Performance in full HD (1920x1080)

[Stainaz]

I recently bought myself this higher-end gaming rig:

• Intel Core i5-4460 3.20 GHz quad-core
• NVIDIA GTX 770 2 GB VRAM
• 8 GB RAM

I was a bit disappointed to find that my computer was not able to run this more than 5 years old game with all settings maxed out. After experimenting a little bit, it seemed that SSAO was one of the greatest FPS-thieves.


Here' are some FPS performance samples (zooming in and out and moving around for 30 seconds), with all settings on max except the alternating SSAO:

• Campaign (Prussia, start):
  
  • With SSAO: FPS 64 - 80
  • Without SSAO: FPS 68 - 127
  
  
• ​Battle with around 2K soldiers:
  
  • With SSAO: FPS 37 - 67
  • Without SSAO: FPS 52 - 97

So, my question is: have anyone been able to run ETW with ALL graphics settings maxed out (including e.g. SSAO on, hardware shadows on, anti-aliasing 8x) on a 1920x1080 resolution (or better, for that matter) with FPS that hardly ever drops below, say, 70? And in that case, on what sort of rig?

[Eastern Weasel]

Not to sound offensive or anything, but why would you need more than 30 FPS in a strategy game? Even in shooters stable 30 FPS is good and there is no tremendous difference when it goes higher. I think lot of ppl simply dont understand what FPS is and trying to achieve some insane numbers simply for a sake of having a big number.

Anyhow, back on topic, running Empire on a 7 year old rig all maxed out, running around 30+/- FPS on 1920x1080.
To significantly improve games performance (applicable to all games), I would advice to stop using performance monitors

[iloveyourz]

I recently bought myself this higher-end gaming rig:

• Intel Core i5-4460 3.20 GHz quad-core
• NVIDIA GTX 770 2 GB VRAM
• 8 GB RAM

I was a bit disappointed to find that my computer was not able to run this more than 5 years old game with all settings maxed out. After experimenting a little bit, it seemed that SSAO was one of the greatest FPS-thieves.


Here' are some FPS performance samples (zooming in and out and moving around for 30 seconds), with all settings on max except the alternating SSAO:

• Campaign (Prussia, start):
  
  • With SSAO: FPS 64 - 80
  • Without SSAO: FPS 68 - 127
  
  
• ​Battle with around 2K soldiers:
  
  • With SSAO: FPS 37 - 67
  • Without SSAO: FPS 52 - 97

So, my question is: have anyone been able to run ETW with ALL graphics settings maxed out (including e.g. SSAO on, hardware shadows on, anti-aliasing 8x) on a 1920x1080 resolution (or better, for that matter) with FPS that hardly ever drops below, say, 70? And in that case, on what sort of rig?

idk what to tell you because that seems better than mine i got recently and im runnign everything on ultra with 60 fps and like sub 60 when i use fast foward

[Stainaz]

Not to sound offensive or anything, but why would you need more than 30 FPS in a strategy game? Even in shooters stable 30 FPS is good and there is no tremendous difference when it goes higher. I think lot of ppl simply dont understand what FPS is and trying to achieve some insane numbers simply for a sake of having a big number.

Anyhow, back on topic, running Empire on a 7 year old rig all maxed out, running around 30+/- FPS on 1920x1080.
To significantly improve games performance (applicable to all games), I would advice to stop using performance monitors

I was puzzled by the performance and wanted to see how it was for other people on the same settings.

It seems to me that, while it might not be easy to tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS displayed, the lower the FPS the computer is able to generate, the more vulnerable the game becomes to slow-downs and lags. E.g. if you try to open a dialogue while having a low FPS, it's likely to take a little longer time to open and give a certain sluggish feeling. I assume this is because there is less processing power left from the CPU, or something like that.

It's not likely to cause the dissolution of my empire, but it can be annoying.

[Eastern Weasel]

I was puzzled by the performance and wanted to see how it was for other people on the same settings.

It seems to me that, while it might not be easy to tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS displayed, the lower the FPS the computer is able to generate, the more vulnerable the game becomes to slow-downs and lags. E.g. if you try to open a dialogue while having a low FPS, it's likely to take a little longer time to open and give a certain sluggish feeling. I assume this is because there is less processing power left from the CPU, or something like that.

It's not likely to cause the dissolution of my empire, but it can be annoying.

As I said earlier, FPS is being overhyped by ppl who has no idea what they talking about. The only situations when you might notice interface "sluggishness" is when fps drops below 24. For a stable and enjoyfull gaming experience you dont need more than 30 stable fps. Keyword there being stable, so nowadays most ppl want to have higher than that to have a sort of buffer to avoid experiencing sudden "sluggishness" due to framedrop. So my point is, that contrary to popular uneducated opinion nowadays, everything below 60 fps is not bad performance that affects player in some way, nor will 100500 fps will increase you gaming experience in any way. Also you might note that not all monitors support refresh rates over 60Hz, so having higher fps on them will not provide any benefit at all, and may technically degrade your gaming experience due to skipped frames, and even most modern monitors are usually capped at 120Hz.

To conclude this, the performance you presented in OP is more than adequate for a 100% comfortable and smooth gameplay without anything to be annoyed over. Simply put, there will literally be no difference whether you play with or without ssao perfomance-wise.
Also, out of curiousity, how much fps did you expected from empire and why such high number?

[Stainaz]

As I said earlier, FPS is being overhyped by ppl who has no idea what they talking about. The only situations when you might notice interface "sluggishness" is when fps drops below 24. For a stable and enjoyfull gaming experience you dont need more than 30 stable fps. Keyword there being stable, so nowadays most ppl want to have higher than that to have a sort of buffer to avoid experiencing sudden "sluggishness" due to framedrop.

Yes, and higher FPS = bigger buffer (unless the FPS is capped, obviously).

To conclude this, the performance you presented in OP is more than adequate for a 100% comfortable and smooth gameplay without anything to be annoyed over. Simply put, there will literally be no difference whether you play with or without ssao perfomance-wise.

I think that's wrong, I am pretty sure that I notice a slight lag when opening certain dialogues on the campaign map, like diplomacy.

Also, out of curiousity, how much fps did you expected from empire and why such high number?

I expected no particular number. I Run CoD WaW, which was released a few months before ETW, at max with FPS capped at 125 FPS - and I don't think I've ever seen it go below that number unless there is connection lag, so if it weren' capped, it would probably be at, say, ~ 140 FPS on average.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think I ran M2TW with similar numbers to ETW, and that was using only one processor core. ETW has a new engine, but still a useful data point.

Without SSAO, I get numbers more like what I would expect; so maybe it's an unusually processing-heavy graphic setting (or the straw that breaks the camel's back). I have no immediate plans to buy a new/recent PC game (waiting for Steam sales and the like), so in the mean time I am squeezing out the the information I can about my rig's performance through older games like ETW.

[Stainaz]

And since I can't edit: I also experience quite a bit of tearing on the campaign map of ETW; I don't think it's been that obvious in other games that I've played. Turning on Vsync reduces it somewhat, but does not completely eradicate it.

[Eastern Weasel]

Tearing is not directly related to fps, at least in your case. If you think vsync doesnt help, try disabling it and use either your graphic card control center to force vsync or some external software to do it, like radeonPro for ATI cards for example.
As for "slight lag" in ui - it has nothing to do with performance on your rig, it can be caused either by ingame vsync, mods you have installed, or simply empire ui being slow and sluggish, in which case you wont be able to do anything about it. But to be honest, I think you just imagining lag simply because you dont get "125 fps", thus you automatically think that performance is not as good, and start seeing things that dont exist, like lag for example. Its normal for human psyche to do this things when out of its comfort zone.

As for FPS buffer - usually buffer of 20-30 fps is more than adequate for all gpu related fluctations. Normally no game would have a 100-frames drop diaposon so, lets say, having 120 fps over 70 will not improve anything for player during a course of normal gameplay.

[Stainaz]

The lag is very real, but after some further testing, it seems that it only appears when the campaign save game is first loaded. I also changed to a lower resolution, and the lag is still there the first time I click it; so it does appear to be unrelated to FPS capability, at least with the settings I had (I did not check difference w/w/o Vsync).

[eugenioso]

maybe its just me, but graphics have never been the real kicker for me. In fact, being little, i remember that i learned how to alter graphics and computer settings to speed up my games. That's why, to this day, even though i have a computer that is far well capable of playing games at maximum graphics with tolerably good FPS (going with ETW, i can get a good 50-70 FPS on max settings with darthmod), i still lower my resolution to something like 800x600 for a faster gaming experience.