Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
slingerstix

Cannot Solve FPS problem

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

I have done extensive research and tried a whole bunch of different things to increase my FPS even though I believe I should have higher anyway.  Here are the specs on my computer:

AMD FX 4300 Quad-Core Processor

AMD Radeon R7 200 series (I think it is a 250)

I am getting extremely low FPS.  I am around 15-20fps in training and around 5-10 in game depending on the map.  I would think that this set up should be capable of at least 50-60 fps?  I have put all the computer settings to performance along with the AMD settings. Maybe I am just wrong in thinking this computer can handle this game?  Please help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be getting a little higher I would think. Try the lowest resolution with everything low/off, check fps, bump to 1080, check fps. If both are the same, your cpu is the bottleneck. If you get a major fps boost on lowest settings/resolution vs 1080 on low then its a gpu bottleneck. Probably both. Try overclocking your cpu as well, I had unplayable fps at 2.6ghz with an rx 580, then got 30 fps at 3.6ghz, then got a new ryzen cpu and its 70~ fps now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psyrus   

The minimum requirement for the CPU is a i5 2500K or equivalent. Your FX4300 doesn't even come close to that

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-FX-4300

 

You can see the requirements here:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/393380/Squad/

 

-----------

 

edit: Your gpu also falls short of the HD7850 minimum requirement

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-250-vs-Radeon-HD-7850

Edited by Psyrus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on some benchmark scores of your cpu vs my old cpu, i'd say your CPU if overclocked slightly will reach 30-40 Fps if paired with any gpu. My old amd 1035t got 30ish fps, your fx should be a tiny bit better. 

So if you are getting 5-10 fps atm then its most definitely your gpu and or bad drivers or something. 

 

Still, to play squad, you need both a new cpu and gpu if you want stable fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beginna   

Hello and welcome to Squad @slingerstix,

as @Psyrus already mentioned, both your CPU and GPU are below minimum requirements.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Mr. Sandwich said:

My old amd 1035t got 30ish fps, your fx should be a tiny bit better. 

Not necessarily.
In regards to Squad, an older AMD Phenom II X6 1035T (Q2 2010) might perform even better than an AMD FX-4300(Q4 2012).

 

The Bulldozer (AMD FX) architecture doesn't work well with CPU bound titles (like Squad).

Quote

AMD clearly states in its reviewer's guide that CPU bound gaming performance isn't going to be a strong point of the FX architecture, likely due to its poor single threaded performance.

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

Share this post


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

The minimum requirement for the CPU is a i5 2500K or equivalent. Your FX4300 doesn't even come close to that

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-FX-4300

 

You can see the requirements here:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/393380/Squad/

 

-----------

 

edit: Your gpu also falls short of the HD7850 minimum requirement

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-250-vs-Radeon-HD-7850

 

You're right in what you said but please don't use those sites, they're clickbait with seemingly random data. I just compared 2600k to 6700k and it said their IPC is the same while 4790k is much better and all 3 have the same performance per watt... The other site claims that a 970 is better for gaming than a Fury X, pure made up crap sites.

Share this post


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

please don't use those sites, they're clickbait with seemingly random data

 

I use them to illustrate the point, not as gospel. Most of my posts happen during down time at work so I try to be as efficient as possible... if you could point me to some direct comparisons between a FX4300 v i5 2500k and the R7 250 v HD 7850, I'm happy to use those sites as a visual aid. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SHO-SHIN   
44 minutes ago, Psyrus said:

 

I use them to illustrate the point, not as gospel. Most of my posts happen during down time at work so I try to be as efficient as possible... if you could point me to some direct comparisons between a FX4300 v i5 2500k and the R7 250 v HD 7850, I'm happy to use those sites as a visual aid. :) 

I forget the benchmarks and just look at the specs, side by side. Unless they put the wrong numbers in the wrong boxes it can help alot for quick reference.

The 4790k, holds up really well in single core performance vs the 6700k and even 7700k, which have just slight improvement on the 4790k in most games. Thats putting overclocking to one side.

Share this post


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

 

I use them to illustrate the point, not as gospel. Most of my posts happen during down time at work so I try to be as efficient as possible... if you could point me to some direct comparisons between a FX4300 v i5 2500k and the R7 250 v HD 7850, I'm happy to use those sites as a visual aid. :) 

I understand what you mean and don't have a direct comparison, which is telling enough. Just explain that FX arch is outdated and has terrible performance while 2500k is still within 30% of newest Intel's offerings. The problem is that a user will click your link, compare other CPUs for "guidance"

and get a completely false image.

Share this post


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

The minimum requirement for the CPU is a i5 2500K or equivalent. Your FX4300 doesn't even come close to that

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-FX-4300

 

You can see the requirements here:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/393380/Squad/

 

-----------

 

edit: Your gpu also falls short of the HD7850 minimum requirement

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-250-vs-Radeon-HD-7850

thing is, even with the minimum requirements, still terrible frames, i have an fx 6300, which in benchmarking is basically overall equal to the i5 2500k.... and all other specs are better than the recommended, gtx 980, 8 gigs ram, game on its own SSD... still can't get past 30-40 frames, sometimes its in the 25 area.... 

 

Doesn't make sense to me, that only my cpu is on the minimum requirements, all other specs are better than the recommended, yet can't get more than 30 fps?

 

y u do dis 2 me, plox fix this by full release!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SHO-SHIN   
2 minutes ago, CR1T1CALIRL said:

thing is, even with the minimum requirements, still terrible frames, i have an fx 6300, which in benchmarking is basically overall equal to the i5 2500k.... and all other specs are better than the recommended, gtx 980, 8 gigs ram, game on its own SSD... still can't get past 30-40 frames, sometimes its in the 25 area.... 

 

Doesn't make sense to me, that only my cpu is on the minimum requirements, all other specs are better than the recommended, yet can't get more than 30 fps?

 

y u do dis 2 me, plox fix this by full release!

It's your CPU that is the main 'driver' for FPS in Squad (with all other things being put to oneside......), and thats min spec. So you are getting min FPS etc.

The AMD FX6300 is not equivalent to the Intel 2500K in terms of single thread performance, which is the bit that counts for Squad, right now.

For reference look at the single core performance benchmark here (top right):
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-FX-6300

I feel for ya man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SHO-SHIN said:

It's your CPU that is the main 'driver' for FPS in Squad (with all other things being put to oneside......), and thats min spec. So you are getting min FPS etc.

The AMD FX6300 is not equivalent to the Intel 2500K in terms of single thread performance, which is the bit that counts for Squad, right now.

For reference look at the single core performance benchmark here (top right):
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-FX-6300

I feel for ya man!

i agree it isn't equal in terms of single thread performance,  but overall it's not far off....

 

and i dont mind FPS being low now, as it is not even fully released... but can we expect any of this to change with full release? Or will it be like arma, 5 years later, still unoptimized dooodoooo...

 

i hope it will be, because this game is so amazing, it would be a shame if all AMD users had to sit this one out because they can't get decent frames... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SHO-SHIN   
5 minutes ago, CR1T1CALIRL said:

i agree it isn't equal in terms of single thread performance,  but overall it's not far off....

 

and i dont mind FPS being low now, as it is not even fully released... but can we expect any of this to change with full release? Or will it be like arma, 5 years later, still unoptimized dooodoooo...

 

i hope it will be, because this game is so amazing, it would be a shame if all AMD users had to sit this one out because they can't get decent frames... 

 

 

It's unfortunate you have the CPU you do, AMD Ryzen works well with Squad.

You will have to change your CPU, Squad is a demanding game and you cannot rely on the project delivering more FPS with your hardware. You ar way below the recommended spec's, this is just the reality.

If I were you I would ask myself the following, what resolution do I want to play in, at what average FPS and what min FPS.

If we know these things we can give advise as to the best upgrade as it needn't be horribly expensive or difficult.

For me it was easy, I want the fastest, bestest Squad experience I can get my hands on, but thats me!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SHO-SHIN said:

It's unfortunate you have the CPU you do, AMD Ryzen works well with Squad.

You will have to change your CPU, Squad is a demanding game and you cannot rely on the project delivering more FPS with your hardware. You ar way below the recommended spec's, this is just the reality.

If I were you I would ask myself the following, what resolution do I want to play in, at what average FPS and what min FPS.

If we know these things we can give advise as to the best upgrade as it needn't be horribly expensive or difficult.

For me it was easy, I want the fastest, bestest Squad experience I can get my hands on, but thats me!

 

so, it isn't an optimization issue... see, this is whats confusing, i see people saying its optimization, then i see the opposite said.... 

 

Now, moving forward,

 

what am3+ cpu would you suggest? from what i understand, none of them work well with squad.... Maybe on the "minimum requirements" just putting 2500k or equal to single thread performance....

 

as many AMD users, who benchmark better than the 2500k, will still not meet the requirements...  (for instance, the fx 8350 benchmarks far better than the 2500k, except in single thread performance https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=804&cmp[]=1780)

 

 that seems like an oddly specific thing to require to play a game and not mention it on the sales page.. know what i mean?

 

Edited by CR1T1CALIRL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SHO-SHIN   
10 minutes ago, CR1T1CALIRL said:

so, it isn't an optimization issue... see, this is whats confusing, i see people saying its optimization, then i see the opposite said.... 

Your confusing me, Squad is an alpha project and significant optimisations should happen in beta, once the major game features are present. As an alpha it is up and down in all areas, that's what alphas are.

Re AMD CPU's, I don't have any real experience with them. But several Squad players say the AMD Ryzen range is very good in Squad. So theres the recommendation if you want to stick with AMD and have decent Squad performance.

Everyone has their own idea's on min and rec specs vs expected performance. For me min specs should deliver around 30fps in 1080p, and rec specs 60fps in 1080p.

It's not at all odd for companies to not mention something as specific as single thread performance in their marketing/product pages, I of course wish they did. But they don't. This, is life LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SHO-SHIN said:

It's not at all odd for companies to not mention something as specific as single thread performance in their marketing/product pages, I of course wish they did. But they don't. This, is life LOL.

well, 90% of games don't have this issue.. nobody assumes they would.. Nobody looks at requirements of cpu and thinks well, i benchmark better than this cpu, but muh single core performance...  you guys know this, i know this, and we both know you're going to get alot of angry AMD users... but thats life according to you... glad i don't live your life...

 

22 minutes ago, SHO-SHIN said:

Your confusing me, Squad is an alpha project and significant optimisations should happen in beta, once the major game features are present. As an alpha it is up and down in all areas, that's what alphas are.

also, i stated that i'm fine with FPS being low in alpha, but you just said earlier, that it doesn't matter, as my cpu doesn't perform as well as the 2500k in 1 fashion, single thread..... see, you're confusing me now.... will future optimization alleviate this single thread issue in any way, or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SHO-SHIN   
5 hours ago, CR1T1CALIRL said:

well, 90% of games don't have this issue.. nobody assumes they would.. Nobody looks at requirements of cpu and thinks well, i benchmark better than this cpu, but muh single core performance...  you guys know this, i know this, and we both know you're going to get alot of angry AMD users... but thats life according to you... glad i don't live your life...

 

also, i stated that i'm fine with FPS being low in alpha, but you just said earlier, that it doesn't matter, as my cpu doesn't perform as well as the 2500k in 1 fashion, single thread..... see, you're confusing me now.... will future optimization alleviate this single thread issue in any way, or not?

I understand your upset/disappointed, but please don't confuse me with OWI. I am a community mod is all, I try and help on the forum.

I've already stated I would give more info on the steam page etc, I agree with you.

There could be future improvements on single thread reliance, it's down to how the game gets coded and optimised and I believe the engine the game is built upon. But I don't know that process, reality or the effect so if I were you I wouldn't expect much to help your situation here.

The full game will be more demanding with all features, mod's and actual future optimisation effect is, well unknown.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moppel   

It's simple , just refund the game if still in 2 h window , if not all you can do is giving a  steam review and discribe the current technical state of squad to warn others  with similar hardware.

Investing in hundreds of dollars dollars for new hardware for a alpha State game with unknown future requirements isn't the way to go . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
banOkay   
14 hours ago, CR1T1CALIRL said:

well, 90% of games don't have this issue.. nobody assumes they would.. Nobody looks at requirements of cpu and thinks well, i benchmark better than this cpu, but muh single core performance...  you guys know this, i know this, and we both know you're going to get alot of angry AMD users... but thats life according to you... glad i don't live your life...

 

also, i stated that i'm fine with FPS being low in alpha, but you just said earlier, that it doesn't matter, as my cpu doesn't perform as well as the 2500k in 1 fashion, single thread..... see, you're confusing me now.... will future optimization alleviate this single thread issue in any way, or not?

 

Those synthetic benchmarks don't translate into real gaming performance at all, which is why sites like that are pointless. Here are some actual game benchmarks for you to look at, your CPU is 30% slower than the 2500K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SHO-SHIN   
13 minutes ago, moppel said:

Investing in hundreds of dollars dollars for new hardware for a alpha State game with unknown future requirements isn't the way to go . 

 

Not true in my case, 

I played around 300hrs of Squad at around 30fps in 1080p and it was great, I didn't really know any difference. But once I understood more about the game and realised I was going to play for a long time (and seriously) I changed to new rigs. I also learn't a bunch about PC gaming performance which I enjoy as well.

I then spent alot of money to give me a top rig, fit for Squad. Granted I could and not everyone has that option. But I have now well over 1,000 Squad hours so it has payed itself back no problem. The bonus was everything else I play runs fantastic as well.

On saying all of this, I have to state I purchased and sold alot of secondhand gear to build up my system value, so getting to where I am with my rig wasn't a one off big payment or anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2017 at 4:53 AM, banOkay said:

 

Those synthetic benchmarks don't translate into real gaming performance at all, which is why sites like that are pointless. Here are some actual game benchmarks for you to look at, your CPU is 30% slower than the 2500K.

i understand, but it isn't using all of my cpu, if it's so demanding, it should be using all of my cpu and gpu.... for instance, battlefield 1 is demanding on my cpu, but it uses 99% of it and my gpu makes up for the rest, allowing me to play at 60fps...its just not, barely uses half... sometimes a single core will bounce up to 70 and drop back down to 50 and bounce up and drop back down... ive never seen a game run like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is Unreal Engine 4 and its complete lack of optimisation and multi-thread support.

The issues are systemic to the UE4 basecode and no fluffy little tweaks around the edges will ever fix that.

No matter what developer or game uses Unreal Engine 4, they all have the same identical issues of bad performance and optimisation.

But if you want to keep drinking the cool-aid and throw $$$$ at a problem outside of your control, then carry on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RollingInTheHurt said:

The real problem is Unreal Engine 4 and its complete lack of optimisation and multi-thread support.

The issues are systemic to the UE4 basecode and no fluffy little tweaks around the edges will ever fix that.

No matter what developer or game uses Unreal Engine 4, they all have the same identical issues of bad performance and optimisation.

But if you want to keep drinking the cool-aid and throw $$$$ at a problem outside of your control, then carry on...

This is completely untrue, and you keep saying it on the forums. A lot of the time, it's up the the devs to multithread there work. Not the engine. Also do you have any clue how many AAA studios have decided to switch to Unreal engine after failing at creating their own engine? Square Enix, most of microsofts first party games, Days gone, and so many more have switched to unreal. And about throwing $$$ a problem you can't fix, that's totally bull. UE4 is probably one of the only engines to provide their source code to developers for free. Meaning if they want  to solve the problem on their own. They can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are some recommendations for medium level play on squad with 60fps roughly? I do not need super high def and graphics but want this game to run smooth with medium graphics.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×