[gamegpu] Evil Within CPU benchmarks - SNB gets hammered

[Erenhardt]

strictly speaking, if movie/"cinema" standard is still 24fps, then 30 is indeed more cinematic.

I don't think I've played any games capped at 30, I cap all mine at 60 or 72 or whatever I got my monitor overclocked to. But I did a plenty of fast FPS fragging at 30fps(if I was lucky) and it seemed to work out ok.

If I artificially capped a modern game at 30 would that be the same experience as one of these that comes pre-capped so I can see how it feels?

I would rather have game locked at 30FPS with amazing world/mechanics/graphics etc, than a black room simulator running 3000 FPS.

 

[BrightCandle]

I would rather have game locked at 30FPS with amazing world/mechanics/graphics etc, than a black room simulator running 3000 FPS.

But that isn't the choice. We aren't talking about a performance issue where people can't get above 30 fps because the game is too detailed, we are talking about an artificial reduction in image quality and performance that is justified as artistic or cinematic. If it only runs at 30 on your rig and 45 on mine then that is fine, but the fact it could run at 45 on mine and it can't because an artificial limit was added isn't right.

Would you want to buy a car that was artificially locked to 30 mph. You might spend most of your time below that speed if you worked in a city but that doesn't mean its remotely reasonable for the power of the engine to be completely limited with a software lock purely because the manufacturer thought 30 mph was a better way to see the country, at 50+ "you just whizzy past the terrain too quickly to appreciate it". The engine is more than capable of going faster, but the manufacturer arbitrarily made the call that if you bought that car the only option was up to 30mph and all that power to improve your travel time would be taken away from you, its not your choice its theirs.

 

[NTMBK]

If the consoles were more powerful, the game would run at 60fps, it's as simple as that.

Hah, no. If the consoles were more powerful they would add more detail to the world, and still have it run at 30fps. They don't just take the exact same software and run it at double the framerate- they squeeze the most they can out of the hardware, while still keeping it interactive.

(For the record, I have no issue with 30fps- especially if it's nice and consistent.)

 

[Ramses]

Following the car analogy, and I love car analogies, I'd not buy the 30mph car and build my own. Or modify it to do more than 30. Let the market and the masses decide there own fate. The snag with that analogy is a 30mph car is a definite problem getting from point a to b in a timely manner. A 30fps game isn't necessarily something that prohibits one from playing the game fully. I don't have an opinion really either way on the fps issue but the analogy is a little shaky.

I do think PC games have been getting the short end of the stick for a long time though because of the revenue available from consoles. I don't see that changing. It used to be the exception rather than the rule that a big PC game title was a console port with wonky controls or settings. Coupled with the fact that people in general are moving from traditional PC to tablets and other internet devices. Future ain't too bright.

 

[BrightCandle]

All analogies fall apart at some point, but I hope we can all agree its right to criticise such a manufacturer for producing a car like that and for people to talk about the reason why they wont buy that car and why the car if bought should be modified and how.

 

[Ramses]

I'm not prepared to call the deciding to cap them right or wrong, it's there ballgame they can make up the rules if they want to. But absolutely folks should be able to not buy it and talk junk, and make something better themselves.

 

[Dankk]

Well, I would love to play this game right now... honestly, I really, really want to play it... but I just can't bring myself to. The performance in this game is bad. I mean, really, really bad.

So bad, in fact, that my PC can't even maintain a solid 30fps. I know the FX-8350 isn't a great gaming chip, but according to the graphs above, I should be able to get at least 30fps minimum (which is what the game is initially locked to anyway). But nope. I didn't check to see what area of the game they tested, but in the very beginning level - in the parking lot outside the first building, the very first point where the game hands you control - I am dipping to ~20fps or so.

If I rotate the camera and stare at the ground below me, I'm lucky if I can get over 45fps. But that's staring at the ground. Otherwise, it's much, much lower than that.

Which is a shame, because I'm sure this game is fantastic, artistically. I've been waiting a long time to play a new horror game designed by Shinji Mikami, and this is one of my most anticipated games of the year. The mood and atmosphere is incredible from what I can see. But man the PC version sure is gimped.

idTech 5 is supposed to be a LOT faster than this. What went wrong?

Edit: I should point out that changing the graphics settings does not make a plug difference whatsoever. It's also poignant to note that the console versions of this game - even the PS4 version - actually dip below 30fps pretty often too, which makes me scratch my head a bit...

 

[toyota]

yeah this is one of those games where AMD cpus flat out suck. the game really only uses one core really hard and barely uses another so IPC is king here and that is why Haswell just destroys all other cpus. just flat out piss poor optimizing is what that is.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well, I would love to play this game right now... honestly, I really, really want to play it... but I just can't bring myself to. The performance in this game is bad. I mean, really, really bad.

So bad, in fact, that my PC can't even maintain a solid 30fps. I know the FX-8350 isn't a great gaming chip, but according to the graphs above, I should be able to get at least 30fps minimum (which is what the game is initially locked to anyway). But nope. I didn't check to see what area of the game they tested, but in the very beginning level - in the parking lot outside the first building, the very first point where the game hands you control - I am dipping to ~20fps or so.

If I rotate the camera and stare at the ground below me, I'm lucky if I can get over 45fps. But that's staring at the ground. Otherwise, it's much, much lower than that.

Which is a shame, because I'm sure this game is fantastic, artistically. I've been waiting a long time to play a new horror game designed by Shinji Mikami, and this is one of my most anticipated games of the year. The mood and atmosphere is incredible from what I can see. But man the PC version sure is gimped.

idTech 5 is supposed to be a LOT faster than this. What went wrong?

Edit: I should point out that changing the graphics settings does not make a plug difference whatsoever. It's also poignant to note that the console versions of this game - even the PS4 version - actually dip below 30fps pretty often too, which makes me scratch my head a bit...

Youch. I'll check this one out eventually. I wonder how my CPU would fare, I currently have my FX at about 25% more clock speed than you, I'm curious how it would scale with the additional MHz. Anyone with an i3/i5/i7 care to share how it runs for them in situations like above? Hopefully the patches come quickly.

You have to wonder when a game like this is released if they wouldn't be better off taking whatever loss they would have to from postponing the launch and improving things a bit. The poor performance and low frame cap are probably making a good deal of potential buyers sit on it and wait until it is on sale and has a patch or two.

 

[Ramses]

From a business standpoint, I really don't blame them.
I imagine console sales are a lot more than PC these days,
and among the PC not a lot of AMD stuff so screw putting the effort
into making it run well across several threads. I get it. I have more pride in
the things I build and work I do myself and I will not support this sort of thing
with my money though. But I do understand it.

 

[erunion]

I imagine console sales are a lot more than PC these days,

Far from it. PC sales are many times more than consoles.

The PS4 will probably sell around 15 million units in its first year on the market. Meanwhile, 312 million PCs were sold in 2013.

 

[toyota]

Far from it. PC sales are many times more than consoles.

The PS4 will probably sell around 15 million units in its first year on the market. Meanwhile, 312 million PCs were sold in 2013.

and? I think you need to actually look at pc GAME sales. probably 95% of people with a pc will have never even heard of this game. in most cases console games sales are MANY times more than on pc.

 

[erunion]

and? I think you need to actually look at pc GAME sales. probably 95% of people with a pc will have never even heard of this game. in most cases console games sales are MANY times more than on pc.

Perhaps, I misunderstood him. I didn't think he meant game sales.

Unfortunately, its harder to track game sales these days with so much digital distribution; especially on the PC. But yeah console game revenue seems quite a bit higher.

 

[Ramses]

Yeah I meant game sales for consoles. Sloppy wording. But I guarantee developers/retailers etc know where the money is coming from and where to put effort.

 

[Dankk]

Youch. I'll check this one out eventually. I wonder how my CPU would fare, I currently have my FX at about 25% more clock speed than you, I'm curious how it would scale with the additional MHz.

Judging by the benchmarks above, I imagine you might be able to hit a solid 30fps with your FX-9370 (but no more).

Heck, in slow-paced games like this, I actually don't mind 30fps, as long as it's a CONSISTENT 30fps that never drops, with stable frame delivery. If I could even manage that, then I would be happy. But instead it only hits 30fps half the time, and dips into the 20's the other half of the time. It looks bad, and more importantly, it FEELS bad. Pretty much makes the game unplayable.

The poor performance and low frame cap are probably making a good deal of potential buyers sit on it and wait until it is on sale and has a patch or two.

I bought the game on release and I'm going to have to sit and wait for an optimization patch. Hopefully they'll give the game a proper patch and I won't have to rely on 3rd-party hacks to make this game playable.

 

[escrow4]

Well, I would love to play this game right now... honestly, I really, really want to play it... but I just can't bring myself to. The performance in this game is bad. I mean, really, really bad.

So bad, in fact, that my PC can't even maintain a solid 30fps. I know the FX-8350 isn't a great gaming chip, but according to the graphs above, I should be able to get at least 30fps minimum (which is what the game is initially locked to anyway). But nope. I didn't check to see what area of the game they tested, but in the very beginning level - in the parking lot outside the first building, the very first point where the game hands you control - I am dipping to ~20fps or so.

If I rotate the camera and stare at the ground below me, I'm lucky if I can get over 45fps. But that's staring at the ground. Otherwise, it's much, much lower than that.

Which is a shame, because I'm sure this game is fantastic, artistically. I've been waiting a long time to play a new horror game designed by Shinji Mikami, and this is one of my most anticipated games of the year. The mood and atmosphere is incredible from what I can see. But man the PC version sure is gimped.

idTech 5 is supposed to be a LOT faster than this. What went wrong?

Edit: I should point out that changing the graphics settings does not make a plug difference whatsoever. It's also poignant to note that the console versions of this game - even the PS4 version - actually dip below 30fps pretty often too, which makes me scratch my head a bit...

4770 non K here. No problems, solid consistent 30FPS with a 780Ti GHz. I knew buying an i7 was a good decision in the end. 2 cores consistently hit the max turbo of 3.9GHz, other 2 hover around 3.7GHz. Its just that FX really is that bad, plus that graph didn't specify where they tested. BTW, the CPU also gets hammered in cutscenes, which is hilarious.

 

[Ramses]

BTW, the CPU also gets hammered in cutscenes, which is hilarious.

Sad is what it is imo.

 

[nurturedhate]

4770 non K here. No problems, solid consistent 30FPS with a 780Ti GHz. I knew buying an i7 was a good decision in the end. 2 cores consistently hit the max turbo of 3.9GHz, other 2 hover around 3.7GHz. Its just that FX really is that bad, plus that graph didn't specify where they tested. BTW, the CPU also gets hammered in cutscenes, which is hilarious.

Same on an oc'd 4690k. Never drops below 30fps. About 2 hours in and the game is really fun. Also the first implementation of motion blur that I actually like. The effect works really well.

The game actually is a little challenging. I would not call it hard like Dark Souls by any means but it does require a little more that the average game which is nice. The story is pretty entertaining also.

When word first came out that it was going to be locked at 30fps I was in the same boat as most of you. I was rather disappointed and slightly irritated that they would do such a thing. After spending some time with the game it is fine at 30fps. Do I wish it was at 60? Sure, but it's not a deal breaker. Try playing it somehow before throwing it under the bus.

 

[Dankk]

4770 non K here. No problems, solid consistent 30FPS with a 780Ti GHz. I knew buying an i7 was a good decision in the end. 2 cores consistently hit the max turbo of 3.9GHz, other 2 hover around 3.7GHz. Its just that FX really is that bad, plus that graph didn't specify where they tested. BTW, the CPU also gets hammered in cutscenes, which is hilarious.

I know this is somewhat OT, but why would you get an i7 over an i5 for gaming? For most games, particularly ones like this that rely on strong single-core performance, it doesn't make a difference.

Also, I can't justify spending hundreds of dollars on a CPU+motherboard upgrade just so I can play a handful of poorly-optimized PC games at a decent framerate.

Same on an oc'd 4690k. Never drops below 30fps. About 2 hours in and the game is really fun. Also the first implementation of motion blur that I actually like. The effect works really well.

The game actually is a little challenging. I would not call it hard like Dark Souls by any means but it does require a little more that the average game which is nice. The story is pretty entertaining also.

When word first came out that it was going to be locked at 30fps I was in the same boat as most of you. I was rather disappointed and slightly irritated that they would do such a thing. After spending some time with the game it is fine at 30fps. Do I wish it was at 60? Sure, but it's not a deal breaker. Try playing it somehow before throwing it under the bus.

Yup, like I said, as long as it's a very consistent 30fps then I don't mind the framerate. Combine that with a good motion blur implementation and it's not bad at all.

 

[Ramses]

Yeah, there are some good comparison vids on youtube of i3, 5 and 7 with jackall difference in performance, ditto for seceral low to high end vid cards.
And the Russians seem to be playing it find on AMD chips lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9zsTrWWHIs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPfmi-jcAg4

 

[TidusZ]

overclock the sandy bridge to 5 ghz and the haswell to 4 ghz or whatever pitiful o/c it gets and the graphs will even out.

 

[master_shake_]

yes it is

The developer wants the game to run at 30fps , they decide not us

Buy it or don't

you're fighting a fight you can not win, 60 fps IS the de facto standard for pc.

30 fps may be good for crap ass consoles that aren't as good as 5 year ago pc's but here in 2014 we expect a decent playable experience.

by the by the pc port of this game wasn't even done by the original studio it was contracted out.

bad port is bad.

 

[Dankk]

And the Russians seem to be playing it find on AMD chips lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9zsTrWWHIs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPfmi-jcAg4

That first video is interesting, I wonder how they're achieving 60fps most of the time? Maybe my sub-30fps is only in the beginning area of the game and then it gets better than that, which makes me think I should play the game a little further in before making judgement.

Also, in that second video, the Intel vs. AMD fanboyism is so toxic that it makes my head hurt. But then again YT comment threads tend to make my head hurt in general.

 

[ZGR]

Anyone actually play this game? Its easy to enable 60fps, but the FOV takes awhile to get used to. Its not a game that needs a lot of horsepower, and plays a lot like Silent Hill games.

The console commands in-game can lock the FPS to 30, 60, or infinite. Toggling between 30 and 60 fps is simple.

 

[toyota]

Anyone actually play this game? Its easy to enable 60fps, but the FOV takes awhile to get used to. Its not a game that needs a lot of horsepower, and plays a lot like Silent Hill games.

The console commands in-game can lock the FPS to 30, 60, or infinite. Toggling between 30 and 60 fps is simple.

pretty sure everyone knows how to enable 60 fps. the problem is the game runs no better with 60 fps and even hitches more when panning around.