a 5820K 4.4OC, same issues. Come on, call out my CPU as a POS.

I can't complain too much as I can get 50 - 80 fps @ 4k, but God help you if you walk near 5 smoke canisters nearby or an insane grenade / vehicle fire fight battle. SYSTEM SHUTDOWN! Rage quit and one less medic to help ya's out.

As for DX11, if you can't optimise on a 5yr old gaming code, there is no hope for UE4 with DX12. DX12 is the way forward, though I see nothing wrong with DX11 for Squad as long as it works ie optimized.

As stated if you want a game with reasonable graphics, loaded with assets and high player count. Multi core/thread code has to be on point and probably the high priority.

Credit where it's due. SQUAD has bought back Teamwork/Voip game play and future sandbox community, which I consider the essence of the BF2 experience.
If DICE were to reintroduce this gameplay / community back to a separate BF series, Squad would be dead in the water.

 

I'd like SQUAD to be the best it could be and it's fans get the best out of their hardware. Multi core optimization makes the game enjoyable for everyone.
Near all CPU's these days are multi cored no matter what price point. It is probably the one and only most beneficial of any improvement to the game and an expanding playerbase. We all want players / community right? Surely most would take smooth action and quality gameplay over eye candy and toys.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely agree. Have a 5820K 4.4OC, same issues. Come on, call out my CPU as a POS.

I can't complain too much as I can get 50 - 80 fps @ 4k, but God help you if you walk near 5 smoke canisters nearby or an insane grenade / vehicle fire fight battle. SYSTEM SHUTDOWN! Rage quit and one less medic to help ya's out.

As for DX11, if you can't optimise on a 5yr old gaming code, there is no hope for UE4 with DX12. DX12 is the way forward, though I see nothing wrong with DX11 for Squad as long as it works ie optimized.

As stated if you want a game with reasonable graphics, loaded with assets and high player count. Multi core/thread code has to be on point and probably the high priority.

Credit where it's due. SQUAD has bought back Teamwork/Voip game play and future sandbox community, which I consider the essence of the BF2 experience.
If DICE were to reintroduce this gameplay / community back to a separate BF series, Squad would be dead in the water.

 

I'd like SQUAD to be the best it could be and it's fans get the best out of their hardware. Multi core optimization makes the game enjoyable for everyone.
Near all CPU's these days are multi cored no matter what price point. It is probably the one and only most beneficial of any improvement to the game and an expanding playerbase. We all want players / community right? Surely most would take smooth action and quality gameplay over eye candy and toys.

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nordic said:

The game is set to be released Summer 2017, the game is being built for hardware that's in market AT THAT TIME.

 

Look at the IPC gains over the last 7 years and realise that 1 year "progress" won't make this game run well in its current state. Everybody knows that, especially the devs, that's why they're focusing on performance. The game doesn't run great on any system.

13 hours ago, Nordic said:

Squad is single core heavy, as most games are. There's nothing wrong here. This is how DX11 works.

This has  nothing to do with DX11, there are many DX11 games that utilise multithreading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not defending anything or blaming anything.

This is an alpha, not even BETA, and this is how EVERY game goes.

First you add content, then you optimize it. There's literally nothing wrong or weird or whatever going on here. What's going on is a bunch of idiots who doesn't listen to the things the developers have said about roadmap and time.

Heads up: DEVELOPING A GAME TAKES TIME.

Heads up2: If you're not prepared to put up with bad performance - DON'T ****ING GET INVOLVED WITH AN UNFINISHED PRODUCT.

Jesus ****ing christ.


 

Quote

You might as well go back and get your old 60 hz tft from 2002, because you won't see no 60+ fps ever.



Well, there developers have repeatedly said that 60 FPS stable is their goal. So, don't expect 100.0 FPS 24/7 because that game is not going for that.

That might happen in 2020 when hardware is able to bruteforce through the big performance takers in a game like that.


 

Quote

Absolutely agree. Have a 5820K 4.4OC, same issues. Come on, call out my CPU as a POS.

I can't complain too much as I can get 50 - 80 fps @ 4k, but God help you if you walk near 5 smoke canisters nearby or an insane grenade / vehicle fire fight battle. SYSTEM SHUTDOWN! Rage quit and one less medic to help ya's out.



No, you CPU is fine. You're suffering from CPU bottleneck due to inoptimization as do I.

But I called a CPU released in may 2010 shit when he's trying to play a game scheduled for release Summer 2017. If you in your wildest dreams think that's good enough hardware, you're delusional.



 

Quote

As you say it might be out of alpha stage and into a gold state in 2017 and it cannot be running like a dog in a wheelchair by that time. Having the engine "basically" run on a single core like this is unacceptable for a 100 player fps with 10 km square maps packed with players, individual ballistic calcs, helis, physics, animations, sophisticated net code and so on. This will never work.



"This will never work" - Said the guy with how much game programming experience? Oh, right. None.


Yes, it will work. There's plenty of games where this already works so sit the **** down.  :)



 

Quote

Bottom line is we need more parallellism in the code for this game to go anywhere. In this state no cpu will be strong enough to carry this mess on a single core.



Wrong, my CPU (6700K) is running this game just fine. I have 60 FPS or above all the time. And that's with a CPU that's going to be near it's end-of-life when this game releases :)



 

Quote

This has  nothing to do with DX11, there are many DX11 games that utilise multithreading.


There is almost no game engine that multithreads in DX11. Just because your GPU driver does it doesn't mean the game does it properly.
That's why we won't see increasement in Vulkan / DX12 until 2-3 years were new game engines are built.

And this is why Squad developers themselves can't MAGICALLY JUST MAKE IT ALL MULTICORE HURR DURR because it's the ****ing engine that does most of those things.

Which you can hear more about here:




Now, please stop whining about a game you're trying to play with 6 years old hardware and start saving. Because your CPU will never be able to take on this game :)

 

 


 

Quote


If DICE were to reintroduce this gameplay / community back to a separate BF series, Squad would be dead in the water.

 




No it wouldn't, because BF is not catering to the same type of players like Squad is. Squad is a niche for hardcore realism battles, BF is not. They have never been and they never will be.

EA/DICE are building their games to be funny for some months, 3-6 and that's when they're pulling in the money to create a profit. After that, they're releasing something new.

But given that PR still has player 10-11 years after it's release you're as wrong as you can be. :)

Edited by Nordic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And people wonder why developers doesn't come to the forum yet, yeah that's because they have to deal with people who wants to play their game on shit hardware that's 7 years old :S;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy hell, can you assume a more defensive role please. Yes OP's point is old news but the point still stands and the devs are aware of it, so why all the anger and name calling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, banOkay said:

Holy hell, can you assume a more defensive role please. Yes OP's point is old news but the point still stands and the devs are aware of it, so why all the anger and name calling?


Why all the anger? Because if it is old news, why is this still brought up?

Why do people still blame Squad developers for performance?

It's not about being defensive. I'm literally just telling exactly how it is.

Problem is people still think they can run modern games with a freaking 6 years old CPU, and the problem is that these people ruin the forums so the developers have gone over to other plattforms because it's just not worth the time explaining the same stuff over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nordic said:


It's not about being defensive. I'm literally just telling exactly how it is.

 

No, you just rely on the same false myth crap we had to read a hundred times.

 

There is no CPU now, oder in near future that could run the finished game properly.

The problem is the animation system, cause the bone reducing feature is missing

and that causes this high CPU load. Without this feature, the CPU has to do 10 times

more calculations than it should.

 

This feature is a basic part of each animation system / engine. It was a bad idea to

release the game with an unfinished animation system, that could only go wrong.

And its good that they now fix this problem first, before adding more features.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Lupus1979 said:

 

No, you just rely on the same false myth crap we had to read a hundred times.

 

There is no CPU now, oder in near future that could run the finished game properly.

The problem is the animation system, cause the bone reducing feature is missing

and that causes this high CPU load. Without this feature, the CPU has to do 10 times

more calculations than it should.

 

This feature is a basic part of each animation system / engine. It was a bad idea to

release the game with an unfinished animation system, that could only go wrong.

And its good that they now fix this problem first, before adding more features.

 

 

 

 



So why is my CPU running the current game just fine? :)

/Facepalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nordic  you realise that the Threat starters CPU at its 4,7 Ghz has a IPC of around a 4 GHZ skylake right ? S1366 hexacore with a hefty OC like seen here are even stronger as a 6700K skylake when the Software can utilize thier cores . Despite its age this chip OC far better then the average Skylake/Haswell E / Broadwell E .

 

Multithreading has nothing to do with the APi to be exactly DX11/12 OGL Vulkan e.g.. best example is UE4 engine demos running on DX12 backend and have still crappy performance in cpu bound senarios. Its more of the code to be parralised and remove of bottlenecking syncronising junctions. This is of curse a very early design desicion and need alot of Expirience and knowhow in parralel programming .

 

In Squad its clearly the Netcode that was choosen by the devs thats Crippeling the game to a point where ppl with decent medicore  rigs cant play it anymore.

You dont net fancy Statistics software just start the game in Singleplayer and looke at core utilization --> on my ITX backup machine (4790 @ 4ghz  1060GTX 16gigs ram SSD ) 40-50 % utilization of 4 cores 110 FPS in FHD Ultra presets everything seems ok.

 

Going to Multiplayer same settings FPS drop to 40-70 ish cause one CPU thread is hammered to death with netcode bullshit while the others are allmost lazy useless and arent utilized to help out the overloaded core. A company from your homecountry Shows how its done right even under dx11 in 64 player MP --> DICE ( iam dont player BF on a reagular basis since the days of desert combat mod and hate this DLC properitary preoder Battlefield XYZ bullshit  but i have to give regards to Frostbite itselfe )

 

Whats so arkward is that these design decisions that are essentialy rudimentary for every aspect of the whole gameplay are done worng since beginig  ( can happen--> small team, no hardcore veteran programmers, zero expirience with new engine e.g) since first alpha and not got priority until alpha 8 despite community going nuts on it .

 

In short ,dont defend Devs mistakes , say its the hardware go buy newest stuff for a opticaly 2009ish looking game(when looking are the optical fidelity, map scale, low vegetation assets and very simple physis this game is in every of these points subpare to Crysis 1/warhead multiplayer  without a doubt --> so i should not exceed its Hardware demand singificant ) without special physics, balistics  or other benefits when someone uses a 4,7 GHz intel Hexacoe with triplechannelram , Adress these cruial problems multiple times agressivly to the devs so they are forced to even try to fix it.

 

Dont get me wrong i like the aproach the game takes , but it wont help either the fans  nore the Devs when the game takes the arma 3 route performance wise and dies slowly because you need a 5 ghz Kabylake for a average 60 fps on 72 player server without smoke and vihicles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V8 will be a big tell if the devs have the technical know-how within the team to salvage this. It took DICE several years to add the needed parallelism to Frostbite+its shitty netcode to unlock that engine fully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

release the game with an unfinished animation system, that could only go wrong.
 



You know what else is unfinished in this game?

EVERYTHING!

Because that is the definition of being in Alpha and early access, you are playing a game that is not finished yet, it is in the middle of development! Systems are made then tested then iterated then tested more and iterated even more and then finished!

So it is not hard to understand why the current issues and bugs and lack of content and unoptimized stuff.

It's like: we are a small garage car maker, we will sell this prototype to fund the final version. Guy buys a prototype and complains the car doesn't speed up to 100kph, well guess why, it is not a finished car! It is a prototype from the back of a garage! Unfinished, unpolished, untested! We are testing it!

How hard is it to grasp this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2016 at 1:08 PM, Nordic said:

I am not defending anything.

 

Great thing to state before continuing on your defensive rant.

 

On 10/8/2016 at 8:59 PM, Lupus1979 said:

There is no CPU now, oder in near future that could run the >>>>finished<<<< game properly.

 

On 10/8/2016 at 9:34 PM, Nordic said:

So why is my CPU running the current game just fine? :)

/Facepalm

 

Do you even read brah?

 

Anyways, from what I know the V8 performance increase will be the first of many on the way to an optimized UE4/custom Squad engine.

Animation rework is one of the next things on the list, afaik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Lemon said:

Nordic, you're being an ass. This game performs worse than ARMA 3 in it's alpha. Of course it is the games fault.

Arma 3 is a finished game and I often get better FPS in Squad than a KOTH server in Arma 3...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant realy compare ARMA 3 scale and physics with Squad , but its prime example of lack in techical Framework blocking a huge amount of potetial customers .

 

To Defend ARMA 3s bad performance : i dont know a game with this Map scale and in relation to this fedelity but in mind of this its even sadder to see the old engin limiting even cooler things .

 

But i hope Squad wont go this rout and kick the can down the road until there is tech avaible that has brute force IPC to play it in fullscale.

 

BTW i did a quick match on weekend on my 4790 gtx1060 ITX with around 55-60players Map: Gorodok and got Pretty decent core utilization this time vers. 7.7 --> 1 core hovered at 80-90% while 2-4 got avg. 50%  when the server filled up over 60 ppl first thread still got hammered/ overloaded and slowed dont game

FPS still 40 ish in the lows but at least there is some sort of movement in this area will see if they can turn perfromance to the good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-10-31 at 4:36 AM, John Lemon said:

Nordic, you're being an ass. This game performs worse than ARMA 3 in it's alpha. Of course it is the games fault.



Not when you're trying to run a 2017 release game with a 5 years old CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Nordic  a 5 years old Ferrari has still 500   HP you get it ?

 

But anyway V8 helpt a whole lot in the CPU bottleneck department until around 50 ppl i stay GPU bound after that Utilization gets poorer --> Main CPu thread is still limiting Factor but to a point where at least IPC heavy CPUs can keep up with ~70 FPS

My settings where 1080P MAX Settings exception Motion Blur Off T+FX AA to exclude GPU limit as good as Possible.

 

Rig:

MSI Raider X99A with I7 5820K HT enabled  @4.4GHz all core Turbo 3.3Ghz Cache

EVGA GTX 1080 FTW Clocked @ Stock ~2000/5000 driver version 372.90

64 GB DDR 4 (8 x 8GB Double Rank Sticks ) @2400 Mhz Cl 15 quadchannel

Game is on a 1 TB Samsung EVO 850

Win 7 Pro 64 Bit

 

70 ppl massiv Firefight technical and multiple smoke includet and(screen after  Death ) lowest FPS ~70

70ppl

 

Firing range in Comparisomwith 2 Smokes , completly GPU bound

Firing range

 

There is still a Thread on Main Core thats he Bottleneck but it got better.  Usage of remaining cores also seems to got better.

Its now playable on Intelchips with Good IPC and high Clocks without dips under 60 i guess, can anyone confirm or deny this ? Its a good Step in the right direction hope to see more of this. Any Data from AMD CPU users ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna run another 72p server test when I get home and log the cpu usage and post new SS.

 

I suspect that nothing has changed in the way the engine handles threads though and that the gains come purly from optimization in draw calls to the cpu. Less overhead achieved with c++ code for netcode, animation and positioning.

 

This helps all cpus but is no magic fix for AMD cpus, IF what I suspect is true.

 

 

/edit

 

1.5 hour run of SQUAD V8 on 72p server.

 

This SS shows the "all cores average", I can break it down into individual cores as the OP but it shows quite identical core utilization to V7.

Quiet safe to say that ALL performance increases we seen so far, which are IMPRESSIVE (applaud the devs on it really I do!) came from c++ code optimizations in animation and netcode. Cleaner code that runs more efficient with less draw calls and overhead.

I am not seeing the added parallelism though, even though I am sure it is there for the sub systems.

 

Still this puts AMD CPUs in a bad spot since they lack the brute force IPC of Intel cpus to carry it on one core.

 

 

tCNZzei.png

 

 

/edit2

 

The dip in the graph is loading a new map.

Edited by old_Sneakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i tested Multicore enhancement by deactivating 4 of my 6 Cores so basicly a 4,4 GHz I3 with some benifits ( Quadchannel, bigger Cache )

In the past i didnt note a Performancedecrease but with V 8 i get lower FPS and GPU usage (60-90) an a slight Performance impact . But even at this setup I3 on steroids its playable with 60-70 FPS.

So iam with you on this good improvment in V8 But still heavly dependent on IPC

 

i3simulated2lazr.jpg

Edited by moppel
Picture Link didnt work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×