Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Scoob
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu, 27. Feb 03, 22:28
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Scoob » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 01:40

Aken_Bosch wrote:
Sat, 1. Dec 18, 00:55
There must be something going on somewhere with your setup/configuration I think, same GPU +i7 4770 and I can play at 60+ fps in space, 45-60 on platforms and less than that only in very busy situations, on ultra details at 1080 and FXAA.
Lack of Hyper-threading and a somewhat lower clock speed enough to push FPS that low do you think?

On a related note, my build of choice adds over £1,400 (GBP) to the cost of X4...ah well. Going to sleep on it and decide what to do.

Note: it's my CPU that's the weak point of my system with regards to X4, so, I'll get the best CPU I can, water cool it (AIO initially for testing, before going to my custom loop), plenty of RAM, a decent M.2 (or two) but stick with my 1070 for now - hopefully the 2080Ti (or maybe 2080) will come down in price a little...I'll be wanting a water block for that too.

Damn, now I'm excited about X4 and building a new rig lol.

Scoob.

Ranix
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu, 5. Jan 06, 22:54
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Ranix » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 01:43

don't upgrade that video card! read my last post and the guy who posted charts and graphs before me!

The game is using the video card and it's really maxing it out, but the frame rate is not tracking the video card's usage it's tracking the CPU's usage

Scoob
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu, 27. Feb 03, 22:28
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Scoob » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 02:20

A quick update on my performance....I've done a few tweaks and, combined, they've improved things somewhat. I'm still not at the silky-smooth level that a solid, reliable 60fps minimum would give me, but I'll take the improvement.

Here's what I've done:

Firstly, I've turned off Hyper-Threading on my 2600k. For whatever reason, I appear to be getting slightly better CPU utilisation now - according to my potentially flawed tool at least. Either that, or it simply reports HT workloads incorrectly...which I strongly suspect. I'm going to pop it back on and test again as a control.

Secondly, I'm running the game from a RAMDrive. The GoG version - DRM-free of course - allows this to work flawlessly. I did this because I was noticing a LOT of drive activity as ships flew by, landed, took off etc. while I stood on the Argon Equipment Dock. Perhaps the game needs to cache more assets as they are loaded? Maybe it was just trying to be efficient and maintain a smaller memory footprint. I have 32gb, so there's no need for that! Needless to say, loading times are much quicker and perhaps it's also contributed to a light fps bump.

Thirdly, I've upped my OC very slightly, from 4.4ghz to 4.6ghz. A modest bump, but it can't hurt.

I'll continue to tinker to see if I can get the best possible "last gasp" performance out of this CPU.

Scoob.

sandalle
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed, 18. Jul 12, 20:17
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by sandalle » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 02:21

Ranix wrote:
Sat, 1. Dec 18, 01:26
I've got a Threadripper 1920 and pc3200 RAM with a 980ti. I notice expected changes in quality and framerate when I play with the settings. When I enable triple-buffering (instead of standard vsync) the framerate unlocks and I can see my FPS fluctuate from ~100 to ~250 depending on where I'm looking and what my settings are.

I think it's very clear this game is not GPU bound, it's CPU or memory clockspeed bound. This is a REAL PC game, unlike most PC releases. You are probably used to the recycled garbage developers have been putting out for the past ~10 years, which are glorified XBONE ports that run entirely on the video card. That is not what this is. This is a real PC game made by real PC developers who know how to use a CPU to have fun. You need a real PC to play this, not a souped up nvidia console my dude.
That's because you have an nvidia car and you just disabled vsync with the "Triple Buffer Vsync" option. :)
Bernd wrote:Nvidia drivers have a minor issue with how they name their VSync options towards Vulkan games (like X4). You will therefore note, that the default VSync mode name "Triple Buffering VSync” is in fact NO VSYNC. You may have to try out the others modes depending on your driver version. Nvidia is working on fixing this naming issue.

Ranix
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu, 5. Jan 06, 22:54
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Ranix » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 02:47

What speed is your RAM running at Scoob?

Scoob
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu, 27. Feb 03, 22:28
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Scoob » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 02:54

Ranix wrote:
Sat, 1. Dec 18, 02:47
What speed is your RAM running at Scoob?
It's only at 1600mhz - I have all four slots populated, so I don't think there's any overclocking headroom to be had, if that's what you were thinking?

I'm continuing to tweak and my game - in the control area of the Argon Equipment Dock - is gradually getting smoother. I'm at 4.7ghz now and am doing comparisons between HT on and HT off, the latter does feel a little smoother, but I can't really confirm that 100% Traffic in this station is heavy, but not consistent between loads of the same saved game. When the traffic is quiet, I see 50fps or a little more, when heavy I dip to about 44fps - which is better than the low-30's I was getting previously. Oh, I found out that the -showfps option does work...must have typo'd when I first tried.

Still tweaking...

Scoob.

P.S. This may sound daft, but I'm LOVING just wandering around watching the ship traffic - I've not even taken off yet!! X4: Foundations the "visiting the air(space) port for the day sim" :)

Scoob
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu, 27. Feb 03, 22:28
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Scoob » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 03:43

Can I just add, because I've been focused on a specific test case - i.e. while on foot, inside the very busy starting Argon Equipment Dock - that once I take off in my ship, the fps is MUCH better. Plus, once I fly outside the station and am buzzing around it - with still fairly high traffic levels - my FPS is a silky-smooth 60, which is lovely on the eyes.

I've very limited time in-game so far, outside of my testing and tweaking my rig to be the best it can for it's eight year old heart (CPU, Motherboard and RAM) to perhaps stop me from spending on a new build.

Like I said at the start of the post, I've not had much time to play today, as I've been out this evening. What time I have spent has been tweaking, to avoid frustration over the weekend when I hopefully do have time to put a few hours in.

So, in summary, performance while on foot in a busy station, such as the Argon Equipment Dock the first game-start option begins us in, is fairly poor. However, my tweaks have made this a bearable 40 or so fps with the game looking pretty, plus the atmosphere of being in such a busy dock is very cool. Once in space, things improve a lot.

Query: How much of the traffic I'm seeing while on foot in the Equipment Dock is "real"? I mean, it's VERY busy, with lots of ships going in and out every minute. However, once I was outside, I did not appear to be seeing the same level of traffic. If some of the internal traffic I was seeing is ambient - i.e. just for ambience and not "real" - then an option to tone this down slightly might aid fps. I might be way off base here, it's almost 3am and I've been tinkering lol.

Scoob.

pref
Posts: 5589
Joined: Sat, 10. Nov 12, 17:55
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by pref » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 06:37

FYI I only get slightly better fps on i7 8700 & 1070gtx 8g vram, 60 outside with occasional drops to 40s, and 45-60 inside - seems to me its capped at 60. Doesn't seem so much better then yours.
Using higher then 2xSSAA or 4xMSAA drops the fps down to 20-40.
Most gfx settings shouldn't change your fps much, except maybe AA and view distance as that can affect cpu time spent on pathing.

AngelofDeath69
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 17, 18:11
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by AngelofDeath69 » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 07:18

Unfortunetly no one can say that these low fps are because of cpu bounds.

The game is just not optimized and thats it.

I have ryzen 7 1700x running at 4.3ghz, vega 64 watercooled, ram running at 3200 and game running of an nvme and i still get crappy long load times and 41 fps on starting area and cpu only goes to 50% usage max.

Messing with graphics settings and setting everything to the lowest possible only bumps the fps to the 90's. But thats no way to play with crappy graphs.

I juat wish there was some aknowledgment by the devs about this so that we know that this is just how its gonne be in terms of performance or if we can expect some improvement.

41 fps to get decent quality is just terrible and i feel the stutter heavily.
Not to mention that the game is only making proper use of 4 threads at the max of the cpu.

Benzin
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 03:01
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Benzin » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 08:47

Sadly i have to add myself to the list of people having problems and quite honestly an underwhelming experience.
GTX1060, intel i5 here. And for me the game is behaving very strangely. Sometimes there seems to be no antialias AT ALL, everything looks extremely jagged and jumpy, but it does run at a steady 60fps. Then all of the sudden, without me touching any settings, the AA seems to "kick in", and the game looks better, butn then my framerate drops to about 20-30fps.

If the graphics were "mindblowingly good" i guess i would understand. I dont have a top of the line system. But to me the game looks exactly like Rebirth, regarding graphics of course (tbh rebirth looks a little better to me), and i run rebirth on high settings at an everpresent 60fps. So i dont understand, graphics are on par with rebirth, but performance is not.
Now im nearing the 2hr refund limit on steam, and i havent even checked out the game yet, cause i been dealing with these issues.


Please dont consider this a "flame" or "hate" comment, its not. Im just sharing what my experience has been like.

casualplayer
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 08:51
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by casualplayer » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 09:01

Signing up just to say I'm experiencing this too.

My specs: i7-7700K, 16GB RAM, SSD, GTX 1080Ti (2560x1080 144Hz ultrawide Gsync)

Starting a new game, I am presented with ~100fps on the landing pad and 100-140fps outside flying with settings on High (FXAA Low).

After doing a little flyby, performance drops for good. I constantly get 50-60fps on the landing pad and up to 80 fps while flying. And this is how it stays. I've changed settings from Low to Ultra and back again. I've tried every combination of Gsync, Vsync, Triple Buffering both ingame and in Nvidia Control panel. I've changed resolution both down to 1920x1080 all the way up to 1440p ultrawide (upscaled using Nvidia DSR). My frame rate does not change.

Scoob
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu, 27. Feb 03, 22:28
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Scoob » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 13:19

casualplayer wrote:
Sat, 1. Dec 18, 09:01
Signing up just to say I'm experiencing this too.

My specs: i7-7700K, 16GB RAM, SSD, GTX 1080Ti (2560x1080 144Hz ultrawide Gsync)

Starting a new game, I am presented with ~100fps on the landing pad and 100-140fps outside flying with settings on High (FXAA Low).

After doing a little flyby, performance drops for good. I constantly get 50-60fps on the landing pad and up to 80 fps while flying. And this is how it stays. I've changed settings from Low to Ultra and back again. I've tried every combination of Gsync, Vsync, Triple Buffering both ingame and in Nvidia Control panel. I've changed resolution both down to 1920x1080 all the way up to 1440p ultrawide (upscaled using Nvidia DSR). My frame rate does not change.
That's an interesting experience. Your initial FPS destroys mine, suggesting your 7700k is keeping your 1080Ti very well fed, i.e. no CPU bottleneck. Very odd how it drops like that.

May I ask what clock speed your 7700k is running at, and whether you've been able to monitor temperatures and individual thread loads at all?

After some tweaking, my CPU utilisation is better I think - with HT Off, this is more obvious - though my CPU isn't what I'd say pushed in any way, and it's certainly not throttling at all.

The last thing I want is to spend a rather substantial amount on a new rig, only to find it too has issues due to some currently unknown factor. I had actually considered looking for a 7700k + mobo + RAM in the second hand market as a cheaper way to play X4. However, a new 9900k with associated parts is what I'm lusting after, if I'm honest lol.

Scoob.

casualplayer
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 08:51
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by casualplayer » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 15:09

Scoob wrote:
Sat, 1. Dec 18, 13:19
casualplayer wrote:
Sat, 1. Dec 18, 09:01
Signing up just to say I'm experiencing this too.

My specs: i7-7700K, 16GB RAM, SSD, GTX 1080Ti (2560x1080 144Hz ultrawide Gsync)

Starting a new game, I am presented with ~100fps on the landing pad and 100-140fps outside flying with settings on High (FXAA Low).

After doing a little flyby, performance drops for good. I constantly get 50-60fps on the landing pad and up to 80 fps while flying. And this is how it stays. I've changed settings from Low to Ultra and back again. I've tried every combination of Gsync, Vsync, Triple Buffering both ingame and in Nvidia Control panel. I've changed resolution both down to 1920x1080 all the way up to 1440p ultrawide (upscaled using Nvidia DSR). My frame rate does not change.
That's an interesting experience. Your initial FPS destroys mine, suggesting your 7700k is keeping your 1080Ti very well fed, i.e. no CPU bottleneck. Very odd how it drops like that.

May I ask what clock speed your 7700k is running at, and whether you've been able to monitor temperatures and individual thread loads at all?

After some tweaking, my CPU utilisation is better I think - with HT Off, this is more obvious - though my CPU isn't what I'd say pushed in any way, and it's certainly not throttling at all.

The last thing I want is to spend a rather substantial amount on a new rig, only to find it too has issues due to some currently unknown factor. I had actually considered looking for a 7700k + mobo + RAM in the second hand market as a cheaper way to play X4. However, a new 9900k with associated parts is what I'm lusting after, if I'm honest lol.

Scoob.
Nah, my cpu shouldn't be bottlenecking anything. I haven't played a game that has dropped anywhere near below 80fps yet until this one.

My cpu is running stock with all cores sync'd, so 4.5GHz max.

exogenesis
Posts: 2718
Joined: Sun, 9. Sep 07, 15:39
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by exogenesis » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 15:34

Can't say I'm having so much of a problem with a very similar setup to Scoob's PC:
i7 2600K @ 4.5GHz, GTX980, 16GB 1333 RAM, game loading from Samsung SATA 850 pro.

Refresh seems reasonably smooth, even without a G-Synch monitor to stop tearing.

Expected quite poor performance, given I'm running on a significantly lower than the min. spec. PC,
but getting reasonable (playable) FPS in BlackHole Sun, looking at the jump gates / eq. dock & sun + ships.


Seeing CPU usage about 35%, spread over all 8 hyperthreads, on the face of it it seems GPU bound to me,
since the FPS scales with screen resolution (2xSSAA, high qual.) & GPU is always at 100%:

Code: Select all

X res.	Y res.	FPS (steam)
1280	720	84
1600	900	60
1920	1080	48
2560	1440	30
3840	2160	14
[ external image ]

(According to that, the max. FPS I could get would be 220 at zero resolution, if there was such a thing - on the spreadsheets already :))

So I'm playing at 1920x1080, & if/until I see a performance drop-off,
e.g. perhaps I get further into the game with bigger 'empire' to be simulated,
I don't see spending £3000+ on a new 9900K rig being warranted.

But don't let me put you off upgrading Scoob :D

pref
Posts: 5589
Joined: Sat, 10. Nov 12, 17:55
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by pref » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 15:45

Scoob wrote:
Sat, 1. Dec 18, 13:19
However, a new 9900k with associated parts is what I'm lusting after, if I'm honest lol.
Probably a marginal gain over 7700 or 8700. It has more threads, but core speeds aren't that much better. Its not exactly gaming domain where those 30+ threads are needed.
With 8700 you can even settle with non k version with an average air cooler, as they have minimal performance difference if you don't want to OC. Then you can use the money you never spent on a pro cooling system on GPU or a better CPU later.
Game is perfectly smooth on ultra so far on 8700, it will never bring a high fps but 40+ is perfect (at least with gsync).
Think a 7700k would get you same results.

edit:
Weird thing is i cannot turn vsync off (game says off is not supported by my hardware), i see now others get 100+ fps, and seeing how mine is stable 60 it might be related to vsync settings - and probably would be much higher if i could turn off vsync somehow.

tomchk
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon, 26. Jan 15, 19:55
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by tomchk » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 16:04

Sadly my performance has also not been great, consistent with what most have said even with much better specs. I have i5-4590 and GTX1070 with SSD and plenty of DDR3-1600. Performance is well under 60 fps with lots of screen tearing, even at 1920x1080. Oddly, going to 5480x1080 (which has its own bugs) doesn't worsen performance that much.
Please improve optimization ASAP, Egosoft! Thanks!
Care to see what I've been creating? https://www.youtube.com/user/ytubrute

JakubCW
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri, 18. Aug 06, 06:59
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by JakubCW » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 16:20

Game appears to be all over the place from my experience.

i7 8700k (4.7ghz)
16gb ram (barely uses 6gb)
gtx 1080 ftw oc'd
NanD ssd 2500mb/s

Backhole sun Equipment dock im getting 20-30% gpu utilisation in places and 100% cpu utilisation on Core 2 but barley anything on core 1 and 20-30% spread over the other cores/HT's.. Framerate is in the low 40's and gets worse the longer i hand around the station.. initially starts off 60fps capped but performance seems to rapdily degrade for some reason.

Low/medium/high or ultra make no differnce to FPS here either.. the game is thrashing CPU hard, did they design this game for Superclocked i9 processors or something??

Scoob
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu, 27. Feb 03, 22:28
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Scoob » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 16:53

I'm using Process Explorer to monitor my CPU load. I think it's being a little quirky in how it shows the data though. For example, in any sort of CPU bench mark or stress test, it'll clearly show all eight Threads at 100% load, as you'd expect. When viewing this while playing a game, I see all threads busy, but only about 35% or so load overall. However, if I disable HT, I see about double the load. Now, on the face of it perhaps that makes sense as I've disabled half my threads...but these are just hyper threads not real cores. So, I think the tools paints a more accurate picture with HT disabled. This suggests my CPU is being pushed, even though it looks like it's barely breaking a sweat when HT is enabled. So, a somewhat uneven 35% load over all eight threads to a equally unevent 70% load over four threads paints a very different picture of how hard my CPU is pushed.

Note: HT is an interesting tech, but it's not magic. If one thread of a CPU is doing a given task, then the other thread of the same CPU is most efficient when doing something different. I.e. if both were hard core number crunching the same type of data, then perhaps HT wouldn't be helping so much. If however they're working on different (computationally) things, then HT can help. At least this is my basic understanding. I think Process Explorer perhaps isn't showing this properly when HT is enabled. I.e. if we were to ADD thread 0 and thread 1's graph, we'd get a better idea of how hard the actual Core is working.

@Pref: Regarding vSync, on an NV card the triple buffer vSync option is actually vSync off - CBJ explained it in another thread.

Regarding my upgrade. Yeah, a 9900k is huge overkill for any game today I expect. However, I like to built for longevity. My current 2600k has been a relevant gaming CPU for the past eight years...that's pretty good value. Friends of mine have done multiple core system (CPU and motherboard) upgrades in that time period to 4th gen, 6th gen and even 7th gen and not seen a huge in-game boost to performance when considering GPU parity. So, you could say I saved a lot in that time...my Car / PC fund is looking quite healthy as a result. Also, I already have the entire external loop assembly, so I just need CPU, Mobo, RAM, M.2, Case, CPU Block, fluid - looking at under £1,500 GBP. I might consider an interim system with a Z390 Mobo, decent RAM etc. but with maybe an 8700 or something, however, I'm not sure that will get me the experience I want at this time.

Oh, just to clarify, my FPS at it lowest has been about 40-44 walking around a busy station, elsewhere it's been 60 (vSync'd) so far, though I've not played much.

I've just applied the hotfix - I had to install the GoG Galaxy client and import my game folder for it to update. So, I'll get in-game again soon...hopefully.

Scoob.

casualplayer
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 08:51
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by casualplayer » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 17:32

Something interesting to report...

Decided to ignore the performance issues and just play for a bit. Noticed that once I got away from the starter areas (Black Hole Sun), my performance went right back up to where it should be. Played for a couple hours enjoying 100+fps on Ultra like a 1080Ti should be able to deliver instead of sub 60.

Scoob
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu, 27. Feb 03, 22:28
x4

Re: Performance not impacted by Graphical settings

Post by Scoob » Sat, 1. Dec 18, 17:58

Sorry, I type so slowly I missed the replies by @tomchk and @JakubCW...

I guess that i5 4590 is technically on spec, being a 4th gen Intel, but in many tests - assuming a similar OC - would be beaten by the older HT-enabled 2nd and 3rd Gen chip...in things that can take advantage of it. Basically, it's not too dissimilar to my own 2600k in essence, though perhaps there are architectural improvements that prove more significant in X4 than I realise.

@JakubCW's 8700k though...well, in theory it an my proposed 9900k should be near identical, yet an earlier poster mentioned flawless performance in X4, though they had a 2080 IIRC.

Performance does appear to be all over the place, with those having much newer CPU's than mine appearing to share a very similar experience. I'm sure there's at least some optimisation to be had. To be honest, I've fine with how things are in many ways. I knew my CPU was technically slightly below spec, despite being an overclocked i7, albeit of a slightly older generation. I'll be honest, I've been so used to running most games at near max settings (1920x1200) for so long now, that I was confident X4 would be fine.

I'd say that while I'd of course prefer never dropping below 60fps, ever. Getting ~40fps or so in a VERY busy station, ~50fps or so just outside it and a solid 60fps (vSync limited) when moving 500m or so away from the station is pretty good. Low fps in a station is uncomfortable on my eyes sure, but there's no actual twitch-reflex gameplay in a station....yet...so I can cope.

I think X4 is very nearly my trigger point to upgrade...well, whole new build, but I'm going to hold off a little while.

Thanks to everyone who's responding to this thread, please keep commenting on your personal experiences and observations along with PC specs.

I'm off to actually play for a bit now...that had been my plan eight+ hours ago but I ended up researching PC parts...the whole Z390 VRM thing...shudder...lots to read :)

@casualplayer - thanks for reporting. I suspect the starting area - BHS at least, the only area I've personally experienced - is a VERY busy are. This is great for ambience and really gives the impression of a bustling hub of activity, but it's hammering performance for many it seems. So, there's great environmental first impression here, but not so a great a performance once...I guess it's all a trade-off in that regard, though some fairly powerful systems are being...challenged by this it seems.

Edit: just to add that the starting Equipment Dock certainly appears to be quite an extreme example, performance-wise. I've docked at a nearby station and, despite there being a fair amount of traffic, my fps is a solid 60 currently. Just wandering around the station, taking in the sights :)

Scoob.

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”