IIITYPMAH

AMD is worst for Squad

66 posts in this topic

Your CPU is 5 years old and you're trying to play a title made 5-6 years after the CPU's creating date.

That's also extremely CPU heavy.

Optimization won't help you much mate - nature of PC gaming, you'll need to upgrade if you want to play newer titles.

Share this post


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

AMD fx8350, R9 280x, 16 GB RAM: 17-20 fps. When will optimization comes?

Aside from Nordics relevant points, the engine Squad runs on is not so AMD friendly at this time, there is no certain time span for this to be fixed.

 

I acquired an AMD rig recently, just for fun and enjoyed 15-25fps on a full map! (FX6300 CPU and AMD HD7770 2GB VRAM GPU, 8GB RAM, HDD). I feel your pain. 

AMD Ryzen works just fine by all accounts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll generally always pick Intel nowadays. I used AMD (GPU and CPU) for a long time but ever since I switched to Nvidia and Intel my overall gaming experience has been so much better.

With AMD I witnessed a lot of issues with newer games due to games being optimized primarily for Intel and Nvidia (since most people use those brands) and had to wait quite a while for it to be optimized for AMD.

Now I am aware that there definitely are games that took AMD to mind but it still happens far too often that AMD gets left out.

 

Another reason why I prefer Intel CPU's over AMD is because their multitasking abilities are better compared to AMD in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Smooth said:

Another reason why I prefer Intel CPU's over AMD is because their multitasking abilities are better compared to AMD in my opinion.

 

You need to take a hard look at Ryzen. AMD is kicking Intel butt in multitasking with their latest gen. All rise the underdog.

Share this post


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

 

You need to take a hard look at Ryzen. AMD is kicking Intel butt in multitasking with their latest gen. All rise the underdog.

 

Maybe by price point, but intel still has a IPC lead.

Share this post


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

Your CPU is 5 years old and you're trying to play a title made 5-6 years after the CPU's creating date.

That's also extremely CPU heavy.

Optimization won't help you much mate - nature of PC gaming, you'll need to upgrade if you want to play newer titles.

BF1 High - 60 fps. Ghost Recon Wildlands - 60 fps, Division - 60 fps, R6 Siege - 60 fps. What are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, godamntwitch said:

 

Maybe by price point, but intel still has a IPC lead.

 

Very true, but much reduced of late. IPC doesn't always lead to good multitasking. Ryzen has the edge over Intel when gaming and streaming at the same time when the game isn't CPU bound, like UE4 games, and isn't using as much IPC it can get.

Share this post


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

BF1 High - 60 fps. Ghost Recon Wildlands - 60 fps, Division - 60 fps, R6 Siege - 60 fps. What are you talking about?



Here's what I'm talking about:

BF1 - 64 players, 500x500 meter maps (If even that?)

Ghost Recon Wildlands - Single player game. Not CPU intensive.

Division: 10 players per server Afaik? 300x300 meter maps?

Rainbow Six Siege: See division



And then: Squad: 80 players, 4000x4000 meter maps. (Or 2000x2000).


Get it now?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IIITYPMAH said:

AMD fx8350, R9 280x, 16 GB RAM: 17-20 fps. When will optimization comes?

 

I have the same CPU, my build is FX8350, 16GB DDR3 1866Mhz with Rx480 8GB and Squad plays terrible at times and it is almost unplayable for me at times!

 

I can play BF1 on ultra with DX12... Siege, Division, GTA, Just Cause 3 etc etc all maxed but this game is just horrible which sucks because I seriously enjoy the game and I've telling my friends and other people positive stuff but a game that is one sided to Intel and NVIDIA is a massive let down so I hope it gets fixed 

Edited by Kyle939

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Kyle939 said:

 

I have the same CPU, my build is FX8350, 16GB DDR3 1866Mhz with Rx480 8GB and Squad plays terrible at times and it is almost unplayable for me at times!

 

I can play BF1 on ultra with DX12... Siege, Division, GTA, Just Cause 3 etc etc all maxed but this game is just horrible which sucks because I seriously enjoy the game and I've telling my friends and other people positive stuff but a game that is one sided to Intel and NVIDIA is a massive let down so I hope it gets fixed 



It's not onesided to intel or nvidia.


You're limited by your CPU which is completely outdated and that has nothing to do with intel or AMD.


A pentium 4 wouldn't run this game either.

Share this post


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

 

Very true, but much reduced of late. IPC doesn't always lead to good multitasking. Ryzen has the edge over Intel when gaming and streaming at the same time when the game isn't CPU bound, like UE4 games, and isn't using as much IPC it can get.

 

Never mention UE4 games because there are so many of them, and to group them as a whole is retarded. There are plenty of games on ue4 that don't have this issue. Also why would we bottleneck the GPU when bench marking CPU'?That's some really stupid shit, and it's like you read AMDs stupid testing scheme and ate it up. If you are testing the speed of a CPU you are not bottlenecking the GPU plain and simple. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, godamntwitch said:

 

Never mention UE4 games because there are so many of them, and to group them as a whole is retarded. There are plenty of games on ue4 that don't have this issue. Also why would we bottleneck the GPU when bench marking CPU'?That's some really stupid shit, and it's like you read AMDs stupid testing scheme and ate it up. If you are testing the speed of a CPU you are not bottlenecking the GPU plain and simple. 

 

He's not benching a CPU, he's just giving a use example. You can look at the many benchmarks that are out there and see the data for yourself. Ryzen is slightly behind latest Intel chips at IPC and in gaming, it's very good at multitasking and multithreading.

 

In the end if you want a 6 core CPU you can get a Ryzen 5 1600X at $220 or an Intel i9 7800X at $390. Consider that price difference, add the motherboard price difference and you realize you could get a 1080ti instead of a 1080 or a 1080 instead of a 1070 which would net you much better performance in games overall. Suddenly Ryzen starts making sense.

Share this post


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

 

He's not benching a CPU, he's just giving a use example. You can look at the many benchmarks that are out there and see the data for yourself. Ryzen is slightly behind latest Intel chips at IPC and in gaming, it's very good at multitasking and multithreading.

 

In the end if you want a 6 core CPU you can get a Ryzen 5 1600X at $220 or an Intel i9 7800X at $390. Consider that price difference, add the motherboard price difference and you realize you could get a 1080ti instead of a 1080 or a 1080 instead of a 1070 which would net you much better performance in games overall. Suddenly Ryzen starts making sense.

 

I already said in my previous comments in this thread, that it maybe good at the price point. I was simply saying that you shouldn't ever throttle the GPU if you are benching the CPU. And it seemed like the same kind of bullshit AMD was pushing when they told reviewers to bench there chips differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, godamntwitch said:

 

I already said in my previous comments in this thread, that it maybe good at the price point. I was simply saying that you shouldn't ever throttle the GPU if you are benching the CPU. And it seemed like the same kind of bullshit AMD was pushing when they told reviewers to bench there chips differently.

 

And we heard the same thing with Intel and i9, it doesn't matter because we can just look at the benchmarks and see how it performs.

Share this post


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

 

And we heard the same thing with Intel and i9, it doesn't matter because we can just look at the benchmarks and see how it performs.

 

No we didn't stop saying that. Did you read anything in my previous post. On reddit people were saying that if it was intel, they would be flipping out. Please go away amd fanboy.

 

 

Edited by beginna
removed personal insult

Share this post


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

Any links to detailed benchmarks with Ryzen 5 running Squad?

 

Since SQUAD is using prehistoric engine, it won't get decent fps with modern, multicore CPUs. Yes, you are going to be able to play with stable 40-50 fps but for as long as devs won't make SQUAD engine a bit more 21st century engine - it won't go further.

 

YT example video with Ryzen 5 in SQUAD

 

Ryzen is a nice CPU, it allows for better GPU since you get some spare cash from "not buying more expensive Intel".

Edited by PadrePadre
nothing important :)

Share this post


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

Snip....

Yes, you are going to be able to play with stable 40-50 fps but for as long as devs won't make SQUAD engine a bit more 21st century engine - it won't go further.

 

I agree in most what you say but Squad Devs don't make the Engine but UnrealEngine does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Xx-RAGING-DEATH-xX said:

 

I agree in most what you say but Squad Devs don't make the Engine but UnrealEngine does.


Unreal Engine is an extremely capable engine. There isn't another engine on the market that could work with Squad that I know of, at least not while having the graphics  look better than Minecraft. :) 

I can't find any detailed benchmarks with Ryzen running Squad. :( My nearly 5 year old 4670K which is currently running at 4.6GHz still keeps up with current CPUs for gaming. I guess I can keep my money for now. 

Share this post


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

 

Since SQUAD is using prehistoric engine, it won't get decent fps with modern, multicore CPUs. Yes, you are going to be able to play with stable 40-50 fps but for as long as devs won't make SQUAD engine a bit more 21st century engine - it won't go further.

 

YT example video with Ryzen 5 in SQUAD

 

Ryzen is a nice CPU, it allows for better GPU since you get some spare cash from "not buying more expensive Intel".

 

What are you talking about? "Prehistoric Engine"... they are on a modern version of UE4, not like they are on the original UE. UE4.16, which they are moving to now, was just released...

 

The bolded statement is just blatantly wrong. Again, for example, an i5-6600k runs perfectly fine, netting me 80+ FPS easily. 

Edited by DoctorKamikaze

Share this post


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

My nearly 5 year old 4670K which is currently running at 4.6GHz still keeps up with current CPUs for gaming. I guess I can keep my money for now. 

 

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.

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