EVE General Discussion

Please...

gfx are important in every game dont get me wrong, but updating the game gfx is nowhere near as important as making the game work, stop wasting time with captain quarters and the new (terrible) UI and fix issues that have been out standing for years,

granted the FW shake up is a great idea, but again it was not tested correctly and has bought new problems with it. the UI is laggy unresponcive unneeded and has (imo) spoiled alot of things in eve, using a noctis is terrible i trained up for all 10 targets and opening multiple boxes is awful now.

its great to hear that you are working on AMD solutions now keep it up.

people pay to play this game and i just dont feel like our input is valued, we repeatedly told you the UI was awful on SISI and we felt it was unneeded, and we were ignored, pretty much like that NEX shop you told us we wanted, captains quarters is turned off for me and alot of other players from what i know, must be nice to know all that time spent making it was wasted, WIS is not something i want in eve cant speak for others tho.

i replexed my alt purely to salvage in a specialised corp and thats now going to waste because the UI is so bad opening multiple boxes (has a few crashes) i just dont want to do it,

This, to me, is an obvious sign of denial. wtf? You release gas and particle emissions in the vacuum of space and you expect matter filling a void to do nothing. Get your head on straight.

Also, you seem to be ignorant of a few things regarding your hardware and everybody elses. AMD is barely interested in mainstream computing and doesn't really have any interest in competing in any real sense with Intel because they know they can't win. Intel holds the patents for fs sake. Intel signs over portions of those patents to AMD with a yearly license so that AMD can continue to make PC processors so the American government and other organizations don't bin Intel as a monopoly.

Intel is not in the business of licensing AMD to use their best and most advanced architecture however, so AMD is forced to trry and find ways around it that usually don't work so well, or are barely adequate. This is why AMD is behind in the GPU business, not some rediculous advertising nobody ever sees.

People on forums all over the world, review sites and hardware enthusiasts match any and all offerinbgs against each other until they find the best that anyone has to offer. This has consistently been Intel for years. You can burn an AMD up to 6-8 GHz sure, no problem, once you've got it functioning on LN2 or Liquid Helium, but that doesn't do **** all for your processing capability, except to make it marginally faster than it was for a 400% OC sustained by a constant flow of -269 celsius coolant that vaporizes relatively quickly.

Fact is, Intel still outperforms it.

AMD focuses on Industrial computing aplications. That is their niche market and has been for years. They make chips for CNC machines and automated equipment. They probably make a good bit of money on it to, even if they don't do so well as Intel on the world market.

ATi is another thing. Owned by AMD sure, but it is still mostly a separate entity and functioning on its own apart from the AMD line of desktop processors. Sure, AMD supports ATi by making all their own chipsets, (through ATi), for their processors and restricting users of AMD to pretty much only ATi GPUs unless they want issues with incompatibility. They've been doing that for a few years now. Not a single AMD chipset supports Nvidia hardware; it's counterproductive.

It's only counterproductive if the only thing you care about selling is the GPU.

ATi is a good brand. Great for watching movies and doing all sorts of other stuff. Nothing wrong with it, but they still lag a bit behind Nvidia in terms of progress.

Just to keep you guys in the loop, we've got the same kind of extreme performance drop reproduced in our compatibility lab. However, when I moved one of the offending ATI cards to my dev PC for more testing (confirming my original card could have doubled as a cooking implement), the performance decrease was markedly reduced. Rather than adding around 50ms to the average frame time and tanking the game to ~20fps, the hit was closer to 10ms and left the game at a reasonable 50-60 frames per second. My development box is actually slower/worse than the test computer in terms of CPU etc.

To be clear, 10ms is still way too much overhead. GPU particles on this kind of hardware should be taking one or two milliseconds, but there's something else going on that is exacerbating the problem.

I also noticed that asteroid belts were causing a large performance drop with this hardware until shadows were disabled, which we're investigating as well. We'd be interested in knowing your shadow settings, should anyone else notice a severe drop in frame rate when looking at spacerocks or other dense collections of solid objects.