These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Issues, Workarounds & Localization

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Older Hardware preforms 75% better then new in EVE?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
War StalkeR
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-05-12 13:25:45 UTC
My main PC:
MB: Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3R
RAM: 4x 2GB Kingston HyperX CL5
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Video: nVidia GeForce GTX560 Ti
OS: Windows 7 Professional x64
In CQ it gives me 40 FPS (screenshot).

My secondary PC:
MB: Gigabyte GA-EG41M-S2H
RAM: 2x 2GB Kingston HyperX CL5
CPU: Intel Core 2 Due E8400
Video: nVidia GeForce GTX260
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
In CQ it gives me 70 FPS (screenshot).

Some additional info:
1) Both of systems have minimal amount of process running for performance (antiviruses enabled).
2) Don't say that problem in different version of Windows'. Because it's definitely not.
3) Both systems have all their drivers up to date. Both system run EVE Online on same settings with same resolution.
4) Don't say that my main PC have lower FPS because of cache. I've tested it and completely removing cache doesn't solve a thing.
5) Both of systems have video card drivers up to date.
6) My secondary PC have overall ~75% performance in eve in all events/locations, while it hardly can be used to play Battlefield 3. While my main PC easily runs Battlefield 3 on ultra settings and don't know word "lag" in it.

So CPP, what possibly can be wrong? Why my newer machine works worse, then my older machine only in EVE Online?
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC
#2 - 2012-05-12 18:58:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Gibbo3771
It is most likely the Q9550, is 4 years old and running along side a GTX560ti.

Bottlenecking probably.

However never owned that CPU.

Also duel cores tend to perform much better in eve, from my experience. I dont think its really supported.
War StalkeR
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-05-12 19:59:43 UTC
Gibbo3771 wrote:
Also duel cores tend to perform much better in eve, from my experience. I dont think its really supported.
Wait a sec, you want to say that EVE Online doesn't support multi-threading? Then buying Core i7 will have same effect?

CCP you've added support for shaders 4.0 and DX11, but you didn't added multi-threading support? Is this so hard to add some Python libraries that will fix this problem!?
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC
#4 - 2012-05-13 12:44:49 UTC
War StalkeR wrote:
Gibbo3771 wrote:
Also duel cores tend to perform much better in eve, from my experience. I dont think its really supported.
Wait a sec, you want to say that EVE Online doesn't support multi-threading? Then buying Core i7 will have same effect?

CCP you've added support for shaders 4.0 and DX11, but you didn't added multi-threading support? Is this so hard to add some Python libraries that will fix this problem!?


Im not sure if its supported or not, was just suggesting lol.

I have got i5 2500k with a 560ti on one machine and a duel core 8300 with a gtx260 (i think) on my other, I feel as if the duel core runs better at certain times, mainly when it comes to small warfare, big gang fights the 2500 tends to do a lot better but when I run both at my uber deathstar pos with all brackets on they get roughly the same FPS. 45-50.

Doesent the Q9550 bottleneck really easily?
Mr Chili Palmer
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-05-13 16:19:11 UTC
i play eve with an i7 core processor, must confess its in an alienware laptop. i have everything maxed out and the game plays sweet. i would tend to agree with the bottleneck theory.

"If at first you don't succeed, remove all evidence you ever tried"

"If your boss is getting you down, look at him through the prongs of a fork and imagine him in jail"
War StalkeR
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-05-29 03:16:15 UTC
Mr Chili Palmer wrote:
i play eve with an i7 core processor, must confess its in an alienware laptop. i have everything maxed out and the game plays sweet. i would tend to agree with the bottleneck theory.
So, the only way to fix it is to buy G1.Assassin 2 and Core i7-3960X, then overclock it too 5GHz and only then to play EVE?
Zylithi
Four Mouseketeers
#7 - 2012-05-29 07:04:22 UTC
I'm definitely prescribing to the Bottlenecking problem. Typically Dual Core solutions work better than Quad Core on first-generation Core architecture. The reason is cache competition; there's more cores but the same amount of cache.

Intel fixed this problem with the second-gen LGA2011 processors. Crap tons of cache and a highly optimized PCI-Express interface (40 lanes as opposed to 16). I can also selectively disable cores, so if I wanted a super-buffed-up-single core machine overcloced to 5.70 Ghz, I can (and have).

My rig?

Asus P9X79 mobo
Intel i7-3820 3.60 Ghz OC'd to 4.9Ghz Stable CPU
Radeon 7870 Graphics Card
16GB DDR3-SDRAM @ 2033Mhz
1 TB Hard Disk
Win 7 Ultimate

I get 233 FPS in CQ, about 200-400 in space. This is with vSync off; I usually keep it on so my screen doesnt tear like a madman.

Screenshot
War StalkeR
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-05-29 16:12:14 UTC
Zylithi wrote:
Intel fixed this problem with the second-gen LGA2011 processors
Thank you for information. Now I know what I need to buy from my next payment :)
Zylithi
Four Mouseketeers
#9 - 2012-05-30 01:01:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Zylithi
War StalkeR wrote:
Zylithi wrote:
Intel fixed this problem with the second-gen LGA2011 processors
Thank you for information. Now I know what I need to buy from my next payment :)


The good news is that Sandy Bridge-E, which is what the new architecture is called, will be socket-compatible with the next generation Intel CPUs as well, codenamed Ivy Bridge. Motherboards will require nothing more than a BIOS update to accommodate the new architecture. Additionally, they support PCI Express 3.0 right out of the box.

Intel is phasing out the LGA1366 and LGA1155 sockets. Indeed, they are showing their age. The LGA2011's have shown a 30% performance boost over Intel's LGA1155 socket offerings, and even blows AMD completely out of the water. Source: www.tomshardware.com

The CPUs are fairly pricey, however. The 8520 I have in my rig alone costed about $500. Worth it, however. With 16GB of RAM, I'm running 4-6 virtual machines and the thing barely so much as sweats.