Benchmarking CPU/GPU Load

"

Finkster06 wrote:

"

Necromael wrote:

I noticed that too, I can't make my cpu go all in under stress.

Using DDR3 RAM? I am running 1600MHz RAM and someone suggested that is my problem.

"

Ygidua wrote:

"

Finkster06 wrote:

"

Necromael wrote:

I noticed that too, I can't make my cpu go all in under stress.

Using DDR3 RAM? I am running 1600MHz RAM and someone suggested that is my problem.

That person was talking nonsense :) The difference in ram clocks is minimal, we might be talking of 1-2%.

POE is a Dx 11 game, therefore it does not utilize the full power of our multicore CPU´s.

What happens is simple,

Your CPU is idle, it´s waiting for the API to communicate it´s tasks with it. DX11 is very limited in that regard, so that your hardware has nothing to work on, as the orders are not coming in fast enough, from the API.

The bottleneck is therefore not hardware related.

In gaming these days, we often have to use the very outdated API of Directx 11, as game developers shy away from upgrading their clients to Dx 12, as this requires Windows 10 and not everyone has it. It´s also not as easy to port from DX 11 to DX 12, like it was with the former DX9 - DX11 ports.

We are not just talking of some additional effects like with water & Co. but actual workflow and this requires a complete overhaul of your game. I know companies that work on this for a year + and they surely have a lot more money and men power, than GGG does.

"

Arrowneous wrote:

The conclusion I draw from your testing is proof of what we have all known about for a long time. That the client side is not where the performance slowdowns (and thus our framerate drops) are occurring. In high density mob packs or areas with lot's of cold/fire/shock ground effects the performance slowdowns are all because of server calculation overload. GGG has known about this for over a year and Chris even commented briefly about this problem last fall in a State of Exile podcast. Further proof of this is knowing that just 1 necromancer can kill frame rates but quick if there are very many dead that can be resurrected.

We have no way of knowing just how many game sessions that GGG is assigning to each realm server (I'm assuming GGG uses servers with dual Intel Xeon 10+ core cpus in some kind of blade configuration but we'll never know what SoftLayer is providing for hosting PoE) and thus there could easily be dozens of game sessions assigned to each cpu thread in the server. No surprise there and we can know this from observations of slower performance (more latency) at the start of a new league than after 3 months when there are physically fewer players on at any given time of the day. More game sessions assigned to a finite number of server cores = more sessions per core. When GGG tries to force more sessions per server core than it can handle then something has to give and that something is a longer time for the server simulation to go through it's next calculation iteration and send the results back to our client PoE to use and update the next frame on our screen.

So as long as you have above the minimum specs needed to run PoE anything else is just not needed so there is not going to be much more of a local CPU or GPU % load increase just because you have agro'd more mob packs together before killing them. However, the server simulation is now dealing with a much larger number of individual creatures that must be damage calculated for and thus that will take more processing time. We must all remember that GGG intentionally does all this server side to minimize cheating. If the client isn't performing these (and all other) important calculations then there is nothing to hack and cheat.

Chris and company knows that the only solution beyond a few design and/or coding changes (such as limiting the total number of minions we can have) is to add more game servers and he stated last fall that GGG will be doing that but it is expensive and takes time so we can't expect a quick fix overnight. I just hope that GGG is ramping up the realm server quantity fast enough so that by the time PoE 3.0.0 launches next month we don't have total realm overload collapse or end up waiting in the queue forever like we got with D3 back in 2012. Hopefully GGG can avoid a disaster like that.

"

Mordad wrote:

DX11 Multi Core CPU Scaling... yes DX12 is better but to say DX11 is not capable of scaling is wrong..... and i also didn't know that a CPU with 50% load is idle.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu-scaling-directx-11,4768.html



I've also recorded my discharger with vsync off.

https://youtu.be/oF0HlgZ1bNk

"

Nephalim wrote:

Your fps is shockingly good even at 1440p are you capped at 60 fps? I assume your cpu is mid tier or high tier so feasibly this is as strong as a rig could get for a game like PoE but it still dips to 30 fps during the worst scenario. Someone mentioned RAM was an issue but if you do upgrade it id be very interested to see the results.

I dip to much lower in end game maps with a high clear speed build.

"

Arrowneous wrote:

The conclusion I draw from your testing is proof of what we have all known about for a long time. That the client side is not where the performance slowdowns (and thus our framerate drops) are occurring. In high density mob packs or areas with lot's of cold/fire/shock ground effects the performance slowdowns are all because of server calculation overload. GGG has known about this for over a year and Chris even commented briefly about this problem last fall in a State of Exile podcast. Further proof of this is knowing that just 1 necromancer can kill frame rates but quick if there are very many dead that can be resurrected.

We have no way of knowing just how many game sessions that GGG is assigning to each realm server (I'm assuming GGG uses servers with dual Intel Xeon 10+ core cpus in some kind of blade configuration but we'll never know what SoftLayer is providing for hosting PoE) and thus there could easily be dozens of game sessions assigned to each cpu thread in the server. No surprise there and we can know this from observations of slower performance (more latency) at the start of a new league than after 3 months when there are physically fewer players on at any given time of the day. More game sessions assigned to a finite number of server cores = more sessions per core. When GGG tries to force more sessions per server core than it can handle then something has to give and that something is a longer time for the server simulation to go through it's next calculation iteration and send the results back to our client PoE to use and update the next frame on our screen.

So as long as you have above the minimum specs needed to run PoE anything else is just not needed so there is not going to be much more of a local CPU or GPU % load increase just because you have agro'd more mob packs together before killing them. However, the server simulation is now dealing with a much larger number of individual creatures that must be damage calculated for and thus that will take more processing time. We must all remember that GGG intentionally does all this server side to minimize cheating. If the client isn't performing these (and all other) important calculations then there is nothing to hack and cheat.

Chris and company knows that the only solution beyond a few design and/or coding changes (such as limiting the total number of minions we can have) is to add more game servers and he stated last fall that GGG will be doing that but it is expensive and takes time so we can't expect a quick fix overnight. I just hope that GGG is ramping up the realm server quantity fast enough so that by the time PoE 3.0.0 launches next month we don't have total realm overload collapse or end up waiting in the queue forever like we got with D3 back in 2012. Hopefully GGG can avoid a disaster like that.

"

Finkster06 wrote:

"

Nephalim wrote:

Your fps is shockingly good even at 1440p are you capped at 60 fps? I assume your cpu is mid tier or high tier so feasibly this is as strong as a rig could get for a game like PoE but it still dips to 30 fps during the worst scenario. Someone mentioned RAM was an issue but if you do upgrade it id be very interested to see the results.

I dip to much lower in end game maps with a high clear speed build.

I have a 1440p 144 Hz monitor. My CPU is a 5-year old i5-3570k @ 4.3 GHz. You can consider it mid tier I guess, since Intel didn't innovate much in those 5 years. I have a GTX 1080 GPU, so high fps output when no independent CPU processing is going on is not too surprising, but you see what happens when heavy CPU processing comes in. The only confusing part is that CPU usage doesn't move much in the video, which led to the question if the 1600 MHz RAM is an issue for this game, but I have yet to verify it.