IIITYPMAH

AMD is worst for Squad

66 posts in this topic
7 minutes ago, Major Trouble said:

 

I think this says more about Ryzen than the the poor performance from an EA game like Squad running on a game engine still being developed. AMD have done a fantastic job pushing multicore performance over the years but that's because they still can't get to Intels level on IPC. If they crack that nut Moores Law will be a distant memory.

I think it says a lot about the whole consumer CPU industry. There's not even an Intel CPU that makes sense for me to upgrade to. At least not on a price to performance gain basis. 

I've been buying parts as I go. It would have been better to spend everything on a GTX 1080 Ti instead of the 1070 and saving for new CPU/Mobo/RAM. Lesson learned. :)

I mean look 5 years and this is what Intel has done... https://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=2449&pid2=1192&compare=core-i5-7600k-3-8ghz-vs-core-i5-4670k-3-4ghz

Edited by RaTzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RaTzo I know right. I still have my 3770k @4.5 and there is no major upgrade worth it currently. That problem exists due to the lack of competition from AMD. They're back now though but only because of the multicore / multithreaded nature of todays software is starting to catch up and play to those strengths.

 

However Coffee Lake looks very interesting for the end of the year though. Whether its speed is coming from just an increased physical core count to 6 or it has some genuine improvement in IPC over Kaby Lake remains to be seen. Hopefully it's the best of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Major Trouble said:

@RaTzo I know right. I still have my 3770k @4.5 and there is no major upgrade worth it currently. That problem exists due to the lack of competition from AMD. They're back now though but only because of the multicore / multithreaded nature of todays software is starting to catch up and play to those strengths.

 

However Coffee Lake looks very interesting for the end of the year though. Whether its speed is coming from just an increased physical core count to 6 or it has some genuine improvement in IPC over Kaby Lake remains to be seen. Hopefully it's the best of both.

 

I also own i7-3770K - it's used to be one of best CPUs on a market.

 

The deal is - I use workstation with i7 to work, and the one with 8350 for gameing and I don't want to swap GPUs, pick new motherboard for i7 and swap PSU. I can play any game I want with 8350, with decent fps on highest setting I can get. Ryzen is even better at it - but I don't see a sense of upgrading my PC for Ryzen ... if I can run all games I want. My real problem is - after 2 days of setting my 8350 after I've bought it 2 years ago, I can run all games I want. What's more - my setup is generating MORE fps in most games than my brothers PC (he went for i5), and after Windows 10 was introduced and I switched to it my PC literally exploded in performace gaining 20% of framerates after moving from Win7 to Win10 (in DX11).  

 

In SQUAD I'm playing with my 8350 at highest settings with Scalling 1.5x, I'm getting around 35-40 FPS in average (I've measured it) and that's perfectly fine. In the same time, I think it's not fine that SQUAD engine is using CPUs at 20-30% ... that's wrong, really wrong. It just shows how bad it is. All new games are multicore capable usylising all AMD and Intel i7 cores, especially if you run background applications like Teamspeak, Winamp or Youtube for music and some PC Monitoring tools.  

 

If 99% of 2016/2017 games are running great on my CPU and just a single game (SQUAD) is running worse than those games - it does not mean my CPU is crap but it means that this 1% (SQUAD engine) is crap. SQUAD is not the only one with such massive player count in a single 'match' - there are games with hundread of players per map like Planetside 2 - and they still can run perfect on my AMD.

 

 

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PadrePadre said:

 

I also own i7-3770K - it's used to be one of best CPUs on a market.

 

The deal is - I use workstation with i7 to work, and the one with 8350 for gameing and I don't want to swap GPUs, pick new motherboard for i7 and swap PSU. I can play any game I want with 8350, with decent fps on highest setting I can get. Ryzen is even better at it - but I don't see a sense of upgrading my PC for Ryzen ... if I can run all games I want. My real problem is - after 2 days of setting my 8350 after I've bought it 2 years ago, I can run all games I want. What's more - my setup is generating MORE fps in most games than my brothers PC (he went for i5), and after Windows 10 was introduced and I switched to it my PC literally exploded in performace gaining 20% of framerates after moving from Win7 to Win10 (in DX11).  

 

In SQUAD I'm playing with my 8350 at highest settings with Scalling 1.5x, I'm getting around 35-40 FPS in average (I've measured it) and that's perfectly fine. In the same time, I think it's not fine that SQUAD engine is using CPUs at 20-30% ... that's wrong, really wrong. It just shows how bad it is. All new games are multicore capable usylising all AMD and Intel i7 cores, especially if you run background applications like Teamspeak, Winamp or Youtube for music and some PC Monitoring tools.  

 

If 99% of 2016/2017 games are running great on my CPU and just a single game (SQUAD) is running worse than those games - it does not mean my CPU is crap but it means that this 1% (SQUAD engine) is crap. SQUAD is not the only one with such massive player count in a single 'match' - there are games with hundread of players per map like Planetside 2 - and they still can run perfect on my AMD.

 

 

Regards.

I had an AMD 8350 for over a year playing squad, got a 3770k for free plus mobo and ram, traded him my AMD mobo and ram since he didnt game. And holy shit WORTH IT!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PadrePadre said:

If 99% of 2016/2017 games are running great on my CPU and just a single game (SQUAD) is running worse than those games - it does not mean my CPU is crap but it means that this 1% (SQUAD engine) is crap. SQUAD is not the only one with such massive player count in a single 'match' - there are games with hundread of players per map like Planetside 2 - and they still can run perfect on my AMD.

 

You're not wrong, it's fundamentally squad's issue, but that is to be expected in the alpha stage. The game has already had some optimization passes, which has made it far better than it was previously, and once the core features are all in and settled, the devs will be able to optimize code further. The recommendations to go Intel are if you want to play now, but if you wish to continue playing with AMD and want higher frame output, my best suggestion is to wait until the late beta stage or official full release (after early access is done). If performance still sucks then, that falls on the shoulders of the devs :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, PadrePadre said:

 

 

If 99% of 2016/2017 games are running great on my CPU and just a single game (SQUAD) is running worse than those games - it does not mean my CPU is crap but it means that this 1% (SQUAD engine) is crap. SQUAD is not the only one with such massive player count in a single 'match' - there are games with hundread of players per map like Planetside 2 - and they still can run perfect on my AMD.

 

 

Regards.

8 hours ago, Psyrus said:

 

You're not wrong, it's fundamentally squad's issue, but that is to be expected in the alpha stage. 


Padre, (and Psyrus) I hear what you're trying to say here but your facts are a little off. Here is a game performance comparison between your 8350 and my 4670K. If you look at the right side mid way down you'll see some percentages that show how well your CPU will do in current games. https://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1192&pid2=1140&compare=Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz-vs-AMD FX-8350 

The fact is that your CPU is at the end of its gaming lifespan. Based on your expressed praise for it I suspect it doesn't owe you a thing as it has served your needs well. 

Squad isn't crap and neither is the Unreal Engine 4 it runs on. Show me another FPS game with 80 players all in the same instance and massive maps with deployable assets, vehicles that your CPU can run "great".  You can't. Mostly what is on the market right now are console ports. They are designed to run on hardware only slightly better than what you have and so they run pretty OK for you. 

Squad is a massive game running on a next gen engine. It's OK that your FX8350 can't run it well. 

When Squad was in Pre-Alpha it was mentioned every single game how well it ran compared to AAA titles that had been on the market for a long time already like BF4 at the time. Squad isn't perfect, it doesn't have to be. Pretending like it is "crap" because our ancient CPUs can't run it like butter is just not wise. 
 

*Edit* with regard to Planetside 2, it may have "hundreds of players" on the same server but not in the same instance. I've played PS2 since the Beta. When attacking a Biolab in an ESF you can often only see 1/3rd of the people who are standing on the landing pad even though you are only 50M from them. You can't see people more than 300M away. Your weapons do no damage to anything that is not rendered for you. Vehicles only show up 650-700M away. The server puts you in instances for every location and gives you rough updates of what is happening in other areas. When you're in a big fight, ie more than 20 people, the game scales back what you can see and interact with. 

In Squad you can see everything all the time no matter how far away it is and everyone is in the same instance. If a bullet leaves my gun and travels down range to someone I didn't even know was there and hits them they will take damage. Squad is a completely different animal than PS2. 
 

Edited by RaTzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RaTzo said:

-snip-

 

 

Still, I can run BF4 with 64 players at 100-120 FPS - and in my opinion BF4 looks better than SQUAD. You also have vehicles there, a lot of particles and vegetation. That's why I still thinks it's the SQUAD engine fault, not my CPU - as I can play all other games at decent FPS, it's just SQUAD engine.

 

Single core was important in gameing around 2007. 

In modern games, multicore performance is far more important.

 

 

I hope devs will move forward and make progress with game code to ultylize multicore performance like 2017 games should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RaTzo said:

Show me another FPS game with 80 players all in the same instance and massive maps with deployable assets, vehicles that your CPU can run "great". You can't.

 

Project Reality, 100 players, up to 200 on events :) Much better performance than Squad, save for a few select maps that were built badly causing massive draw call CPU bottlenecks. And the engine was built in the early 2000s when the multi-core market was not nearly as mature as it is now. 

 

15 hours ago, RaTzo said:

Padre, (and Psyrus) I hear what you're trying to say here but your facts are a little off

 

15 hours ago, RaTzo said:

The fact is that your CPU is at the end of its gaming lifespan.

 

You keep using the word "fact"(s), therefore may I ask (genuinely curious) what your specific qualifications are regarding this topic such that I may decide for myself what your level of authority is regarding determining whether PC components are at the end of their various lifespans? Do you work in the gaming industry? At a CPU/hardware manufacturer? 

 

I don't even necessarily disagree with you because the 8350 has similar performance to my ancient i7 920, however the fact that squad is IPC bound when other games in the industry (FPS) manage to not be, means that the onus does fall on squad to improve, not necessarily the player base to throw money at the problem just for a single game. I am well versed in why squad is currently bottlenecked in the way it is

 

 I think the word "crap" is inappropriate in this thread (applied to squad), I just think that everyone should realize the following facts:

  • Squad is in its alpha phase, optimization is not a priority
  • There is definite room for improvement in the CPU bound performance area
  • Further optimization passes will occur, bringing better performance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Psyrus said:

Project Reality, 100 players, up to 200 on events :) Much better performance than Squad, save for a few select maps that were built badly causing massive draw call CPU bottlenecks. And the engine was built in the early 2000s when the multi-core market was not nearly as mature as it is now. 

 

If we jump forward about 15 years do you think the hardware then will run Squad well? If it was still just a one horse CPU fight for intel it probably wouldn't :P. Quoting an ancient game engine as a point of reference maybe technically be correct but isn't really helpful in gauging Squads performance in the current market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have i5 7600k and gtx 1070 16go ram . my min fps 55 avg 70 max 110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Major Trouble said:

Quoting an ancient game engine as a point of reference maybe technically be correct but isn't really helpful in gauging Squads performance in the current market.

 

The age of the engine is of little consequence when examining efficient/optimized code. I'll ask you a question then, can you name the reasons why you think a game on a 15 year old engine should be able to perform better doing almost exactly the same things as squad (100 players, vehicles, huge draw distances, combined arms, similar deployables, objective based gameplay that is very similar), given all the advances in technology and hardware in that period? In other words, what do you consider different about squad's processing workload that you feel justifies the relatively bad performance?

Edited by Psyrus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Psyrus said:

 

The age of the engine is of little consequence when examining efficient/optimized code. I'll ask you a question then, can you name the reasons why you think a game on a 15 year old engine should be able to perform better doing almost exactly the same things as squad (100 players, vehicles, huge draw distances, combined arms, similar deployables, objective based gameplay that is very similar), given all the advances in technology and hardware in that period? In other words, what do you consider different about squad's processing workload that you feel justifies the relatively bad performance?

 

There are loads of things to consider.

 

Improved ballistics

More complex animations

LoD / Game engine view distancing

Physics

tick rates

+ loads of backend stuff I wouldn't know enough to comment about as I am not a developer.

 

Games get increasingly more complex as hardware improves and devs can take advantage of that extra horsepower. Even today devs want to include things but are tied by their expected hardware requirements. So going back and comparing one game to it's father isn't really a great comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Major Trouble said:

Improved ballistics

 

Are they? PR had a ballistics model and penetration as well... If you wouldn't mind fleshing out that information I'm happy to be corrected. Edit: As a devil's advocate, you might even argue that the hitscan that is occurring at <50m (not sure about the exact distance) in squad means that its model is more simplistic ;) 

 

1 hour ago, Major Trouble said:

More complex animations

 

The only animation related issue I've heard of is that the current system is inefficient, not that it's in any way "more complex"? What do you mean by "more complex"? I'm happy to be corrected here. 

 

1 hour ago, Major Trouble said:

LoD / Game engine view distancing

 

GPU performance impact for LODs, and cull distances definitely do reduce load for the GPU and CPU, but both squad and PR have very large cull distances. 

 

1 hour ago, Major Trouble said:

Physics

 

They play a role, but are they any more complex than PR/BF2's? I personally don't know, but I think we can surmise that yes, they are potentially more complex.

 

1 hour ago, Major Trouble said:

tick rates

 

The tick rate falls when the CPU on the server becomes a bottleneck, and I've seen reports of servers getting down to tick rates of 30 or below when full. It's like saying that setting the max FPS cap higher on your game (max 300FPS -> max 1000FPS) when you're only getting 60FPS to begin with will have a performance impact (it's actually not a 1:1 analogy but the closest I could think of... perhaps I shouldn't even bother putting such a thing in :/). 

 

1 hour ago, Major Trouble said:

Games get increasingly more complex as hardware improves and devs can take advantage of that extra horsepower.

 

What often happens is that because developers have access to higher spec hardware, they focus less on optimized design from the start and systems snowball into inefficient messes. This then has to be retroactively refactored to be more efficient which takes considerable effort, depending on how intertwined various systems are (for example, optimizing one thing by culling some data that it may not need at all times may break another system that depends on that data). 

 

I am a developer (not specifically games) but on a UE4 project that I was briefly a part of, we had a budding artist who proposed that every static in our game be modular, but not necessarily from a small set of modular pieces, from a diverse set to make every building unique. Great idea in artistic theory, but doing so largely precludes doing efficient instancing and pushes the draw calls way up. When I brought that to his attention, he says "well Vulcan/DX12 will make draw calls an issue of the past". Here we are in mid 2017, no relief in sight for that issue yet. That's the kind of attitude I am talking about.

 

As I mentioned a few posts above, I fully support the OWI devs in what they're doing (and their optimization timeline), but I don't like seeing people making excuses for things especially when those excuses are not based in fact. 

Edited by Psyrus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-07-12 at 0:53 PM, PadrePadre said:

 

Still, I can run BF4 with 64 players at 100-120 FPS - and in my opinion BF4 looks better than SQUAD. You also have vehicles there, a lot of particles and vegetation. That's why I still thinks it's the SQUAD engine fault, not my CPU - as I can play all other games at decent FPS, it's just SQUAD engine.

 


Somehow I doubt your CPU can run BF4 with 64 players at 120FPS. Even if I give that to you, BF4 is a console game with lots of almost free overlay effects and short view distances. They control how much you can see and how much space there is for people so that the game can run on ancient consoles. 

I'm glad you think it is pretty. I think so too. It however doesn't compare to what Squad is doing.  It's not Squad's "fault" that it is doing 30X more stuff than BF4 is, it's what Squad is about. If you don't think that is worth having a CPU that can handle it then that's a choice you've made and also not the "fault" of Squad. 

 

 

On 2017-07-12 at 11:53 PM, Psyrus said:

 

Project Reality, 100 players, up to 200 on events :) Much better performance than Squad, save for a few select maps that were built badly causing massive draw call CPU bottlenecks. And the engine was built in the early 2000s when the multi-core market was not nearly as mature as it is now. 

 


Go play PR then. It's built on BF2. If you think it compares to Squad go for it! Enjoy. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-07-12 at 11:53 PM, Psyrus said:

You keep using the word "fact"(s), therefore may I ask (genuinely curious) what your specific qualifications are regarding this topic such that I may decide for myself what your level of authority is regarding determining whether PC components are at the end of their various lifespans? Do you work in the gaming industry? At a CPU/hardware manufacturer? 

 

I don't even necessarily disagree with you because the 8350 has similar performance to my ancient i7 920, however the fact that squad is IPC bound when other games in the industry (FPS) manage to not be, means that the onus does fall on squad to improve, not necessarily the player base to throw money at the problem just for a single game. I am well versed in why squad is currently bottlenecked in the way it is

 

 I think the word "crap" is inappropriate in this thread (applied to squad), I just think that everyone should realize the following facts:

  • Squad is in its alpha phase, optimization is not a priority
  • There is definite room for improvement in the CPU bound performance area
  • Further optimization passes will occur, bringing better performance


LOL 

I've been hand building PC's since the mid 1990's. I was a 20 year veteran Avionics Technician in the Canadian Air Force. I'm a technologist. I've worked as a consultant for defence contract technology companies. I've also been playing video games since I had to type them in from Compute! magazine into a VIC-20 in Machine Code. 

You'll have to take my word for all of that. However, exhibit B is you complaining about the performance of your computer in a modern game thinking it should perform the same as a game that was released in 2005. I think the evidence is clear. Exhibit A was given in one of the comments you are replying to. See the screenshot attached. Both of our CPUs are at the end of their lives for gaming. The fact that mine runs stable at 4.6GHz has extended the life a bit for me. 

 

See I don't have to have any "authority", nor do I claim any. If you want to run games from 2005 a CPU from 2012 is probably going to rock for you. If you want to play games from 2017 with the same performance as you get from 12 year old games, or games designed to run on consoles... we'll you're surely going to need hardware that isn't 5 years old. 

 

Not sure why this is controversial or how this is the "fault" of Squad... but whatever. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RaTzo "console game" Seirously? BF4 multiplayer is a pure PC experience, I have alergy to consoles so I know what I'm talking about #PCMR.

 

And what calculations? BF4 have excactly the same amount of features that Squad have. Map, vehicle physics, bullet physics, vegetation, players and graphic. BF4 rendering distance is great it allows you to see and shoot enemy soldiers at any distance - and also map are big and object intensive. If I can be honest, SQUAD graphic is medicore at best. Flat surfaces, buildings are from 2001 Ghost Recon, vegetation is also nothing special. In game animations also have a lot work to do... I really can't see the reason of such high requirements outside ultra terrible optymalisation. 

 

The only thing made better in SQUAD than in BF4 is the sound and the idea of gameplay.

Here devs made excellent job.

 

But it's not enough to keep my friends in game, both of them refunded the game on Steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PadrePadre BF4 is a console port to PC. Google is your friend. I stopped reading when you wrote the following:
 

1 minute ago, PadrePadre said:

 

 

And what calculations? BF4 have excactly the same amount of features that Squad have.


Besides the grammar which is hopefully the result of English being a second language for you, you've got some homework to do about what these games are doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah just read @Major Trouble's comments and the replies he received. I'm out of the thread. Those who do, can hate Squad all they want. I'm going to go load it up and have fun!! 

I remember what BF4 was like for the first two years. Squad ran better than that in Pre-Alpha. #JustSay'n 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can run all new games at decent FPS and at least high settings, and only SQUAD is making problems with getting decent FPS, if guys with the most recent i7s are getting low FPS compared to other titles ... I assume it's not the issue with PC configuration but terrible Squad engine performance.

 

I can't see what can use so many resources in a game with such physics and graphic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PadrePadre said:

If I can run all new games that I own at decent FPS and at least high settings, and only SQUAD is making problems with getting decent FPS, if guys with the most recent i7s are getting low FPS compared to other titles ... I assume it's not the issue with PC configuration but terrible Squad engine performance.

 

There I corrected that for you. What other UE4 based titles are you getting stellar performance from? Ark? PUBG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Major Trouble said:

 

There I corrected that for you. What other UE4 based titles are you getting stellar performance from? Ark? PUBG?

 

Not a single one my friend, as the only UT4 game I play is Squad. This does not mean it's performance is correct. For me it's a prehistoric engine with messed up multicore usage so I'm trying to avoid it for as long as I can. Squad looks promising, I really wanted to try it - and at the moment I'm in place where I don't enjoy it because of terrible CPU utilization leading to "low fps = unplayable game"... and I regret a bit I've spent more than 10 hours and I can't refund it just like my friends did. Single game is not worth getting new CPU, especially at Intel prices so ... dead end for now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the devs are doing great job and game have a potential - but it's current requirements are not in line with other 2016/2017 games in terms of how game looks (squad is unfortunately nothing near Battlefront, Wildlands or Andromeda) and hardware you need to run it at decent or at least playable fps (40-50+). 

 

 

Can you tell me how many CPU cores Squad engine uses? And if it's one or two - do you think it's OK in 2017? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love how the only people rant about multicore optimizations in 2017 is people who never coded anything and have not a single clue what they are talking about. i'm sure EPIC would want to hire a whole band of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lisasu said:

i love how the only people rant about multicore optimizations in 2017 is people who never coded anything and have not a single clue what they are talking about. i'm sure EPIC would want to hire a whole band of those.

 

We got to the Moon in 1969 but making a video game run well on multiple threads is too hard in 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PadrePadre said:

Can you tell me how many CPU cores Squad engine uses? And if it's one or two - do you think it's OK in 2017? 

 

It's certainly uses one core heavily, the others it's hard to tell what is the game or background OS. The load perhaps could be shared a better in this current day but is that the devs fault or the engine? I don't know. I am sure there are things the devs can do (animations) to gain performance but they need usually need doing as the game is developed. What I do know is the devs are developing a game in an alpha state while allowing early access for their target players to help provide constructive feedback on a game engine that is still in development itself. That's a brave thing to do with the way people can hide behind the internet when they don't like something. If you visit PUBG forums there are loads of comments on its performance as well. I don't think Squads performance trouble is purely down to the dev team.

Share this post


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

 

We got to the Moon in 1969 but making a video game run well on multiple threads is too hard in 2017.

that was a fake anyway :D

 

OWI will be really glad if you invest a couple of millions into optimization or some aaa-engine license, go for it guys

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