0.59 vs 0.60 CPU working differences

[GunnyITA 107]

Hello,

 

Yesterday i've downloaded the 0.60 stable and i have to admit that the perfomance increase exist for me, but not that much.

I've noticed that the main difference between this patch and the 0.59 are the loadings of objects and details on the CPU. I've noticed that the 0.59 had lot frame drops, but all buildings, objects and trees were entirely loaded but for the cost of an huge FPS drop.

While on 0.60 is working different. While i'm looking to a point and scroll the mouse a few around i notice how the game is smooth, but when do i have to approach and load details over details the game start to stutter. And it's quite frustrating because your movement aren't smooth at all. I moved from Karmanovka to Turovo and then not  a big city! ....a small town area with few buildings and trees, stutterings over stutterings because the details of all we do have around are loaded step by step, while in 0.59 were all in once and my charachter was moving smooth but with some fps drop.

 

My details are around medium, something is high and something is low...off course shadows are low. On any game the shadows are the things that takes bandwith. The starting string before exectuing the game has been canceled, because i heard it was not working anymore and was reducing the performance.

 

CPU: AMD FX 8350 4.00 ghz (equal as performance to an i7 2600k) . 8 gb ram ddr3 1600 mhz, Nvidia GTX 970 (changed this month, i came from an ATI 7870). Win 7 business edition 64.

 

Anyone is having stuttering problem aswell? I'm not having fun of the game if the charachter stutters

 

 

EDIT: I moved to Svetlo.....Game stutters and fps drops, until he loads everything then it's fine. The main centre of svetlo i've taken few seconds to load everything and having the game smooth. But all of the path i did to run to the centre of the town i had lagg and stuttering.

Edited June 16, 2016 by GunnyITA

[GunnyITA 107]

hell....42 views and neither a comment? :-/

[Tigermonk 140]

43 minutes ago, GunnyITA said:

hell....42 views and neither a comment? :-/

I'll post the first comment than shall I?

its because this isn't dayz related.. but rather hardware related.. and most 12-15 yo juppies on this forum don't bother with the 2000 USD pc daddy bought for them..

on topic: 

the difference is indeed there.. I've been running the same setup/specs/game settings as .59, and my CPU load has gone up a bit as well..

max temp on .59 was around 55-56 Celsius (or 127-130 Fahrenheit)  
max temp on .60 is around     61-63 Celsius (or 140-144 Fahrenheit) 

so yes, the load on the CPU has gone up a bit.. but the performance (overall) is impressive
I went from

21 FPS to about 35-50 FPS in towns and city's like zelonogorsk/pustoshka/lopatino
43 FPS to about 72-91 FPS in Mishkino tents and other 'wilderness' areas

so about a 75% gain overall.. compared to 4 degrees C in temp rise.. 

[GunnyITA 107]

i didn't cared about the temperature to be honest.

But i don't see this great improvement of performance. i was fine before, where everything was precached and loader rather than step by step. And my PC is long way better than the pc used on the  first 0.60 video while on testing done by Hicks.

 

Game is now stuttering everytime that have to loading few stuff.

[Tigermonk 140]

27 minutes ago, GunnyITA said:

i didn't cared about the temperature to be honest.

But i don't see this great improvement of performance. i was fine before, where everything was precached and loader rather than step by step. And my PC is long way better than the pc used on the  first 0.60 video while on testing done by Hicks.

 

Game is now stuttering everytime that have to loading few stuff.

all of this stuff (including the rendering system we've been waiting for almost 5 months) is a work in progress and subject too change.. so maybe in 2-3 updates (about 1 year) it'll be working better.. lets hope so at least

[ZomboWTF 527]

35 minutes ago, GunnyITA said:

i didn't cared about the temperature to be honest.

But i don't see this great improvement of performance. i was fine before, where everything was precached and loader rather than step by step. And my PC is long way better than the pc used on the  first 0.60 video while on testing done by Hicks.

 

Game is now stuttering everytime that have to loading few stuff.

Try going into you DayZ Config and look if you are rendering at double the normal resolution, there was a bug in 0.60 Exp. where you had your render resolution doubled when switching to exp

On another note: bare benchmark numbers (FX8350 being as good as an i7 2600) doesn't always mean that a game will run well, especially DayZ alway runs better on Intel CPUs than on AMD CPUs

[IMT 3190]

5 hours ago, GunnyITA said:

My details are around medium, something is high and something is low...off course shadows are low. On any game the shadows are the things that takes bandwith. The starting string before exectuing the game has been canceled, because i heard it was not working anymore and was reducing the performance.

Try messing around with your settings, increasing your settings can actually increase your performance because the GPU will do all the calculations and a lot of work instead of the CPU.

15 minutes ago, ZomboWTF said:

On another note: bare benchmark numbers (FX8350 being as good as an i7 2600) doesn't always mean that a game will run well, especially DayZ alway runs better on Intel CPUs than on AMD CPUs

This is a fact, as I noticed a big performance increase, big cities like Novo,  Elektro, Cherno, etc. still give me low FPS. Of course it is much better than in 0.59 but it's not as smooth as people with an Intel CPU.

[entspeak 374]

7 hours ago, GunnyITA said:

Of course shadows are low. On any game the shadows are the things that takes bandwith.

Actually, turning the shadows to low throws them more onto the CPU. This was stated quite a long time ago. If you want the GPU to handle the shadows, put them on Normal or higher. I do one of two things with shadows - disable them completely or put them on Normal. Putting clouds on Low actually makes things worse.

[GunnyITA 107]

25 minutes ago, entspeak said:

Actually, turning the shadows to low throws them more onto the CPU. This was stated quite a long time ago. If you want the GPU to handle the shadows, put them on Normal or higher. I do one of two things with shadows - disable them completely or put them on Normal. Putting clouds on Low actually makes things worse.

 

Ok. i'll try at this.

Any other stuff to increase the graphic for the GPU instead of the CPU?

[St. Jimmy 1631]

35 minutes ago, entspeak said:

Actually, turning the shadows to low throws them more onto the CPU. This was stated quite a long time ago. If you want the GPU to handle the shadows, put them on Normal or higher. I do one of two things with shadows - disable them completely or put them on Normal. Putting clouds on Low actually makes things worse.

I wouldn't really be sure about that anymore. Shadows are bit different now so that might have changed. Not sure if stencil shadows even exists anymore.

[ZomboWTF 527]

All the old performance tweaks can basically be forgotten now with the new renderer, things like "low shadows are cpu, higher setting go to GPU" were valid in the old Arma 2 Engine, but that isn't the case anymore

no matter how i put the settings now, higher settings always come with a performance decrease, which is good, it should be that way. no random-ass "oh if you set shadows to low DayZ will ignore you having a graphics card" anymore, thanks! now i can be sure to get the best fps if i set the quality lower

DayZ runs smoother than ever now, and my PC is pretty damn old, but i'm fine with running most settings on medium, so it's completely fine

[ryanh 36]

As much as I dislike the AMD/Intel market share in this case, Your AMD CPU is bottle necking your performance.  For Gpus.. AMD definatly give you mostly satisfactory bang for your buck Nividea gives you more, at the cost of.. extreme marked up prices.

 

Im using a 6700k at 5.1 GHZ and i can confrim the Cpu usesage has gone up slightly and the game runs super smooth.

 

Untill Zen comes out (if it turns out to be anything good) I would look into Intel CPU's    (they seem to have nicer Mobos as well) 


The 8 Core super cheap AMD cpus seem like a bargin, But most things can't even utilize it especially games, for a Budget workstation though it could manage that role well.

Referance: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/621vs1489

 

 

[St. Jimmy 1631]

AMD GPUs have also their downside. They usually need more CPU overhead and their performance/watt hasn't been that good. But they've been improving so let's see. So it all comes down to the small stuff. GTX480 is sounding nice for the price.

If the engine still loves raw IPC, AMD FX is still far away from something like Intel 2600K, especially when comparing clock-to-clock.

Edited June 21, 2016 by St. Jimmy