Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
barbaroja_Ar

Question - FPS drop with ultra sound enabled?

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

114
[TIAR]
Beta Testers
818 posts
15,712 battles

Hi all,

This weekend I enabled the ultra option in sound. Never done it before.

Prior to that, FPS were at 75 (capped by default IIRC) now, after the change I got them as low as 60 FPS in some situations.

Is this normal?

 

TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[TIAR]
Beta Testers
818 posts
15,712 battles
41 minutes ago, ElectroVeeDub said:

Sounds normal to me... if you're on a lower end PC it could affect performance. High fidelity audio can be taxing on a CPU.

It's a 2 years old I7 with 16GB RAM & a GeForce GTX 1050 runnind WoWs from an SSD playing in High graphics setting.

Will revert to normal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,480
[CAG-1]
Members
1,872 posts
6 minutes ago, barbaroja_Ar said:

It's a 2 years old I7 with 16GB RAM & a GeForce GTX 1050 runnind WoWs from an SSD playing in High graphics setting.

Will revert to normal

Well.. there's many models and generations of I7's... an I7 could be on a laptop. Doesnt mean it can't be a bottle neck.

To be honest, unless you're using a full blown 7.1 Dolby home theater systems for audio ... the regular audio sounds just fine. :)

Edited by ElectroVeeDub
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,075
[O-PN]
Members
2,098 posts
4,408 battles

The i7 moniker means little -- your 1050 is holding you back. You should be using 60hz with that card anyway to prevent those glitches I know you get with it. 

Consider a 1660 which has a sizable chunk of the chip dedicated specifically to things like rendering hydrodynamics. 

16GB ram is okay if you reboot daily.  If not you need more ram.  32GB will let you run for months at a time.

Edited by NoSoMo
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,177
[XBRTC]
Members
2,990 posts
9,683 battles
10 hours ago, barbaroja_Ar said:

It's a 2 years old I7 with 16GB RAM & a GeForce GTX 1050 runnind WoWs from an SSD playing in High graphics setting.

Will revert to normal

 

See, this is the weird part to me... your video card isn't really the thing that's handling your sound, and just about any i7 should be able to handle the ultra sound quality without too big of a hit on frame rate. Video card should be 100% the bottleneck there.

Which i7 do you have? I've got a Broadwell-E chip, 3 years old now, and it has no problem with ultra sound no matter what resolution I'm running at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,075
[O-PN]
Members
2,098 posts
4,408 battles
21 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

See, this is the weird part to me... your video card isn't really the thing that's handling your sound, and just about any i7 should be able to handle the ultra sound quality without too big of a hit on frame rate. Video card should be 100% the bottleneck there

It's not weird at all --- the system's ram speed alone can fluctuate video FPS by 10% or more.  Things are a little bit more dependent than you realize.  With the 1050, I'd stick to 60 FPS to keep things smooth as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,177
[XBRTC]
Members
2,990 posts
9,683 battles
32 minutes ago, NoSoMo said:

It's not weird at all --- the system's ram speed alone can fluctuate video FPS by 10% or more.  Things are a little bit more dependent than you realize.  With the 1050, I'd stick to 60 FPS to keep things smooth as it is.

 

Yes, obviously things like that can happen, but the point is he's got a 1050. Unless he's somehow running something like DDR-200 with an i7, then that 1050 is going to be the bottleneck. He'd have to almost literally pull the RAM and replace it with a potato to somehow make it be slow enough to be more of a bottleneck than a 1050.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
992
[GOB]
Members
888 posts

The build you see below is MUCH older than yours...take note. ( GPU is  a tiny bit newer )

I see a ton of advice but no one asks what MOBO you are using.  Many upper Boards have sound on the MOBO Mine for example has 24bit 7.1  I can assure you it has NOTHING to do with the rest of the system and I run Digital Optical fiber to surround speakers.

Ram IS important on your GPU so it can load more textures and run them faster. 

Also if you have a dedicated GPU card then the CPU means nothing. In fact you can disable VIDEO withing a I7 processor.  It is this factor which makes INTEL be avble to compete with AMD these days.  Builders always use dedicated GPUs on power Gaming machines.

RAM isn't used for sound...some effects may load there but if so it is minimal.

Example., I have a secondary gamer here I use sometimes and it is older. 

MOBO: EVGA Z97 Classified
Processor: Intel I7 4790K Devils Canyon 4.4 Ghz
EVGA GTX 1080 FTW2 ICX 8GB
32GB Trident X 2400 Dual Channel
1X Samsung 950 PRO M.2 512
4X Samsung 850 PRO
1X WD Black 6TB Performance HDD
1X WD Black 4TB Performance HDD

EVGA CLC 280 Liquid/Water CPU Cooler, RGB LED Cooling 400-HY-CL28-V1

CoolerMaster HAF X Case
Thermaltake 850 toughpower Grand

  It runs everything I throw at it at ULTRA with FPS in this game averaging 160FPS  Notice that is at 2K and 4K resolutions AND it is running triple screens all the time as well.

 

This machine is still major overkill for this game but I am building a new one based on PCIE 4.0 and Threadripper 3900 series when it comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,075
[O-PN]
Members
2,098 posts
4,408 battles
33 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

 

Yes, obviously things like that can happen, but the point is he's got a 1050. Unless he's somehow running something like DDR-200 with an i7, then that 1050 is going to be the bottleneck. He'd have to almost literally pull the RAM and replace it with a potato to somehow make it be slow enough to be more of a bottleneck than a 1050.

Here's a 20% difference in ram speed alone -- Do you know what a 20% FPS reduction from 75FPS is?  Yeah, 60.  Again, things are more connected than you realize. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[-TXT-]
Members
528 posts
11,903 battles
6 hours ago, NoSoMo said:

The i7 moniker means little -- your 1050 is holding you back. You should be using 60hz with that card anyway to prevent those glitches I know you get with it. 

Consider a 1660 which has a sizable chunk of the chip dedicated specifically to things like rendering hydrodynamics. 

16GB ram is okay if you reboot daily.  If not you need more ram.  32GB will let you run for months at a time.

sound is CPU not GPU  so his 1050 has zero to do with it/

 

Most likey it is the bug that is in the new sound system.  Till it is optimize you may have a issue. Guys that are tell you it is a issue with GPU do not have a clue.  Could it be a issue with mem or cpu on you end, possible but not likely.  If you were getting 70 before and have no other changes then most 90% of the time it is a optimize issue.

A great example of this is the new FL map. most are getting lower fps then on the other fl map. Why because all thing need to be optimized.

Edited by warp103

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,075
[O-PN]
Members
2,098 posts
4,408 battles
1 hour ago, warp103 said:

sound is CPU not GPU  so his 1050 has zero to do with it/

 

Most likey it is the bug that is in the new sound system.  Till it is optimize you may have a issue. Guys that are tell you it is a issue with GPU do not have a clue.  Could it be a issue with mem or cpu on you end, possible but not likely.  If you were getting 70 before and have no other changes then most 90% of the time it is a optimize issue.

A great example of this is the new FL map. most are getting lower fps then on the other fl map. Why because all thing need to be optimized.

No, the GPU isn't handling sound (though some do).  However, the weaker GPU causes more physics work (along with calculations in general) to have to be done by the CPU -- there is still shared load on the back end and a weak component anywhere in the chain will have an impact on the overall chain.  The more work the GPU can handle on its own, the less the CPU has to take care of.  Now if you go upgrading the GPU and then increase the settings, you end up with diminished returns.  All things being equal, upgrading the GPU will ease the burden on the CPU.  It's not massive differences, but it's enough.  The fact that system ram speed significantly impacts performance well into double digits is a little counter intuitive since the video card is storing everything about the scene it's rendering in its own ram.

Here's a little graphic of CPU and GPU --- 
Sec 1 - sitting in port spinning ship as quick as possible / all around
sec 2 - selecting new ship, adding camo / flags / commander
sec 3 - game loads into co op and starts -- super flat, smooth, non taxing
sec4 - taking the screen capture of the task manager while the game still goes on in the background.

CPU peaked at 4.3 GHz even though it's under volted currently as to reduce energy draw and the heat.. Graphics card is also set to about 85w maximum draw.  As you can see, the CPU while in game was sitting at 25%, the graphics card stayed right about 57% despite looking around, firing, etc...  Total system power consumption is ~150 watts running graphics maxed out at 2560x1440, audio is set to ultra.  As you can see from the number of processes and threads, I have quite a bit going on in the background.   This same system will do 5.1GHz and 125w on the video card for a total system draw of around 440w which includes CPU coming close to maxing out the VRMs at 175w.  I build lots of machines, I'd ditch the x50 and get a 1660.

There are fluid calculations being done by the GPU -- some of which may have to be handled by the CPU.  Being able to offload more of the games calculations to the video card will result in better overall performance.  I know there's glitches at 75hz with the x50 card he's running if he admits it or not.  I have several cards I've tested on hand and have seen a drastic increase in game performance using the 1660 card at higher frame rates -- the CPU would actually do less work on higher graphics settings with the better card than an x50 series. 

image.thumb.png.b278d1cc566fde9c71c6bdd5db097d31.png

Edited by NoSoMo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,177
[XBRTC]
Members
2,990 posts
9,683 battles
3 hours ago, NoSoMo said:

Here's a 20% difference in ram speed alone -- Do you know what a 20% FPS reduction from 75FPS is?  Yeah, 60.  Again, things are more connected than you realize. 

Spoiler

 

 

 

I'm very familiar with that RAM. I've got 32 GB (4x8) of it in my system, and I'd be at 48 GB if I could find another 2x8 for a reasonable price.

Look at the rest of the test rig and you'll see why they were able to bottleneck things through changing RAM speed.

image.png.d0ae8b9608b8021948321d43ea0141e6.png

 

Our friend in this thread could have DDR78-65536 thz RAM, and he'd still be bottlenecked by his video card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,075
[O-PN]
Members
2,098 posts
4,408 battles
20 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

I'm very familiar with that RAM. I've got 32 GB (4x8) of it in my system, and I'd be at 48 GB if I could find another 2x8 for a reasonable price.

Look at the rest of the test rig and you'll see why they were able to bottleneck things through changing RAM speed.

Our friend in this thread could have DDR78-65536 thz RAM, and he'd still be bottlenecked by his video card.

Which is my point, upgrade the card --- he's already maxing it out calling for 75hz.  x50 cards are entry level cards and is unquestionably the weakest link. (post #6)

I've got 64GB ram sitting here -- only 32 is installed because adding more ram in more slots isn't going to speed up the machine.  It will tax it more, possibly degrade performance, but I gain nothing from adding another 32 to the system, and you wouldn't either. 

Edited by NoSoMo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,177
[XBRTC]
Members
2,990 posts
9,683 battles
1 minute ago, NoSoMo said:

Which is my point, upgrade the card --- he's already maxing it out calling for 75hz.  x50 cards are entry level cards and is unquestionably the weakest link.

 

And yet, that is not even remotely the problem that he's dealing with right now.

He WAS at 75 fps, and without changing his hardware, now he's at 60. The video card has nothing to do with the sound (except, perhaps, for passing it through the HDMI port). An i7 and 16GB shouldn't have any real issues with a heavier load, and the video card isn't the issue.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,075
[O-PN]
Members
2,098 posts
4,408 battles
19 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

And yet, that is not even remotely the problem that he's dealing with right now.

He WAS at 75 fps, and without changing his hardware, now he's at 60. The video card has nothing to do with the sound (except, perhaps, for passing it through the HDMI port). An i7 and 16GB shouldn't have any real issues with a heavier load, and the video card isn't the issue.

Care to make a wager?  I just showed that in-game ultra sound settings doesn't even tax an under volted i5 but to about 25% with a video card that can exceed what I'm asking it to do.  If I put a 1050 in it and ask it to do the same, the CPU is going to have to work significantly harder.  The bottleneck here is the card.  Do you think if he put an even faster CPU in would FPS go up or stay the same?  Before he set sound to ultra w/ 75fps, I know he had performance  hiccups because I've already tested such with a faster CPU.    He slightly increased demand on CPU and now lost FPS -- the card is the bottleneck placing more demand on the CPU, when the CPU can no longer handle the additional load from an over-taxed GPU with additional processing via sound, the issue isn't the CPU, it's the GPU.  Upgrading either will yield a performance increase, but upgrading the poor card over the decent other parts is clearly the correct solution. 

I have no questions here, just advice based on 2+ decades of experience in this field and direct tests regarding the hardware in question with the same software.   There are also new graphical features now found in the game that likely tax the card beyond its capabilities.  The graphics continue to advance, and the card will continue to show its inferior standing.  We just got a patch that changed up / advanced some of the graphics of the game.  I wouldn't pass the system as "stable" at 75fps before the patch, let alone after. 

Edited by NoSoMo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[-TXT-]
Members
528 posts
11,903 battles
On 9/24/2019 at 2:12 AM, NoSoMo said:

Care to make a wager?  I just showed that in-game ultra sound settings doesn't even tax an under volted i5 but to about 25% with a video card that can exceed what I'm asking it to do.  If I put a 1050 in it and ask it to do the same, the CPU is going to have to work significantly harder.  The bottleneck here is the card.  Do you think if he put an even faster CPU in would FPS go up or stay the same?  Before he set sound to ultra w/ 75fps, I know he had performance  hiccups because I've already tested such with a faster CPU.    He slightly increased demand on CPU and now lost FPS -- the card is the bottleneck placing more demand on the CPU, when the CPU can no longer handle the additional load from an over-taxed GPU with additional processing via sound, the issue isn't the CPU, it's the GPU.  Upgrading either will yield a performance increase, but upgrading the poor card over the decent other parts is clearly the correct solution. 

I have no questions here, just advice based on 2+ decades of experience in this field and direct tests regarding the hardware in question with the same software.   There are also new graphical features now found in the game that likely tax the card beyond its capabilities.  The graphics continue to advance, and the card will continue to show its inferior standing.  We just got a patch that changed up / advanced some of the graphics of the game.  I wouldn't pass the system as "stable" at 75fps before the patch, let alone after. 

As a IT pro 30 years plus, I will take that bet {use to work on the old tandy computers}. Again  it a issue with the sound ENG that they switched to. It is bugged. WG has said that but you still want to argue a point.

The short answer is he change nothing was at 75. Sound engine changed, it is buggy and is not optimized. GPU has Zero to do with bugs eating cpu clock cycles in this case.

Edited by warp103

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,072 posts
On 9/23/2019 at 8:20 AM, ElectroVeeDub said:

Well.. there's many models and generations of I7's... an I7 could be on a laptop. Doesnt mean it can't be a bottle neck.

To be honest, unless you're using a full blown 7.1 Dolby home theater systems for audio ... the regular audio sounds just fine. :)

Also, what's the power settings on said laptop?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,072 posts
54 minutes ago, warp103 said:

As a IT pro 30 years plus, I will take that bet {use to work on the old tandy computers}. Again  it a issue with the sound ENG that they switched to. It is bugged. WG has said that but you still want to argue a point.

The short answer is he change nothing was at 75. Sound engine changed, it is buggy and is not optimized. GPU has Zero to do with bugs eating cpu clock cycles in this case.

I would agree.   I'm not observing this behavior, but I have a 6-core current generation i7, and generally have CPU to burn.

 

Edited by agm114r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,075
[O-PN]
Members
2,098 posts
4,408 battles
3 hours ago, warp103 said:

As a IT pro 30 years plus, I will take that bet {use to work on the old tandy computers}. Again  it a issue with the sound ENG that they switched to. It is bugged. WG has said that but you still want to argue a point.

The short answer is he change nothing was at 75. Sound engine changed, it is buggy and is not optimized. GPU has Zero to do with bugs eating cpu clock cycles in this case.

Thing is that it wasn't a stable 75 FPS (as in 100% 75 FPS, 100% of the time).  Just sold a similar spec'd machine and I know how the video performance is.  Frame rate or settings had to be dialed back to achieve solid frame rate.

Funny you quoted it, but didn't read it; here it is again....
"I have no questions here, just advice based on 2+ decades of experience in this field and direct tests regarding the hardware in question with the same software.   There are also new graphical features now found in the game that likely tax the card beyond its capabilities.  The graphics continue to advance, and the card will continue to show its inferior standing.  We just got a patch that changed up / advanced some of the graphics of the game.  I wouldn't pass the system as "stable" at 75fps before the patch, let alone after."

Edited by NoSoMo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[-TXT-]
Members
528 posts
11,903 battles
On 10/5/2019 at 4:18 AM, NoSoMo said:

Thing is that it wasn't a stable 75 FPS (as in 100% 75 FPS, 100% of the time).  Just sold a similar spec'd machine and I know how the video performance is.  Frame rate or settings had to be dialed back to achieve solid frame rate.

Funny you quoted it, but didn't read it; here it is again....
"I have no questions here, just advice based on 2+ decades of experience in this field and direct tests regarding the hardware in question with the same software.   There are also new graphical features now found in the game that likely tax the card beyond its capabilities.  The graphics continue to advance, and the card will continue to show its inferior standing.  We just got a patch that changed up / advanced some of the graphics of the game.  I wouldn't pass the system as "stable" at 75fps before the patch, let alone after."

Again  you are not Listening. He Said Capped . That mean it was stable. IF the cap was remove he would get more FPS  just may get micro Stutters back down to 75. He never said his I7 specs. Sp your direct tests regarding the hardware in question with the same software. Is Meaning less if you do not have his system front of you.

You are the type that IT guy like me hate working behind. You never listen to the customer and think you know more the the Software Developer. Even when that say Multiple WG said  WE are working on a patch to fixes the Bugs. You would still blame the customer. I give up and have now I have block you. I have no time for your type of NON Sense giving bad Tech advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,075
[O-PN]
Members
2,098 posts
4,408 battles
On 10/9/2019 at 3:35 AM, warp103 said:

Again  you are not Listening. He Said Capped . That mean it was stable. IF the cap was remove he would get more FPS  just may get micro Stutters back down to 75. He never said his I7 specs. Sp your direct tests regarding the hardware in question with the same software. Is Meaning less if you do not have his system front of you.

You are the type that IT guy like me hate working behind. You never listen to the customer and think you know more the the Software Developer. Even when that say Multiple WG said  WE are working on a patch to fixes the Bugs. You would still blame the customer. I give up and have now I have block you. I have no time for your type of NON Sense giving bad Tech advice.

I'm the type of IT guy that laughs at every single person that says they're in IT because 99% of them can't figure out why a USB cable won't plug into an ethernet port.  I'm the guy that gets called in when the "IT guy" can't figure it out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[B-W-M]
Members
3 posts
3,243 battles
On 10/10/2019 at 3:49 AM, NoSoMo said:

I'm the type of IT guy that laughs at every single person that says they're in IT because 99% of them can't figure out why a USB cable won't plug into an ethernet port.  I'm the guy that gets called in when the "IT guy" can't figure it out. 

Been working on computers since the 80's. You have no idea whatsoever as to what you're talking about.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×