New engine > expansion(s)

[MeNaCe-NZ]

People just need to stop buying AMD cpu's until Zen hits and they wouldn't have half the problems they have now.

 

It's like people just buy whatever hardware they can afford, do no research on it, and complain when things don't go right or they can't crank the graphics up.

 

Sure you can take that attitude with a console as games can be designed around one certain spec but that's not the case with PC games.

 

You see these performance threads in every single PC game, people whinging about them being poorly unoptimized etc. and while sometimes it's the case often it's the end user at fault for not knowing what they are buying or doing in regards to their PC.

 

Whilst I agree this game has engine limitations and issues I don't think it's as bad as many people make out and with a little education into what they are doing and thought/research put in before they buy then they wouldn't experience nearly as many issues.

 

In saying all that, these supposed self titled "PC Experts" that sell people pre-built PC's or even offer up unsubstantiated advice have a lot to answer for.

 

Buyer beware.

[Romeugues]

You realize it's probably your computer not the game right?

Yes, my computer's CPU which sits at 50% or less load during SWTOR right? If the game used a modern game engine that was better threaded (and DX11, with a DX10 path for those with older GPUs) my CPU would actually be fully utilized and performance would more than double, from utilizing quad core CPUs along with lower cpu overhead.

But I suppose 4 ghz quadcore CPUs are bit low end, to be expected, I mean I can't play other games like TH3 at 1440P with almost everything on high, why should I expect a game with worse graphics that was released years ago to perform better;)

 

Btw AMD cpus obviously are bad for gaming but in most cases it's only a factor(as in when you don't run at super low res to isolate the cpu) when you have SLI or crossfired GPU configs, in which case cheaping out on a CPU is very unwise.

I'm not sure why there are those in the SWTOR community resistant to the idea of having a better performing, better looking game, it's against your own interest

Edited June 23, 2015 by Romeugues

[Rafaman]

Agreed!

 

Recruit unpaid interns to work 20+ hours per day - tell them it'll look good on their resume - and have them start copy and pasting the code over. It's THAT simple!!!

 

I have some time on my hands. Let me take a crack at it! I'm really good with notepad and have great right clicking skills.. Give me a week and I will give you a new engine!

[Lewintelamon]

I'm not sure why there are those in the SWTOR community resistant to the idea of having a better performing, better looking game, it's against your own interest

 

They're not resistant so much as having an inkling of an idea how much said "better performing, better looking" game would cost in terms of both time and money, and that devs (unless you're Blizzard and have ridiculous amounts of both resources to throw at it) aren't going to make that sort of investment willy-nilly.

 

Many of those crying for a new engine do so with complete ignorance for the above, as if "oh, they're a large company, they can just snap their fingers and make it happen because hey it'll make us happy!!"

Edited June 23, 2015 by Lewintelamon

[Djiini]

Starting to think LoverNoFighter and DeeLaNie are the same person with how consistent they bait threads.

 

Anyway, uh, I don't lag at all during 8-man Ops at least on max graphics on a laptop that was made in December 2014.

 

So get better computers, scrubs?

Edited June 23, 2015 by Djiini

[Steelarion]

do you any comprehension of how incredibly stupid a suggestion that is?

 

re-write the ENTIRE GAME for a free addon ?

 

either build a new custom engine, which takes YEARS and MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by october ? or BUY a new one (cos theyre so cheap to license) and ADAPT it by october ??

 

/bang face on desk

 

SHE IS OUR SELF APPOINTED AMBASSADOR!!!!

 

You'd best kneel...she's very very (self) important...she speaks for us all (not really)

[Djiini]

SHE IS OUR SELF APPOINTED AMBASSADOR!!!!

 

You'd best kneel...she's very very (self) important...she speaks for us all (not really)

 

Yes, you guys are much better off being represented by someone naive enough to think they can just put in a new engine.

 

Truly, you are the champions.

[Draqsko]

People just need to stop buying AMD cpu's until Zen hits and they wouldn't have half the problems they have now.

 

It's like people just buy whatever hardware they can afford, do no research on it, and complain when things don't go right or they can't crank the graphics up.

 

Sure you can take that attitude with a console as games can be designed around one certain spec but that's not the case with PC games.

 

You see these performance threads in every single PC game, people whinging about them being poorly unoptimized etc. and while sometimes it's the case often it's the end user at fault for not knowing what they are buying or doing in regards to their PC.

 

Whilst I agree this game has engine limitations and issues I don't think it's as bad as many people make out and with a little education into what they are doing and thought/research put in before they buy then they wouldn't experience nearly as many issues.

 

In saying all that, these supposed self titled "PC Experts" that sell people pre-built PC's or even offer up unsubstantiated advice have a lot to answer for.

 

Buyer beware.

 

Not all AMD CPUs are junk. The A-series is garbage for gaming, and the FX-series that ends in 'e' is a power-saving model meant more for micro-ATX and home theater PCs where heat is a concern.

 

Just a few simple rules with AMD, get the FX series CPU, don't get anything that is lower than XX50 or you are taking a gamble. Sure you'll see a lot of people posting about amazing overclocks out of an 8320, but there's a reason why those chips are underclocked from 4 GHz to 3.7 AND binned lower for a lower price point. When you are gaming you are looking for stability more than pure overclock potential. It's worth paying the little bit extra to go for the 8350 over the 8320 and having a stable build that runs at 4-4.2 GHz.

 

Since you are going for AMD, build it yourself. Seriously, most of the issues people have with AMD is the fact they buy prebuilt computers which are loaded with bloatware and "malware" since these are discount computers and they recoup their money selling your demographic information. If you are going to go that route, at least buy your own OS and software direct from the makers and install it yourself after reformatting the HDD.

 

This is my current build:

FX-8350

Asus M5A99 FX R2

8 GB GSkill Ripjaws PC14900 CL8

Radeon HD 6770

Win 8.1 OEM

 

The lowest my fps dipped was 30 fps during a 6v8 with lots of AOEs especially FS. It hitched for a split second when everyone lit off AOEs all at once but otherwise it runs 40-50 fps in warzones and 70-80 on fleet. All the drivers are current non-beta builds, direct from the manufacturer's website. So if anyone is getting less than this on a similar build, there is junk running on your computer that doesn't need to be running, or you have a driver issue. If a clean build with current drivers has no issues running the game, then it's obvious it's not the game or the hardware.

[Romeugues]

They're not resistant so much as having an inkling of an idea how much said "better performing, better looking" game would cost in terms of both time and money, and that devs (unless you're Blizzard and have ridiculous amounts of both resources to throw at it) aren't going to make that sort of investment willy-nilly.

 

Many of those crying for a new engine do so with complete ignorance for the above, as if "oh, they're a large company, they can just snap their fingers and make it happen because hey it'll make us happy!!"

I've stated before in another thread that I would pay for an expansion and also that it will prob never happen. Best we can hope for his bandaid fixes.

There are also those who assume a new engine would lower performance across the board.

[Zoom_VI]

Yes, my computer's CPU which sits at 50% or less load during SWTOR right?

Your computer is going to sit at 50% or less most of the time because operating systems typically limit how much a single process can use. This is the reason SWTOR run two instances in the first place.

[Draqsko]

Your computer is going to sit at 50% or less most of the time because operating systems typically limit how much a single process can use. This is the reason SWTOR run two instances in the first place.

 

There's also the fact that most times you are only seeing total CPU usage, you could have 1 core maxed at 100%, 7 other cores sitting idle, and it would only show a CPU usage of 12.5% on one of those stupid widgets.

 

That's why good hardware monitoring programs will track all cores independently.

[Kyuuu]

Your computer is going to sit at 50% or less most of the time because operating systems typically limit how much a single process can use. This is the reason SWTOR run two instances in the first place.

 

That is not the reason why they have 2 process, engine has 2 process to bypass the 2gb limit on 32bit, and cause they didnt want to A do a 64bit client or B program the client right.

 

From developers stand point have 2 .exe is bad idea cause that mean they have to be synced which in term degrades performance

Edited June 23, 2015 by Kyuuu

[Nassus]

Well maybe a new engine is a bit to much, but how about refreshing some of the graphics. Higher quality textures or model overhauls. Games Like Eve online and Wow have been doing this to improve their looks over the years. Bioware and EA are totaly infested in this game, they are gonna release a new expansion, maybe they should also look into some way to improve certain graphic/engine stuff. And I know gameplay over graphics but it could not hurt to improve some of this stuff.

[Romeugues]

Your computer is going to sit at 50% or less most of the time because operating systems typically limit how much a single process can use. This is the reason SWTOR run two instances in the first place.

You are mistaken, it has two processes for threading and supposedly memory limit reasons but I've never seen the secondary process use much memory at all, currently the main exe is using 1200MB for me and the other one is 220mb.

I'm not sure where you even got the idea processes can only use so much percentage of your CPU, truly odd you would think that, given how modern applications and games are widely multithreaded, i.e TH3 pegs all 4 of my CPU cores as do media encoding applications etc, if modern applications weren't able to use more than 1 core then Intel and AMD (and us) would be a bit boned since one of the reasons we use multi-core cpus now is because they couldn't keep just increasing clock speed to increase performance.

[Zoom_VI]

You are mistaken, it has two processes for threading and supposedly memory limit reasons but I've never seen the secondary process use much memory at all, currently the main exe is using 1200MB for me and the other one is 220mb.

 

On the mark.

 

No 32 bit executable is able to address more than 1.5 GB of memory space, be it main or swap. Even the memory addressed on your video card counts toward this limit.

It's actually 2 GB not 1.5, but windows has to reserve a certain portion of main memory for each block of memory requisition by an application, so the end result at the maximum addressable space ends up being 1.5 GB for the application in question.

 

Of course that's not enough for SWTOR. So the workaround is to run two process's each with it's own handle and memory space, and allow them to interact at a run time level.

 

It's a good solution to a potentially game breaking engine limitation.

 

/5char

[SirMannii]

I want more frames per second, if an updated engine or an new one would fix that I would be more than glad.

 

Someone make a Kickstarter for new engine!

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Not all AMD CPUs are junk. The A-series is garbage for gaming, and the FX-series that ends in 'e' is a power-saving model meant more for micro-ATX and home theater PCs where heat is a concern.

 

Just a few simple rules with AMD, get the FX series CPU, don't get anything that is lower than XX50 or you are taking a gamble. Sure you'll see a lot of people posting about amazing overclocks out of an 8320, but there's a reason why those chips are underclocked from 4 GHz to 3.7 AND binned lower for a lower price point. When you are gaming you are looking for stability more than pure overclock potential. It's worth paying the little bit extra to go for the 8350 over the 8320 and having a stable build that runs at 4-4.2 GHz.

 

Since you are going for AMD, build it yourself. Seriously, most of the issues people have with AMD is the fact they buy prebuilt computers which are loaded with bloatware and "malware" since these are discount computers and they recoup their money selling your demographic information. If you are going to go that route, at least buy your own OS and software direct from the makers and install it yourself after reformatting the HDD.

 

This is my current build:

FX-8350

Asus M5A99 FX R2

8 GB GSkill Ripjaws PC14900 CL8

Radeon HD 6770

Win 8.1 OEM

 

The lowest my fps dipped was 30 fps during a 6v8 with lots of AOEs especially FS. It hitched for a split second when everyone lit off AOEs all at once but otherwise it runs 40-50 fps in warzones and 70-80 on fleet. All the drivers are current non-beta builds, direct from the manufacturer's website. So if anyone is getting less than this on a similar build, there is junk running on your computer that doesn't need to be running, or you have a driver issue. If a clean build with current drivers has no issues running the game, then it's obvious it's not the game or the hardware.

 

Sorry but I have to disagree with everything you've said. I'm yet to see much in the way of benchmarks ( both published and more end user ones ) that would imply you ever want to buy AMD for gaming over Intel ... even on a price vs performance equation it just plain doesn't work out in favour of AMD.

 

If you have something that proves the contrary by all means then link it up and I'll have a read.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

/5char

 

I'm confused. First you were talking about using 50% of the CPU due to a supposed windows limitation then quote someone talking about the 2 gig 32bit memory limit in windows?

[Draqsko]

Sorry but I have to disagree with everything you've said. I'm yet to see much in the way of benchmarks ( both published and more end user ones ) that would imply you ever want to buy AMD for gaming over Intel ... even on a price vs performance equation it just plain doesn't work out in favour of AMD.

 

If you have something that proves the contrary by all means then link it up and I'll have a read.

 

Newer games that utilize more cores will perform better on the AMD since all AMD cores are physical cores. So my chip has 8 physical cores, whereas the i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 logical. That's why AMD is much better at doing stuff like video compiling and 3d rendering than an i7 is, and will only get better as newer software is developed to fully utilize all the cores.

 

Also, try using Tomb Raider as a benchmark since it's optimized for both AMD AND Intel. As you can see here, the 8350 scores as well as i7-4770k, heck they all score well because the game is optimized very well.

 

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/

 

 

The best hardware performance per price point goes to the FX-4300, but as you can see, the performance of an i7 doesn't justify the additional cost over an AMD. They are very comparable in performance, regardless of what the fanboys say. Intel will run cooler and require less power than AMD if that is a concern, but otherwise nothing else should affect your judgment unless you are building for application specific reasons, like one software runs better on one CPU versus another.

 

[Elracor]

Also, try using Tomb Raider as a benchmark since it's optimized for both AMD AND Intel. As you can see here, the 8350 scores as well as i7-4770k, heck they all score well because the game is optimized very well.

 

... which shows there is absolutely zero reason to use Tomb Raider for benchmarking on a SWTOR forum. Tomb Raider is obviously not CPU bound when every single CPU in the test gets the same results within margin of error. SWTOR on the other hand is very much CPU bound.

 

Additionally, the test is f*cking itself over by using a midrange graphics card. If you can only afford to buy a GTX 770 and you're even considering a 4790k for a gaming PC you're priortizing your money poorly. You'd be better off with a smaller CPU and bigger GFX in very most cases.

 

The test is also biased against Intel through the use of older Intel models. Back in Sep 2014 when the test came out the 4690k and 4790k were already released with higher clockspeeds at same price. The 4790k has a Turbo speed of 4.4Ghz versus the 3.9Ghz on the 4770k. That is a considerable increase in clockspeed that the test you linked does not take into account.

The i3 4160 is almost 10% higher clocked than the i3 4130 and comes at same/lower price.

The i3 4370 is almost 10% higher clocked than the i3 4340 and comes at same/lower price.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3 shows the rather large difference between 4770k and 4790k.

 

Newer games that utilize more cores will perform better on the AMD since all AMD cores are physical cores. So my chip has 8 physical cores, whereas the i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 logical. That's why AMD is much better at doing stuff like video compiling and 3d rendering than an i7 is, and will only get better as newer software is developed to fully utilize all the cores.

 

Except that i7 is often more than double as fast per core than the AMD alternative. Also, do please show proof of AMD being 'much better at doing stuff like video compiling and 3d rendering than an i7 is'.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

 

Even when you ignored the overclocked results, there's no sign of AMD being "much better" here.

 

The best hardware performance per price point goes to the FX-4300, but as you can see, the performance of an i7 doesn't justify the additional cost over an AMD. They are very comparable in performance, regardless of what the fanboys say. Intel will run cooler and require less power than AMD if that is a concern, but otherwise nothing else should affect your judgment unless you are building for application specific reasons, like one software runs better on one CPU versus another.

 

The fact that i7 is not cost effective is something any sensible PC builder could have told you even if they're Intel fanboys. The flagship CPU is not cost effective and it's always been like that. If you want cost effective Intel CPUs you have to pick i3 or i5.

Edited June 24, 2015 by MFollin

[MeNaCe-NZ]

... which shows there is absolutely zero reason to use Tomb Raider for benchmarking on a SWTOR forum. Tomb Raider is obviously not CPU bound when every single CPU in the test gets the same results within margin of error. SWTOR on the other hand is very much CPU bound.

 

Additionally, the test is f*cking itself over by using a midrange graphics card. If you can only afford to buy a GTX 770 and you're even considering a 4790k for a gaming PC you're priortizing your money poorly. You'd be better off with a smaller CPU and bigger GFX in very most cases.

 

The test is also biased against Intel through the use of older Intel models. Back in Sep 2014 when the test came out the 4690k and 4790k were already released with higher clockspeeds at same price. The 4790k has a Turbo speed of 4.4Ghz versus the 3.9Ghz on the 4770k. That is a considerable increase in clockspeed that your test does not take into account.

The i3 4160 is almost 10% higher clocked than the i3 4130 and comes at same/lower price.

The i3 4370 is almost 10% higher clocked than the i3 4340 and comes at same/lower price.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3 shows the rather large difference between 4770k and 4790k.

 

 

 

Except that i7 is often more than double as fast per core than the AMD alternative. Also, do please show proof of AMD being 'much better at doing stuff like video compiling and 3d rendering than an i7 is'.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

 

Even when you ignored the overclocked results, there's no sign of AMD being "much better" here.

 

 

 

The fact that i7 is not cost effective is something any sensible PC builder could have told you even if they're Intel fanboys. The flagship CPU is not cost effective and it's always been like that. If you want cost effective Intel CPUs you have to pick i3 or i5.

 

Really couldn't have quoted much better information than this myself.

 

Other than http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html which i tend to keep a passing eye on each month ( mostly due to threads like this from this forum heh ) and when I did buy last time I took their advice then more or less went out and found what information I could from various alternative sources on their recommendations. Though even then they've expanded their "range of value" imo to make the amd chips have more showing on the charts but it seems more like a pity vote.

 

For my money tomshardware and anandtech are my primary sources of information ( great forums too ) and add in a bit of techpowerup, hardocp and some overclock(ers) ( .net then .com - both have good information and guides for me in the past ) as well as good ole guru3d. Hell just damn google if you know what you're looking for and doing ... the general place I avoid like the plague is reddit though for anything techy.

 

 

I quite like their ( tomshardware ) point about diminishing returns, something I've often pointed out to most people looking towards the i7 but hey if you want to spend a fortune then why not.

 

Skylake isn't far off as they point out and if AMD delay Zen too much or it doesn't match up as expected ... AMD is done in the gaming CPU market I would wager.

 

I still wonder how the chinese cpu market might go over the next few years. Quality was always an issue people had with chinese products but this is coming leaps and bounds ( they can just throw sooo much labour at QC ) so one must wonder once that's sorted and they continue to keep on top of new technologies in other area's ( mobile computing for example ) how long until they hit the gamer cpu/gpu area...

[Draqsko]

Skylake isn't far off as they point out and if AMD delay Zen too much or it doesn't match up as expected ... AMD is done in the gaming CPU market I would wager.

 

Lol, you need to get up on the news, DX12 will have much better multi-core utilization thanks to much of the work AMD did with Mantle. Have a look https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2015/05/12/major-new-features-of-directx-12.

 

The point is, with a GPU that's three generations old (67xx series is really a 57xx series with more shaders), my rig is doing 45-50 fps average, with 30 fps min and 90 fps max (and that's a capped fps, when it hits 90 it doesn't move so something is hard capping it and obviously it should go higher and fluctuate). For a 400 dollar total cost upgrade, I am quite satisfied with it especially considering that includes a motherboard, 8 GB ram, cooler, and artic silver ceramique.

 

Yeah the i7-4770k should get better performance, the CPU alone is almost the cost of my entire upgrade. But it doesn't get twice the performance, despite costing twice the amount, so AMD wins for me.

[Romeugues]

Newer games that utilize more cores will perform better on the AMD since all AMD cores are physical cores. So my chip has 8 physical cores, whereas the i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 logical. That's why AMD is much better at doing stuff like video compiling and 3d rendering than an i7 is, and will only get better as newer software is developed to fully utilize all the cores.

 

Also, try using Tomb Raider as a benchmark since it's optimized for both AMD AND Intel. As you can see here, the 8350 scores as well as i7-4770k, heck they all score well because the game is optimized very well.

 

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/

 

 

The best hardware performance per price point goes to the FX-4300, but as you can see, the performance of an i7 doesn't justify the additional cost over an AMD. They are very comparable in performance, regardless of what the fanboys say. Intel will run cooler and require less power than AMD if that is a concern, but otherwise nothing else should affect your judgment unless you are building for application specific reasons, like one software runs better on one CPU versus another.

Dude. just no. AMD Bulldozer(and it's derivatives) cores are less complex than Intel. To dumb it down it, an 8 core AMD chip is more like a traditional 4 core chip with hyper threading on steroids, modules share a FPU and are less capable than the Phenom II cores .http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/2

[Elracor]

Yeah the i7-4770k should get better performance, the CPU alone is almost the cost of my entire upgrade. But it doesn't get twice the performance, despite costing twice the amount, so AMD wins for me.

 

Yeah, that has pretty much nothing to do with AMD vs Intel and everything to do with you comparing a flagship CPU to a mid/low range CPU. You could swap out the 4770k in your argument with the AMD flagship FX-9590 and you'd have exactly the same result if not an even worse result because of how terrible the FX-9590 is.

 

Additionally, noone should buy the 4770k. If they want to spend that much on a CPU they should buy the 4790k.

Edited June 24, 2015 by MFollin

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Lol, you need to get up on the news, DX12 will have much better multi-core utilization thanks to much of the work AMD did with Mantle. Have a look https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2015/05/12/major-new-features-of-directx-12.

 

The point is, with a GPU that's three generations old (67xx series is really a 57xx series with more shaders), my rig is doing 45-50 fps average, with 30 fps min and 90 fps max (and that's a capped fps, when it hits 90 it doesn't move so something is hard capping it and obviously it should go higher and fluctuate). For a 400 dollar total cost upgrade, I am quite satisfied with it especially considering that includes a motherboard, 8 GB ram, cooler, and artic silver ceramique.

 

Yeah the i7-4770k should get better performance, the CPU alone is almost the cost of my entire upgrade. But it doesn't get twice the performance, despite costing twice the amount, so AMD wins for me.

 

Nice link but where does it say they basically ripped the technology from mantle?

 

Yes DX12 will utilise multiple cores better but again ... what does that have to do with AMD and where is there any proof that under DX12 current gen AMD cpu's out perform their Intel counterparts?

 

Also I had thought Mantle was more about taking the load off the CPU and pushing it onto the GPU ( at least last I looked into it this is what was touted and I like this as I am an AMD GPU user and supporter, I just hate their inferior CPUs ) so again what does any of that have to do with your CPU performance?

 

I actually want AMD to succeed with Zen, competition is good but it's certainly not how it is now in terms of gaming.

 

Also FPS without a screenie of the settings you're running isn't overly helpful. You've nothing to relate it to.

 

Lastly why do you keep referring to the 4770K? Or any i7 for that matter? How about comparing the CPU you bought vs an equivalent Intel CPU in general all purpose gaming with a nice suite of benchmarks? It's almost like you think the only chip capable of out performing your chip is the 4770k or better when the old i5 2500k is more than likely going to out perform your chip in most games again because of single core performance.