Jump to content
iMolestCats

CM performance thread

Recommended Posts

Even if it is CPU usage and not GPU with my system the CPU is usually hanging around 20-25% or less usage and I have a Titan GPU that is barely even being used. Shadows are for sure the biggest fps killer, often cutting them in half. To be honest you'd think with my system I'd be getting a constant 60fps in a game like CMx2 but I don't, I'm usually around 20-30fps. And of course my system has no issues with 60fps in other games at max or near max settings, I know that doesn't mean too much but it shows that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with my setup.

That sounds similar to me. I have the same processor as you, and it's as if at times the game is barely aware of its existence. :D There is no reason why hi-end systems like mine and yours should be struggling with CMx2 with those sort of specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm way due for an upgraded system, and this is really the only game I have the time for with 2 little kids running around, it seems it wouldn't make much sense to spend a bunch of cash on a video card, judging by the weak performance on even high-end rigs here. My current system:

Athlon 64 4000+

320MB 8800GTS

3 GB RAM

Win 7 64 bit

I was thinking of an i5 3350p or i5 3470K (there's $5 difference between them), 8GB RAM and a 2GB Radeon 7850 or 650 Ti Boost vid card. The vid card seems like overkill now though, and maybe I'd be just as good with a 7770 or 7790. Thoughts?

Will Shock Force 2 use the CM 2.0 engine, or something better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I'm way due for an upgraded system, and this is really the only game I have the time for with 2 little kids running around, it seems it wouldn't make much sense to spend a bunch of cash on a video card, judging by the weak performance on even high-end rigs here. My current system:

Athlon 64 4000+

320MB 8800GTS

3 GB RAM

Win 7 64 bit

I was thinking of an i5 3350p or i5 3470K (there's $5 difference between them), 8GB RAM and a 2GB Radeon 7850 or 650 Ti Boost vid card. The vid card seems like overkill now though, and maybe I'd be just as good with a 7770 or 7790. Thoughts?

Will Shock Force 2 use the CM 2.0 engine, or something better?

Some high-end rigs don't perform as expected, but I am sure that a NVidia x50 will be a limiter. There just isn't enough memory bandwidth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the 2GB 650Ti Boost? Benchmarks have it right up around the same FPS as the 7850. I guess what I'm looking for is the lowest end card that would max out the FPS in the CM games. I guess though with some of the deals now on a 7850 ($110!), may as well just get that one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127663&ignorebbr=1

650 Ti Boost is actually more expensive right now, but the general consensus seems to be that ASUS makes a better card than MSI?:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121728&ignorebbr=1

I guess another option is to upgrade my MB/CPU/Ram and keep the 8800GTS and see what happens. I've read that CM is a resource hog, so maybe the upgrade in the CPU would be enough for now? I'm curious to see if I could squeeze some extra life out of the 8800 card...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even the 2GB 650Ti Boost? Benchmarks have it right up around the same FPS as the 7850. I guess what I'm looking for is the lowest end card that would max out the FPS in the CM games. I guess though with some of the deals now on a 7850 ($110!), may as well just get that one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127663&ignorebbr=1

650 Ti Boost is actually more expensive right now, but the general consensus seems to be that ASUS makes a better card than MSI?:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121728&ignorebbr=1

I guess another option is to upgrade my MB/CPU/Ram and keep the 8800GTS and see what happens. I've read that CM is a resource hog, so maybe the upgrade in the CPU would be enough for now? I'm curious to see if I could squeeze some extra life out of the 8800 card...

you can think 7870xt also , this is a price / performance card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can think 7870xt also , this is a price / performance card

I don't see a 7870 'xt' anywhere, but the 7870 is from $70 - $90 more than the 7850. That means for it to be price/performance comparable, it needs to be about 80% faster than the 7850 (in my books anyway to justify the cost). Benchmarks show it between 2 and 18% faster than the 7850. Maybe if the price comes down though with a new launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xt version has 79XX series production arthitecture so a way better than 7850. but price not so much.

it's different than 7870 series

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My geforce 550 ti can't run the game any more in a satisfactory manner (some market garden scenarios drop fps to only 8 without shaders and shadows!). Looks like the combination of the new patch and new nvidia drivers killed the performance for me.

Thus I need to upgrade my GPU. I was thinking about GTX 770. Does anyone have it and can give me feedback about it's performance? Would I be able to run biggest available scenarios with shadows and shaders on together with best texture and model quality?

If that question can't be answered then what gpu or gpu family is consented to enable a smood gameplay on highest settings? Is it better to go with Nvidia or Radeon?

I don't wanna spend lots of money to be then in turn dissapointed by non satisfactory result. Any help would be much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If your 550 can't run the game (especially with shaders and shadows turned off), you may have a systemic issue. It sounds like you're getting dumped into software mode, which would indicate a problem with your drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean nvidia drivers? I update them regularly. Have many other games that don't experience any difficulties. I can list them here if it would be of any help.

Aditional note: when I turn shader on I lose fog and that brownish effect (is it haze?). Also, during the night, if i have shaders on lighting from the burning vehicle on it's sorroundings disappear. If I turn shaders off lighting appears again.

Is that a known bug for some rigs or it's just me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CMBN loads slower, not faster since 3.0. Not very happy with that. CMRT loads a lot faster.

My pc: AMD Athlon II X4 640 processor

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

4 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 5700 series

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Have you updated your drivers recently? Have you changed your texture quality settings? Either of those could impact your load times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same over here. Loading times and ingame performance are not as good as before the upgrade. I'm using the same settings and no mods.

Or is my system that bad? It's a core 3 @ 3.1 GHz with 8 GB RAM and an ATI radeon 5750 running win7 64-bit. Any ideas?

Small maps are okay but medium and more are killers. Even without shaders and shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hmm, sounds like something might be up with some ATI/AMD cards and CM. Turning shadows off should help performance significantly on ANY card. Aragorn, are you having performance issues as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, yes, I do have performance issues. With CMRT I can load the biggest scenarios, like Studienka, without any problem. Same with the master maps. But with CMBN the biggest scenarios take a long time to load and after loading they freeze for short moments, which reduces the playability. Shaders on or off also makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anything beyond improved doesnt give satisfying perofrmance. 970+4690k 8gb 1866

That sucks for such first tier gear!

Can you please be more specific and provide a screenshot of your nvidia panel settings, name of the map being used and number of average frame rates via fraps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so this game is getting terrible performance and, frankly, it doesn't look impressive. I bought the CM:SF a long time ago and was able to play that game with similar performance to my current PC with CM:BN, except the PC that I played CM:SF on was way way way older than my current system. I believe it still used DDR1 ram, maybe DDR2, and Athlon 64 cpu and no GPU at all, of course with low quality settings.

My current PC is:

CPU: AMD FX-6300 @ 4.5ghz

GPU: Nvidia GTX 970 (EVGA SSC ACX2.0+) (has 4Gb of VRAM)

RAM: 8Gb DDR3 @ 1600mhz

MOBO: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3 v1.0

OS: Windows 7 Home 64bit

Game Settings:

Resolution: 1600x900

Models: BEST

Textures: BEST

Shaders: ON

Shadows: ON

Trees: Only tree trunks

AntiAliasing: OFF

Fraps Results:

Avg: 20.349 - Min: 11 - Max: 74

 

That is absolutely unexcuseable for this game to not be able to perform on par or better than other current games on my current system. The code is bottlenecking the game because I recently upgraded from a GTX 460 and AMD Phenom II X4 965 and the game ran almost exactly the same on that system. The gpu helps none, the cpu helps none, so neither are bottlenecking. I'm pretty irritated because this game costs way too much to be getting this kind of performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same CPU as you do and am getting similar performance issues. I upgraded from GTX 550 Ti to GTX 660 Ti and noticed only improvement in forested areas while all the rest stays the same ie FPS go below 25 way too often which is my threshold for an enjoyable gameplay experience. I think it's your CPU that is bottle-necking your game - I also have it and am experiencing problems Intel users with similar GPU's often do not.

Lower models setting to something lower. You'll get a shorter drawing distance but higher FPS.

Abysmal game performance after I upgraded the GPU made me not play it since then - was so disappointed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hister

Well, if my CPU (AMD fx-6300 oc @ 4.5ghz) is bottlenecking this game, then there's a problem. This game is not that in depth or detailed enough that my CPU should bottleneck it. And, I just tested it, and you may be right on. This game is probably not multi threaded either, because my core 1 is 100%. Here is the max load on all cores:

core 0: 89%

core 1: 100%

core 2: 24%

core 3: 16%

core 4: 90%

core 5: 43%

Also, apparently this game manages to use 74% of my GPU core!! That's unreal for this ugly game on a GTX 970! This game is still using DX9 isn't it?

Edited by seandramey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎15‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 2:21 AM, seandramey said:

@Hister

Well, if my CPU (AMD fx-6300 oc @ 4.5ghz) is bottlenecking this game, then there's a problem. This game is not that in depth or detailed enough that my CPU should bottleneck it.

I think the problem is primarily your choice of CPU. AMD has been getting away with claiming 'gaming' performance for it's CPU's because most games are GPU limited. But as a former user of your family of processors my experience is that they struggle with games that really have 'depth and detail', i.e. CMx2, DCS, CK2/EUIV.

I had them overclocked in water cooled rigs and that made no difference.

Now I use ancient i5's, and in CM at least performance is great even on an equally decrepit GTX 460 on a 2560x1600 monitor with all features turned up apart from model detail. I would imagine that the current generation of intel chips is even better.

I'm still an AMD fanboy but have to admit they've not even been making price/performance sense for years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, arjuna_r said:

I think the problem is primarily your choice of CPU. AMD has been getting away with claiming 'gaming' performance for it's CPU's because most games are GPU limited.

I disagree. Many people have bad performance in CM, both with Intel and AMD chips.

4 hours ago, arjuna_r said:

Now I use ancient i5's, and in CM at least performance is great even on an equally decrepit GTX 460 on a 2560x1600 monitor with all features turned up apart from model detail.

Well try turning up the model detail to maximum like the other guy has. Because model detail is the most important setting for performance. I am pretty sure you won't get anything near good results. Would love to be proven wrong though!

The fact of the matter is, CM runs on an ancient engine cobbled together by a couple of guys in their garage many years ago. That's why it's so slow. If it were a car, it would be a Ford T.

Or maybe it would be a schwimmwagen. It does stuff other games don't, but don't mention the mileage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Well try turning up the model detail to maximum like the other guy has.

I'd done a quick test and not see any apparent difference between the 'balanced' and 'best' model setting apart from the framerate. Except with 'balanced' it stays above 20 fps in huge size battles (when deliberately finding the most complex angle to render, I don't play the whole battle from that view). But even on 'best' the game is largely playable, and sandybridge is now five years old. 

Switching from Bulldozer (black edition, overclocked on ROG hardware) to Sandybridge solved the problem for me back then. I see Seandramey's is the incrementally better Piledriver architecture but real world performance we are talking just a few frames I would hazard a guess. 

CM is CPU intensive, and how that came to be is neither here no there. My personal experience is that any intel chip from Sandybridge on will run it well. It's not an unreasonable requirement in 2016. You don't need even a mid-range graphics card. 

Edited by arjuna_r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Many people have bad performance in CM, both with Intel and AMD chips.

A quick look at this old thread reveals an i3 (I forgot that was an option) and an Ivybridge which isn't a real improvement on sandy. Also, isn't 25+ fps completely acceptable for a strategy game? I'd just been assuming that no one cared about 60 fps in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...