High CPU usage

[YOYOMAN_MODDER]

2 CBJ

Hmmm. i uderstand, this , i have question. So, XR Engine map System using analog feature to UE4 World Compositions/Level Streaming, so all maps with clusters and sectors exists in always loaded Current (Persistent Level)? In this case sublevel automaticaly load and unload. Its too hard understand for me how XR Engine works

[projix]

@ projix: Maybe try with a lower cpu overclock. I know that sounds counter-intuitive but if your cpu voltages and temperatures are getting too high then the cpu *may* be being auto-throttled back for safety, lifetime and stability. In this overclocking limit area, a lot will depend upon your individual cpu characteristics, your cpu cooling and psu efficiencies.

I know you mean well, but I know what I am doing. The CPU is not being throttled. The temps do not exceed 70C, which is far away from TJmax. Voltage is within Intel specifications as well (<1.52v). Good chip. X:R is not the only game I play too. (1.48v for 4.9, <80C Prime 95).

I think the engine is just badly optimized, so even if I got a golden sample skylake and overclocked that - I doubt my FPS would improve a lot.

[ezra-r]

The micro-processor of the OP is quite old and slow compared to the GPU he is using, no wonder he feels the CPU usage with this game.

[projix]

The micro-processor of the OP is quite old and slow compared to the GPU he is using, no wonder he feels the CPU usage with this game.

Before commenting, you might want to familiarize yourself at least even so slightly with the subject matter.

Clock for clock even in the best optimized titles a Skylake CPU shows about 30% better IPC (meaning faster at the same frequency) than a Sandy Bridge. Generally the difference is about 20-25%. This is in games that utilize all of the games cores to the fullest.

A 6700K which is a top end Skylake CPU is clocked at 4.2ghz boost clock. That is roughly as fast as a 5.25ghz Sandy Bridge (25%).

This means the OP's CPU at 4.4ghz would be 16% slower than a current top of the line processor.
My CPU at 4.9ghz would be 6.7% slower.

So what, I am going to go buy a top of the line brand new CPU so my frame rate goes from 30 fps to 32 fps?

Even if I OC-d the Skylake to 4.6ghz (which is reasonable on air), it would make my CPU performance ~17% better. So yay, my FPS would go from 30 to 35 FPS.

Once again, the problem is not hardware. The problem is crappy optimization in the game (or the lack of it). Throwing hardware at it is not going to solve the problem. I don't think there is any game on the market which you can not play with a 2500K at 4.4ghz (or 4.9ghz) in my case. Certainly those CPU's were top of the line with insane overclocks when the game came out.

As the game does not benefit from SLI my hardware setup is even better with the 980ti. And in fact my GPU does not even go over 40C with this game, because there is no utilization whatsoever. It is all the CPU, yet the CPU usage hovers around 40% on 4 cores.

I don't think anything is ever going to change about this - the worst system for me is Albion. All those rocks seem to take a huge toll on the framerate. It is a good thing that this thread exists, so that people who are contemplating of trying the game do not get swayed by lots of propaganda as "how good it is with 4.0+". The gameplay is quite alright, but unless you own an absolutely top of the line CPU you will not be able to run this at a playable framerate, especially towards the endgame when more is going on.

TL;DR:
This is not enough to stay above 35fps, and that is a problem:
[ external image ]

[BigBANGtheory]

running at 4k actually helps... no I'm serious I get better min framerates than I do at 1080p!

XR is not CPU bound it is thread bound imho because my CPU is barely 50% utilised there is a lot of wait time and that holds back the rendering pipeline.

[projix]

Poor optimization...

[ezra-r]

The micro-processor of the OP is quite old and slow compared to the GPU he is using, no wonder he feels the CPU usage with this game.

Before commenting, you might want to familiarize yourself at least even so slightly with the subject matter.

Clock for clock even in the best optimized titles a Skylake CPU shows about 30% better IPC (meaning faster at the same frequency) than a Sandy Bridge. Generally the difference is about 20-25%. This is in games that utilize all of the games cores to the fullest.

A 6700K which is a top end Skylake CPU is clocked at 4.2ghz boost clock. That is roughly as fast as a 5.25ghz Sandy Bridge (25%).

This means the OP's CPU at 4.4ghz would be 16% slower than a current top of the line processor.
My CPU at 4.9ghz would be 6.7% slower.

So what, I am going to go buy a top of the line brand new CPU so my frame rate goes from 30 fps to 32 fps?

Even if I OC-d the Skylake to 4.6ghz (which is reasonable on air), it would make my CPU performance ~17% better. So yay, my FPS would go from 30 to 35 FPS.

Once again, the problem is not hardware. The problem is crappy optimization in the game (or the lack of it). Throwing hardware at it is not going to solve the problem. I don't think there is any game on the market which you can not play with a 2500K at 4.4ghz (or 4.9ghz) in my case. Certainly those CPU's were top of the line with insane overclocks when the game came out.

As the game does not benefit from SLI my hardware setup is even better with the 980ti. And in fact my GPU does not even go over 40C with this game, because there is no utilization whatsoever. It is all the CPU, yet the CPU usage hovers around 40% on 4 cores.

I don't think anything is ever going to change about this - the worst system for me is Albion. All those rocks seem to take a huge toll on the framerate. It is a good thing that this thread exists, so that people who are contemplating of trying the game do not get swayed by lots of propaganda as "how good it is with 4.0+". The gameplay is quite alright, but unless you own an absolutely top of the line CPU you will not be able to run this at a playable framerate, especially towards the endgame when more is going on.

TL;DR:
This is not enough to stay above 35fps, and that is a problem:
[ external image ]

i7-4930k + 780 gpu here, no OC, monitor max is 60hz and vertical sync is on.

My worst place to be are usually some zones at Omycron Lyrae with 26-35fps. While on albion I usually go from 35-60 fps.

I merely checked the op CPU stats against mine and saw what I was getting and he was getting. No need to go on the offensive.

Game could take optimizations? Sure. But cpu-wise he could do better. And clearly that cpu is not leveled to match the gpu imo. I bet that cpu is not only suffering against this game.

[projix]

My worst place to be are usually some zones at Omycron Lyrae with 26-35fps. While on albion I usually go from 35-60 fps.

And you think 26-35fps is ok?
My FPS rarely ever drops below 35, but I don't consider that good. Anything below 50fps is really annoying for me, and it is not like this game came out yesterday.

Game could take optimizations? Sure. But cpu-wise he could do better.

Not unless he buys a top of the line Skylake. With his OC his CPU is faster than almost anything out there. Including yours.

[BigBANGtheory]

The game is extremely demanding on the CPU, and on a system with higher-end GPU hardware it will be CPU-limited unless you do something like run it at 4K. It's also true to say that framerates will vary due to the very nature of the game; it's not like most games which have limited "levels" with just a few objects being simulated at any one time.

If you're looking for more specific analysis of performance on your particular system then you need to post the information requested at the top of the forum, including a DXDiag report, information on what mods you are using, if any, and so on.

I don't understand the logic but I can confirm that high end CPU + decent GPU + 4k actually improves the frame rate in some areas! TBH I can only think there remains a problem in the architecture and rendering pipeline.

[xanfus]

High CPU usage can be connected with so called "small batch problem".

[DollarDeath]

The game is extremely demanding on the CPU, and on a system with higher-end GPU hardware it will be CPU-limited unless you do something like run it at 4K. It's also true to say that framerates will vary due to the very nature of the game; it's not like most games which have limited "levels" with just a few objects being simulated at any one time.

If you're looking for more specific analysis of performance on your particular system then you need to post the information requested at the top of the forum, including a DXDiag report, information on what mods you are using, if any, and so on.

I don't understand the logic but I can confirm that high end CPU + decent GPU + 4k actually improves the frame rate in some areas! TBH I can only think there remains a problem in the architecture and rendering pipeline.

Yup this actually works. Not so much as to increase fps but rather smooth it out, as the dpi require more mouse movement and the increment movement is smoother. Especially when one is using the supercharged engine as opposed to the sidewinder.