What size battles can you run? (Should I be getting lag with this set up?)l)

[bthizle1]

It seems that when I have 4 full stacks (normal size armies 10,000 and up) I get quite a bit of lag/stuttering once they engage eachother. My FPS doesn't really drop below 40 however, which is odd. My GPU usage only maxes out at around 53%, while my just one CPU core maxes out at 99-100% often. The other cores remain at around 60% if not lower.


Hardware:
i5-4590
rx480 Gaming X 8GB
16 GB DDR3 RAM
CM G750M PSU

Is it normal to get this much lag in such battles with this system?

What are your specs and how do your battles run and how large?

(I've been worried about this, because I'm getting low FPS in Warband large battles, and Arma 2, especially harvest red, but in DeI I don't get low FPS, just lots of lag when large forces clash.)

[RoninSan]

40 fps is totally fine for Total War games imo...I play at 30-40 fps most battles and I dont feel any stuttering at all... Which fps counter are you using?

Both Total War and Arma 2 are heavily CPU based games...if you running your i5 at stock speed it may be the case.

[KAM 2150]

Well, unless FPS does not go under 25, then you should not even fill it.

[Kolaris8472]

This is a very CPU-intensive game. Playing on slow motion really helps reduce choppiness and I actually prefer it anyway. Well, the lack of sound is disappointing but I can live with it.

[bthizle1]

Well, unless FPS does not go under 25, then you should not even fill it.

Odd because I am rarely dipping under 30-35 even.

[Kolaris8472]

Right, because your gpu is doing fine. This game is somewhat unique (in my experience) in its ability to separate cpu and gpu tasks. You can have a good framerate but slow/choppy simulation speeds if your cpu isn't keeping pace.

[bthizle1]

In DeI my cpu usage is mostly allocated to one core that is often at 99-100%, while the others don't generally go over 65-75%. The GPU usage in DeI max is about 40%. FLS doesn't really drop below 30 ever, however I get bad stuttering when many units are fighting in 2V2 battles.

However in Arma2 I get poor FPS with both GPU and CPU usage not exceding 60% generally.

In Mount and Blade Warband (modded) I get decent FPS even when there are say 200v200 (diping to around 30 when they are all together), however even with decent FPS I get lag as well.

Begenning to think that maybe it's the CPU, although I thought an i5 4590 would be fine......

[KYREAPER]

Anytime you get stuttering without effecting framerate, its a CPU problem. Rome 2 is a VERY CPU intensive game... and so that i5 just isnt able to cut it. I have an i5 too and suffer from the same.

Also the proof is in the fact that your CPU is maxing while ur GPU is not.

This game is horribly optimized for CPUs and it basically takes a top tier i7 to really run this thing smoothly in all cases.

Im currently about to upgrade to a i7 7700k and a 1080ti and see what that does to this game.

[bthizle1]

Anytime you get stuttering without effecting framerate, its a CPU problem. Rome 2 is a VERY CPU intensive game... and so that i5 just isnt able to cut it. I have an i5 too and suffer from the same.

Also the proof is in the fact that your CPU is maxing while ur GPU is not.

This game is horribly optimized for CPUs and it basically takes a top tier i7 to really run this thing smoothly in all cases.

Im currently about to upgrade to a i7 7700k and a 1080ti and see what that does to this game.

Hmm, I'd be interested to see what performance you get wiht a lesser GPU and that i7. What GPU are you using now with that i5? Also what i5 do you have, and when do you start to get suttering? I suppose if I wanted to significantly upgrade my CPU I'd have to get a new MOBO and RAM as well....

Also I wonder why then in the case of say Arma 2 I get just as good as FPS using a 750ti, which would indicate that it is a CPU bottleneck....however my CPU usage in Arma2 is only max around 60-70%

EDIT:
I read somewhere that it's supposidly best to pair a mid/low range CPU with an NVIDIA as well, because of the CPU overhead AMD GPUs suffer from. Not certain how factual this is, but I've investigated a fair amount regarding the CPU overhead and many people make reasonable arguments.

[KYREAPER]

Hmm, I'd be interested to see what performance you get wiht a lesser GPU and that i7. What GPU are you using now with that i5? Also what i5 do you have, and when do you start to get suttering? I suppose if I wanted to significantly upgrade my CPU I'd have to get a new MOBO and RAM as well....

Also I wonder why then in the case of say Arma 2 I get just as good as FPS using a 750ti, which would indicate that it is a CPU bottleneck....however my CPU usage in Arma2 is only max around 60-70%

EDIT:
I read somewhere that it's supposidly best to pair a mid/low range CPU with an NVIDIA as well, because of the CPU overhead AMD GPUs suffer from. Not certain how factual this is, but I've investigated a fair amount regarding the CPU overhead and many people make reasonable arguments.

Right now iv got the 970 and the i5 3570. I get the stuttering when its 3-4 full 20 stack armies in a fight. My FPS will be good, but then it stutters unless i put it on slow mo...
And on sieges with 20v20 once someone climbs the ladders, because of the massive pathfinding calculations.

I may try the game once with the i7 and 970.

Arma is a weird game, iv played arma 2 and i still play arma 3, and their engine is just unoptimized trash. I love their game though. They have so much draw distance and objects going on that dont phase out when out of view.. they are constantly rendered and its just too much for almost any Rig to handle. But ill see how an i7 and 1080ti handles it.

[Ygraine]

I play with 41 units per army (several armies can mean between 20 000-30 000 troops involved) and fps is great except in massive sieges where the AI mobs up at 1-2 ladders or one gate. Using i7-4790k!

[geala]

Wow, that seems to be a mighty machine.

I have an i7-3400 and a GTX 960 and I had problems once in the initial moments of a battle with five stacks present (which means 4 armies and 1 fleet), although of course not all units appeared (I play with 20 units per stack). After a certain time the lags disappeared. I think a weaker i7 can handle the game quite good. I use also GEM, don't know wether it affects performance or not.

[Dresden]

Yeah, I think there is a post around here somewhere of Causeless explaining the issue with how important the processor is in Rome 2.

[bthizle1]

Right now iv got the 970 and the i5 3570. I get the stuttering when its 3-4 full 20 stack armies in a fight. My FPS will be good, but then it stutters unless i put it on slow mo...
And on sieges with 20v20 once someone climbs the ladders, because of the massive pathfinding calculations.

I may try the game once with the i7 and 970.

Arma is a weird game, iv played arma 2 and i still play arma 3, and their engine is just unoptimized trash. I love their game though. They have so much draw distance and objects going on that dont phase out when out of view.. they are constantly rendered and its just too much for almost any Rig to handle. But ill see how an i7 and 1080ti handles it.

Nonetheless, I would still think going from a 750ti to an rx480 8GB would give at least some boost in Arma2, as opposed to absolutely nothing.

Also, your CPU is no better than mine (i5 4590), but when I have 2v2 I get lag, 3-4 full stacks would probably just be much more lag, much sooner.....The i5 4590 has a turbo boost of 3.7GHz, while that i7 has a base clock of 4.0 and a turbo boost of 4.4, is that really that big of a difference?

I play with 41 units per army (several armies can mean between 20 000-30 000 troops involved) and fps is great except in massive sieges where the AI mobs up at 1-2 ladders or one gate. Using i7-4790k!

I could theoretically get the i7-4790k with this MOBO, only it's not a Z so I coudln't overclock it....are you OCing that CPU? Would it be worth trying to sell my i5 4590 to get the i7-4790k?

Yeah, I think there is a post around here somewhere of Causeless explaining the issue with how important the processor is in Rome 2.

Yes, that is unanimous at this point. It would appear that the CPU is even more important than the GPU....

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Yeah, I think there is a post around here somewhere of Causeless explaining the issue with how important the processor is in Rome 2.

From my experience through years the most important thing in Total War games are ghz (raw power) and not core-threads.
For example an i5 7600K 4,5ghz will be much better than an i7 7700K 4 ghz and you could check this for every game not just TW games.
Most developers don't support multi core threaded applications even know most games can utilize only 2 or 4 cores. Some of them could see more than 4 cores but utilize only around 20-30% of the capabilities. Μemory ram cold help as well 16 giga will be ideal. GPU Ram is also an issue but you could achieve more than enough FPS with most medium range cards at Rome 2.
The Warscape engine is quite problematic and we could see this with Attila too. In Warhammer the simplified the animations and specific graphic aspects of the game to achieve better performance.
Anti Aliasing is also mostly broken for Total War games so better use GEM and FX or 2K resolution which softens the image quite well.

[bthizle1]

Now I'm thinking about selling my current set up, returning the rx 480 8gb and doing a mini ITX build with a strong i7.....

[Ygraine]

Nonetheless, I would still think going from a 750ti to an rx480 8GB would give at least some boost in Arma2, as opposed to absolutely nothing.

Also, your CPU is no better than mine (i5 4590), but when I have 2v2 I get lag, 3-4 full stacks would probably just be much more lag, much sooner.....The i5 4590 has a turbo boost of 3.7GHz, while that i7 has a base clock of 4.0 and a turbo boost of 4.4, is that really that big of a difference?


I could theoretically get the i7-4790k with this MOBO, only it's not a Z so I coudln't overclock it....are you OCing that CPU? Would it be worth trying to sell my i5 4590 to get the i7-4790k?



Yes, that is unanimous at this point. It would appear that the CPU is even more important than the GPU....

I think it might be OC from the start (the turbo part)? Not an IT-expert.. Here's what it says on the site where I purchased it: Intel Core i7-4790K - 8 threads / 4,0GHz (4,4Ghz Turbo) / 8MB / Socket 1150 (Boxed) (88w)

I'm assuming that this means that the CPU speed is important like Greek Strategos wrote. But I'm sure the other hardware has to be decent too.

[Visionary]

After reading these posts here I really wonder whats wrong with my system then? i7 3770 3,4 ghz, GTX 1070 & 16 GB RAM and I'm playing a diashow no matter what size the armies have..

[Kolaris8472]

If you have an average CPU but a good GPU like that, be sure the following options are the highest two settings: Shadows, Particle Effects, Building Detail, and Unit Detail.

This will make those processes use your GPU instead of your CPU and alleviate some of the bottlenecking.

[bthizle1]

If you have an average CPU but a good GPU like that, be sure the following options are the highest two settings: Shadows, Particle Effects, Building Detail, and Unit Detail.

This will make those processes use your GPU instead of your CPU and alleviate some of the bottlenecking.

Oh I have, but to no avail. The stuttering still always takes place.

EDIT:


Tried out TW Warhammer and Attila now as well. Only this time seeing the performance with a GTX 750 ti, held to be quite inferior to the rx 480.
2v2 Large units battles in both (mostly infantry)
Warhammer: FPS drops to a low of 13, CPu usage is at 100% (one core, the others are around 70-80% max) GPU usage is 95-99% No stuttering however like in RII even at low FPS
Attila:FPS low is 8 (clashing of lines close up), now here's what's interesting; CPU usage is 85% max! GPU usage is 100% No stuttering either.
Odd thing is even though I have better FPS in RII DeI than any of them, it's also the only game I get this stuttering in.

So as it seems from RII and up it appears Attila is actually be best optimized (for this i5 at least). I noticed this the first time I played Attila, even moded I found it looked much nicer (none of the nasty shadows) far better scenery, and it performed much better. However I hadn't tested like this.

Going to give the rx 480 a try, and do a good uninstall of drivers. Then going to reinstall windows and see that. It'll be interesting to compare these two GPUs and see if the much better GPU really gives most of a perfoermance boost in these three TW titles, if not....then wow, even an if 4590 will bottleneck a good mid range GPU in these. Thus far it looks like Attila will be able to use that extra GPU, at least some of it, but the others will not (without being bottlenecked)....we shall see.