Performance: AA + "Grainy" cloud type = v. low FPS

[Scoob]

Hey all,

So, for me performance has always been a bit poo, but it's gotten better over various patches for the most part. The limitation has always been CPU though, with my i7 @ 4.6ghz (2600k) being hammered, usually just on a single thread. However, updates have helped here and now the load is much more even giving better performance.

The thing is, I just started a new 2.5 game and have just entered Grand Exchange Iv for the first time and my performance tanked, hard. I brought up my diagnostic tools to see what the issue was and, while my CPU is certainly busy, it's my GPU that's utterly pegged out. This surprised me so I started doing some testing, turning down various settings. After this yielded zero results, I ended up setting the game to the "Low" preset. However, my GPU is still pegged at 99% and simply cannot cope.

Now, if a game is at the LOWEST settings and the GPU is still totally pegged out and giving me 25 to 30 fps at best, that suggested that the GPU really isn't up to the job - but it's a GTX 1070! Not high end these days perhaps, but a strong mid-range showing I'd suggest. Other sectors were performing better generally, but Grand Exchange IV - the forth sector I've visited since starting - is by far the worst.

Is anyone else having particular problems with this sector? My reasonably decent PC really isn't up to the task of running this game at the moment. I sorta got the CPU limitation - even guys with 5ghz 9900k's were suffering in the early days - but GPU, really? Especially as settings make zero difference from highest to lowest, all at just 1920x1200 and hoping for 60hz.

Interestingly, according to GPUz my GPU Load is 99% flat and my memory controller load is also 98-99% vRam usage is a modest 2,283MB at this moment.

Edit: to be clear, it seems to be looking at the asteroids / dust clouds that hurt my 1070...what's so demanding about these effects? If I had a much older GPU, I'd understand, but not Pascal.

Edit 2: After leaving the sector, my performance improved and I saw GPU load drop a lot. I'm now in Black Hole Sun IV which also has asteroids and dust but the dust looks finer, less gritty, so I assume it's a different effect. What I'm getting at is that these don't appear to hammer my GPU. It's busy, but under 50%.

Scoob.

[burger1]

It's all the dust and stuff in Grand Exchange IV. I think there mods to remove it. There's a no fog mod in the steam workshop that might work. Not sure if you can get rid of the dust etc... My 1660 gtx also goes to 99% usage.

[Imperial Good]

The GTX 1070 is a modern GPU and hence utilizes dynamic clock boost to achieve high performance. It will start at a low clock and raise the clock speed when under high loads until some limit is reached. The possible limits are maximum clock speed, temperature and power. This dynamic clock speed behaviour allows the GPU to operate reliably and safely in a number of sub optimal conditions at the cost of performance.

Make sure that the GPU has sufficient power connectors plugged into it. This include both the PCIe power from the motherboard (often a separate connector on the motherboard) and the 6 or 8 pin connectors on the card itself. Consumer orientated NVidia GPUs will pull power from all sources and usually require all power sources be present to avoid the card hitting the power limit. If the card is overclocked by raising voltages be aware that this decreases power efficiency so can easily cause reference designed cards to hit their power limit at lower clocks, hence why enthusiast cards exist with more power connectors or hardware mods are required to raise this limit.

Make sure it is not being thermal throttled at a lower than optimum clock speed. For optimum clock speed you want the GPU to be at most 70 degrees Celsius at all times, with 60 being preferred. If it is at 80 or higher it will be thermal throttling and so will be under performing. There are many reasons this can happen, including the GeForce 10xx series having sub optimal reference cooling solutions to bad case thermal design. Many OEM systems suffer this out the box due to poor design choices. If this is the case make sure the cooling solution is not clogged with dust. If it is not and this is still a problem one would need to alter the case thermals which means more fans, different placed fans, or different GPU cooling solution.

If none of the above effect you then the card is operating optimally and hitting the maximum clock speed. In this case it really is an issue with that sector causing the GPU to be loaded more than it should. In this case I recommend posting a save that when loaded places X4 into this high GPU usage state so that other players can test. If it effects other players as well then this is a game issue and needs to be reported as such. Egosoft can then use the save to recrate the issue and hopefully optimize either the assets or the engine to improve performance.

[zarrazee]

The GTX 1070 is a modern GPU

I wouldn't describe GTX 1070 as "modern"; it was launched nearly 3 years ago, which for a GPU makes it "past its prime", "middle-aged", "last gen"... - take your pick

OP. About 6 months ago, I replaced mine with an RTX 2080. There is a noticeable difference in performance between the 2 cards. Everything is smoother, FPS higher and more stable, Elite in VR is better, no probs with X4 on Ultra, KC:D runs a lot faster etc. My suggestion is to upgrade.

[Imperial Good]

I wouldn't describe GTX 1070 as "modern"; it was launched nearly 3 years ago, which for a GPU makes it "past its prime", "middle-aged", "last gen"... - take your pick

Seeing how Intel is still using the same desktop processor designs from 3 years ago, yes I do consider this "modern". Both GTX 1080 and GTX 1080-ti are still respectable cards which still beat most of the NVidia GPU stack. Since both their performance and capabilities are comparable to new GPUs, they are still modern.

I would even consider my GTX 760 as reasonably modern since it still supports most modern technology despite now being beaten by cards low down on new product stacks. However it is noticeably showing age in that it lacks the aggressively high clock boosts of modern GPUs as well as generally low performance and limited feature set support.

OP. About 6 months ago, I replaced mine with an RTX 2080. There is a noticeable difference in performance between the 2 cards. Everything is smoother, FPS higher and more stable, Elite in VR is better, no probs with X4 on Ultra, KC:D runs a lot faster etc. My suggestion is to upgrade.

Obviously there is a noticeable difference seeing how you moved up 2 levels of the product stack... The GTX 1070 has performance, and price, comparable with an RTX 2060. An RTX 2080 has performance, and price, comparable with a GTX 1080-ti.

GeForce GTX 1080-Ti -> $699 MSRB
GeForce RTX 2080 -> $699 MSRB
GeForce GTX 1070 -> $379 MSRB
GeForce RTX 2060 -> $349 MSRB

As such all you are saying is that throwing money at the problem, in this case ~85% more money on the GPU, will get better performance. This is obvious and one could have done the same back when the GeForce 10 series was new and get similar results. Sure the results one gets now are slightly better than before due to generational improvements, but not that much as it is only an improvement of 1 generation. This is not a recommended solution since not everyone is well off.

[Artean]

I have always had terrible performance in Grand Exchange IV. The combination of gas and dust clouds together with asteroid fields halfs my fps. I'm using a 1070 as well.

The same was true in X:R - any sector with gas clouds hit my fps hard.

[Rastuasi]

I run 4k at 43" monitor on my GTX 770 and still maintain around 45-60fps on Linux. 1070, so long as 4 gb of vram is on the gpu

[zarrazee]

Seeing how Intel is still using the same desktop processor designs from 3 years ago, yes I do consider this "modern".

We'll have to disagree on what we consider "modern". Tech bought today is out of date within 6-12 months.

This is not a recommended solution since not everyone is well off.

"well off" VS what we did in the old days - "save up". i.e. put cash aside every week for months/years until one has enough. £4/week gets you a new "modern" graphics card every 2 years.

[Scoob]

Sorry, I lost this thread for a moment, thanks for the replies.

My GTX 1070 is running well and properly, and overclocks nicely to 2ghz without going over 60c. It's a very good card. Currently running it stock...mainly because I didn't re-apply the OC after updating the drivers, but also I haven't felt the need...other than in X4, which I put down to some weird optimisation issue.

I did do some more digging on this, and I found out what appears to CRIPPLE this GPU performance-wise. Basically, a certain type of dust cloud - namely the more "gritty" one, not the fluffy ones - combined with even just 2xSSAA, loads it to 99% and it simply cannot cope. Turn off AA and these dust clouds are fine. Funny this is, this is the first time turning off AA has helped during a low-fps situation, as usually it's the CPU that's being hammered.

Usually in games with this GPU, enabling 2x or even 4xSSAA doesn't really hurt performance - I'm vSync'd at 60 remember - and there are plenty of titles I run at 8xAA (not sure what type, not all games say, but NOT FXAA, that looks terrible!) with the card barely breaking a sweat. So, some combination of how SSAA works and those particular gritty dust clouds cause huge issues for the GTX 1070.

Oh, as an FYI, Pascal GPU's love staying under 50c, GPU Boost starts to pull back on the amount it overclocks above this. I.e. I can get 2ghz easily and the GPU will hold it there without issue, however, the moment the GPU ticks over 50c it starts reducing the boost level slightly, never below about 1950mhz (for me) but 50c is the magic number, and I only rarely go above that. Thankfully, my GTX 1070 has about one of the best, and heaviest air coolers I've seen, so it rarely goes any more than 25c or so over ambient. With the room staying below 25c (usually about 20c) for the most part, this means the GPU stays under 50c. Of course I'm running a slightly more aggressive fan profile, but it's far from noisy, and those fans are fed with ample external cool air.

I still think it's fair to call Pascal-based GPU's "modern", though the 1070 has slipped a few spots from when it was new. I think a 2080Ti would likely be twice as fast in certain rasterised rendering tasks, but the 1070 still has the power to run many modern titles very well indeed at higher settings. A pretty solid GPU really, and a good match for my ageing 2600k!

As an aside, if Zen 2 delivers on it's promises - and it's looking good, but I'll wait for independent reviews - I'll likely be putting this old system out to pasture and getting a new CPU - possibly the 12 Core 3900X, cos corezzz lol - and along with that the best GPU I can get that's not a Titan, so likely a 2080Ti, though I might stick with the 1070 a little longer if there's something new on the way that takes my fancy. Gonna water cool the lot too this time, I have my external loop ready, just need the hardware and the appropriate blocks.

Scoob.

[Imperial Good]

We'll have to disagree on what we consider "modern". Tech bought today is out of date within 6-12 months.

Intel disagrees. Since basically that is what they have been doing for the last few years. Only by the end of the year might we see the first wide spread availability of actual new chips from them, and only from OEM servers and portable devices. For desktop users one can expect another re-release of specially binned 9900ks for more money and slightly higher clock speeds, but basically that is the same core design as they have been using for several years already, just pushed closer to its limits at stock (lower overclock headroom).

"well off" VS what we did in the old days - "save up". i.e. put cash aside every week for months/years until one has enough. £4/week gets you a new "modern" graphics card every 2 years.

Except the RTX 2080 is an incremental upgrade for the GTX 1080 ti. The RTX 2060 is an incremental upgrade for GTX 1070. This is the logic of price tiers.

If one could not afford a GTX 1080 ti a year or so ago, then chances are one cannot afford a RTX 2080 now. Hence why such a solution cannot be recommended as moving from a GTX 1070 to a RTX 2080 involves increasing expenditure on GPU up 2 tiers.

Technically the RTX 2060 ti would be the incremental upgrade for the GTX 1070 since the RTX 2060 is cheaper, however such card does not currently exist.

I did do some more digging on this, and I found out what appears to CRIPPLE this GPU performance-wise. Basically, a certain type of dust cloud - namely the more "gritty" one, not the fluffy ones - combined with even just 2xSSAA, loads it to 99% and it simply cannot cope. Turn off AA and these dust clouds are fine. Funny this is, this is the first time turning off AA has helped during a low-fps situation, as usually it's the CPU that's being hammered.

Might be related to GPU memory bandwidth. Anti-aliasing is kind of notorious for hammering memory bandwidth. Some dust effects might generate a lot of edges which is why only some sectors are badly effected, since according to Wikipedia SSAA may use "a technique known as adaptive supersampling, where only pixels at the edges of objects are supersampled."

This is where upgrading to an RTX card with faster GDDR6 memory might help, as even a RTX 2060 has memory bandwidth comparable to a GTX 1080. It currently is not really worth upgrading from a GTX 1070 to an RTX card just for this issue since it is only 1 generation more advanced, the computational performance improvement is just not much. Outside of trying out different driver visual quality settings, I would recommend playing without anti aliasing or instead using a full screen anti aliasing filter if the artefacts are too annoying.

I still think it's fair to call Pascal-based GPU's "modern", though the 1070 has slipped a few spots from when it was new. I think a 2080Ti would likely be twice as fast in certain rasterised rendering tasks, but the 1070 still has the power to run many modern titles very well indeed at higher settings. A pretty solid GPU really, and a good match for my ageing 2600k!

The GTX 1070 even has raytracing support. Although due to a lack of dedicated raytracing cores the performance is substantially worse than any RTX card.

As an aside, if Zen 2 delivers on it's promises - and it's looking good, but I'll wait for independent reviews - I'll likely be putting this old system out to pasture and getting a new CPU - possibly the 12 Core 3900X, cos corezzz lol - and along with that the best GPU I can get that's not a Titan, so likely a 2080Ti, though I might stick with the 1070 a little longer if there's something new on the way that takes my fancy. Gonna water cool the lot too this time, I have my external loop ready, just need the hardware and the appropriate blocks.

There is also an elusive 16 core variant which has not been announced yet but has been spotted with leaked benchmarks.

Unless you happened to be unfortunate and brought your GTX 1070 during the great bitcoin mining stupidity of a few years ago, stepping up from a GTX 1070 to RTX 2080 ti is not trivial as the RTX 2080 ti costs ~2.5 times as much as a GTX 1070 did when new. It is literally the most expensive consumer aimed GPU NVidia has ever made (Titan X and Titan RTX do not count as consumer cards).

[CBJ]

This is the Tech Support forum. If you want to discuss hardware generally, please take it to the off-topic forum.

[Scoob]

I know we drifted a bit, but I think it's still useful to discuss what potential settings and effects really hammer performance. I think it's good we've identified that this particular type of dust cloud when combined with AA causes an otherwise great performing GPU to struggle hugely.

I think I must have edited it out of my original post as too much information, but I did initially comment on how the 1070's memory controller was showing as being pushed hard, which further reinforced the AA + those particular cloud effects = bad. Thankfully, the game doesn't look terrible without AA, but it's still a nice to have, just not worth it with those performance sucking clouds.

Note: while I tried settings all the way down to the "Low" preset, it didn't occur to me initially to turn off AA, as AA is rarely a particularly taxing option in games I play. I do of course only play at 1920x1200 and at 60fps, so the threshold of me noticing an obvious performance hit is a little different to someone who say likes 144hz play.

Regardless, I hope this feedback on performance at certain settings in certain situations is of use, it's certainly help the game run MUCH better for me, CPU-heavy situations aside.

Scoob.

[alt3rn1ty]

Just out of curiosity Scoob - You may not wish to run mods, but as a test (without saving) does the following mod enable you to have AA without incurring more GPU load :

viewtopic.php?t=402844

https://www.nexusmods.com/x4foundations/mods/16

Whether it affects the same type of gritty dust you describe I dont know. The idea being if that modification cuts out dust from ramping up the GPU use when AA is enabled .. It would back up your suspicion that dust is indeed the cause when AA is in use.

Edit : Disregard this idea, I am pretty sure its not the same kind of dust you mean. This mod is just the specs of dust which give you a sense of speed as they whizz past the cockpit.

[Alan Phipps]

@ Scoob: You rather demonstrate the exact problem that CBJ outlined. You say that identifying a likely game fps threat is of value to all players, but it is well hidden from useful view in a lengthy thread seemingly about graphics card tech, specs and capabilities. Clearly titled threads about actual game issues belong here, and not so much ones about hardware discussion.

With this in mind, you might wish to consider retitling your thread.

[Scoob]

From what I can tell, it's not those particular particles that cause a problem, rather the static texture / effect used on those grainy clouds. Something to change that particular effect would likely help and enable me to keep AA enabled.

@Alan: Yeah, I should change the title now that we think we've identified the exact cause of my GPU's apparent very poor performance. Hopefully that'll be clearer to people. I was a bit irked at the time of posting due performance being utterly crippled and my GPU being at 100% on low settings.

Scoob.