Discussion in 'PC Games' started by BuZeR, Mar 18, 2017.
g-sync 144hz I hope
Does everyone else get CPU bottlenecking? I have a 4790k @ 4.6ghz, 1080ti @2ghz, 3440x1440p, seems I never get above 50% CPU load but GPU is never maxed.
I'm assuming it's poor optimisation, new map did seem to run a lot better but haven't played more than 5 rounds.
Got this for XBOX, u n p l a y a b l e
Yep, of course. Acer Predator XB271HU
Poor optimised game but from benchmarks ive seen of lots of games, 3440x1440p is all GPU, barely any CPU.
Gold, here I was thinking itd be a solid 30 for sure.. they have 1 hardware spec to work with.. hopeless
Sweet as, epic screens these 1440p g-sync IPS' are.
Yep like most games it pubg doesn't know how to take advantage of hyperthreading or SMT, so getting 50% CPU load on a 4core / 8 thread 4790k is expected. Also past about 4 threads it starts to gets uneven loading with usually 1 thread having near max cpu load and the rest less. eg:
Yeah it's that bad the game actually crashed on parachute out of the plane...
They're providing game codes to enter in when you buy the game, my assumption is maybe to prevent refund/returning it?
I love how everyone has become an expert on optimisation and multi-threaded application performance since PUBG came out.
I've got some bad news for everyone :
You can't just tick 'multicore optimisation kthx' and compile your application. Games by their very nature, requiring user input, are not best suited to multi-threading/parallel.
The game not 'spreading' across cores evenly makes complete sense. There will be various major functions that can be run in parallel, and subsequently synchronised or some such. You cannot just get a thing and divide it by how many cores you have and get performance. It just doesn't work like that.
As it stands right now, the Test Client performance is pretty much sorted; if you have a fast computer the game runs fast. I run a i5-4670k and 1080, runs really nicely at 1440p. Routinely hit the 144fps cap, spend the vast majority of the game above 60, a lot of time above 100.
There are still some issues, some crashing, odd geometry in places etc. But, it's very very close to being a very stable game that runs well. Can't wait for OC servers on 1.0
I might try and get some data on CPU vs GPU vs FPS. I have a x34 100hz gsync screen, 70fps is about average but I do get dips down to mid 40's.
Graphing the data might show that there is actually no CPU bottleneck @ 3440.
You are kidding right? The game looks like its 5 years old and doesn't run that great, sure test is much better.. but have you played Battlefield 1? It looks way better and is soooo much better optimised. UE4 is just the worst engine. (or at least hard to optimise in)
Pretty much. Better engines scale to more cores much better as they split rendering onto more cores rather than the typical dx11 approach of one main draw call thread like UE4. Take wolfenstein 2 which has very even core loading even on 16 threads, largely due to native multithreaded draw calls of the vulkan API.
Deep dive into the subject for anyone who's interested:
I would actually suck a sack full of cocks for a 100 person battle royale on the frostbite engine..
Although no EA pls.
Frostbite is licensed to only EA studios unfortunately, just like how id tech is licensed to only Bethesda studios.
But a man can dream, right?
that's all you can do. Unfortunately EA would find a way to fuck that up as well.
Everything they touch goes to shit. first: Mass Effect: Andromeda, now it's SWBF2.
Id go you halves.. It would be the ultimate game. PS Bad Company 3 apparently coming out..
Please no, my body cant handle.. Benno1988 would love that as well
Except they dont as the Xbox One and Xbox One X are vastly different spec wise and they need one release for both:
The no Australian servers for Xbox version is shit though lol. And here I am being sad about no FPP in singles yet
Oh hell yes...but only if they bring back the Carl Gustav for farming epic amounts of salty tears.
PUBG on Xbone.... lolololol...