[gamegpu] Evil Within CPU benchmarks - SNB gets hammered

[Dankk]

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.

Everyone knows how to enable 60fps, the problem is that some people are having issues reaching 60fps even with the framerate unlocked.

 

[escrow4]

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.



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.

I bought 2 4770s non K, one for my H97 gaming box, one for my Z87 office box. Not because I really needed them, because I could.

 

[Ramses]

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.

I dunno, it's possible it's fake and not an 8350, but from what I see in that other vid from an i3 and having used an 8350 for awhile, I tend to believe it.
Some games on some particular systems/dirvers, hardware just don't run well too. I've had reboots fix it, I've had clean boot fix it, sometimes nothing fixes it. Lot of variables.
I don't read YT comments, it's bad..

Another interesting aspect of this sort of thing, the FR cap, is as was mentioned in that second vid, there is next to no performance difference between two vid cards that are, or were, quite far apart in price.
I read searching google while ago that they were initially calling for 4gig mem GPU's for this game or some such nonsense. Smacked of stirring the pot and propaganda to me. Not nice.

Whatever happened to playable demos? It'd be nice to just run the demo version of this and see for myself.

 

[NTMBK]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...patch-evil-within-we-hope-you-will-never-play In case anyone still thinks this game isn't shoddily optimized...

 

[Carfax83]

After searching high and low for Ivy Bridge benchmarks for this game, I was rewarded

Notebookcheck.net benchmarked the game and they used a 3770K and a GTX 780 Ti for the desktop config.

At 1080p on high settings with AA enabled, the 3770K+GTX 780 Ti setup gets 64.7 average and 43 minimum. Thats about right, and fits right between Sandy Bridge and Haswell with the same GPU:

 

[Ramses]

Just noticed a playable demo on steam, and that is has a 30/60fps switch now.
Ran fine either way 1080P all the default high settings on an ole 9590 and a pair or 280x fwiw. It's such a slow moving game 30 plays fine far as I can tell. Is there a benchmark mode? Didn't see reference to it in Google. Way too scripted and un-interactive for me so far. I didn't bother checking since it ran smooth but it felt like 50fps or thereabouts with the cap at 60. Good nuff fo me.

 

[escrow4]

What is in this game that causes Haswell to shine so much? And why haven't they included 5820K benches?

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think this game is totally screwed. Seriously, i3 4330 20% faster than hex core Ivy at the same clockspeed? Maybe it is using some instruction set exclusive to Haswell. Otherwise the results make no sense at all.

In regard to 5820k, I dont think they have one. Most of the tests I have seen use the 5960x. Does look pretty cool to show a graph with 16 bars for cpu utilization.

 

[Ramses]

I don't see that this games needs much in the way of CPU just off the cuff with twenty minutes of playing the demo. If an old ass fx9590 runs it well, and I now believe the 8350 in the russian youtube vid did as well. Just another game that don't perform the way logic would dictate because it's a BS console port. yawn

 

[RussianSensation]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...patch-evil-within-we-hope-you-will-never-play In case anyone still thinks this game isn't shoddily optimized...

Digital Foundry got drops to 38 FPS on 3770K @ 4.3Ghz + GTX 980. And sad part is Crysis 1 from 2007 has better graphics. Luckily the character and General movement in the game is so slow that the difference between smooth 60 fps and 30-45 fps is not that noticeable. This game is not unoptimized - it's simply broken. If you look at digital foundry video, a 980 hardly pulls away from a 760 in places with dropped frames while a 980 should be double the performance!!! Therefore if 760 drops to 45-48FPS, 980 should be 60FPS but it's not.

There is a new patch for the PC:

Complete patch notes can be found below:

- Frame lock settings added - In settings, you can now toggle between a 30 FPS and 60 FPS cap
- Letterbox setting - UI toggle to disable the letterbox bars
- Fixes gameplay issues when running at >30 FPS
- Fixes for visual issues associated with removing letterbox framing
- Achievements now work when console is enabled
- Fix for game starting in windowed mode on first run
Minor localization fixes

http://www.gamrreview.com/news/9208...=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+gamrfeed+(Gamer+Feed)

 

[BSim500]

Complete patch notes can be found below:

- Frame lock settings added - In settings, you can now toggle between a 30 FPS and 60 FPS cap
- Letterbox setting - UI toggle to disable the letterbox bars
- Fixes gameplay issues when running at >30 FPS
- Fixes for visual issues associated with removing letterbox framing

LOL. If all that "designed for 30fps @ 2.35:1 ratio" stuff is now "fixed", then it wasn't "cinematic design choice" after all, just broken... :biggrin:

 

[toyota]

LOL. If all that "designed for 30fps @ 2.35:1 ratio" stuff is now "fixed", then it wasn't "cinematic design choice" after all, just broken... :biggrin:

it was never 2.35:1 in the first place. it was 16:9 with black bars simply stuck right on top to fake being more "cinematic".

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think this game is totally screwed. Seriously, i3 4330 20% faster than hex core Ivy at the same clockspeed? Maybe it is using some instruction set exclusive to Haswell. Otherwise the results make no sense at all.

In regard to 5820k, I dont think they have one. Most of the tests I have seen use the 5960x. Does look pretty cool to show a graph with 16 bars for cpu utilization.

Haha... I was just looking at that, and thinking to myself that my CPU at my settings should be faster than an i7 3970X, thought not bad. Then looked up to see what the next CPU in the list is and noticed I'd still be slower than an i3 4330. So nevermind.

 

[AdamantC]

I'm

Letterbox setting - UI toggle to disable the letterbox bars

I'm using a 4:3 display, (yes, a very small minority now-a-days) and disabling letterboxing simply results in less letterboxing. It seems to be jammed into a 16:9 ratio like some Ubi titles I've come across.

 

[e-ricesucks]

I always hope for amd.
22 more to pm.

 

[toyota]

I'm
I'm using a 4:3 display, (yes, a very small minority now-a-days) and disabling letterboxing simply results in less letterboxing. It seems to be jammed into a 16:9 ratio like some Ubi titles I've come across.

well its 2014 not 2004 so maybe its time to get a modern widescreen monitor.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I think this game is totally screwed. Seriously, i3 4330 20% faster than hex core Ivy at the same clockspeed? Maybe it is using some instruction set exclusive to Haswell. Otherwise the results make no sense at all.

In regard to 5820k, I dont think they have one. Most of the tests I have seen use the 5960x. Does look pretty cool to show a graph with 16 bars for cpu utilization.

This is interesting enough for further investigation by some website that wants more page hits. Seriously. A 4330 beating a 3970X. What?

 

[Lepton87]

This is interesting enough for further investigation by some website that wants more page hits. Seriously. A 4330 beating a 3970X. What?

It seems that the game doesn't care about the number of cores/threads above 2/4 so that would make it strictly about HW vs IB. I doubt the game uses some HW specific instructions like AVX2 or FMA3 so I'm intrigued as well what causes HW to be so much faster.
Is there a way to disable specific instructions? That way we would know for sure if it uses some instructions that HW has and IB doesn't. It could also care for some specific instructions which are way faster on HW than IB. There are a couple of those.

 

[StrangerGuy]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...patch-evil-within-we-hope-you-will-never-play In case anyone still thinks this game isn't shoddily optimized...

To put it into perspective, the VC&G NV vs AMD flame wars looks juvenile when the game devs can just keep pumping turd after turd of shoddy console ports with hardly anyone to call them out.

 

[Ramses]

To put it into perspective, the VC&G NV vs AMD flame wars looks juvenile when the game devs can just keep pumping turd after turd of shoddy console ports with hardly anyone to call them out.

There is definantly an element of philosophy involved in all such things imo.
One can hardly even trust a benchmark as it's so easy to intentionally or inadvertantly shaft or benifit a given brand/archatecture. I read them and it's interesting and all but the proof to me is in the metaphorical pudding. Actually using the system. Sucks that one has to buy one and use it for awhile to get that if they don't have friends systems to play with or whatever, but such is life.

This game is still a crappy port, and it still seems to run fine, by my standards, on my less than optimal gaming rig, so yay for that I guess. Really didn't like the game though, so no money for them still.

 

[AdamantC]

well its 2014 not 2004 so maybe its time to get a modern widescreen monitor.

Yeah, maybe I will when OLED displays are affordable. Can't stand LCDs and plasmas are too bloody big.

This game is still a crappy port, and it still seems to run fine, by my standards, on my less than optimal gaming rig, so yay for that I guess. Really didn't like the game though, so no money for them still.

After spending an hour with the demo I was pretty underwhelmed considering the amount of hype it had. To me it feels like they tried to do MGS meets RE and failed miserably at it. In fact it reminds me of the crappy C-grade RE knock-offs from back in the day.

Also space bar is the use key? Really?

 

[lamedude]

Is there a way to disable specific instructions? That way we would know for sure if it uses some instructions that HW has and IB doesn't.

bcdedit /set xsavedisable 1

That will disable AVX/FMA.

 

[Makaveli]

Digital Foundry got drops to 38 FPS on 3770K @ 4.3Ghz + GTX 980. And sad part is Crysis 1 from 2007 has better graphics. Luckily the character and General movement in the game is so slow that the difference between smooth 60 fps and 30-45 fps is not that noticeable. This game is not unoptimized - it's simply broken. If you look at digital foundry video, a 980 hardly pulls away from a 760 in places with dropped frames while a 980 should be double the performance!!! Therefore if 760 drops to 45-48FPS, 980 should be 60FPS but it's not.

There is a new patch for the PC:

Complete patch notes can be found below:

- Frame lock settings added - In settings, you can now toggle between a 30 FPS and 60 FPS cap
- Letterbox setting - UI toggle to disable the letterbox bars
- Fixes gameplay issues when running at >30 FPS
- Fixes for visual issues associated with removing letterbox framing
- Achievements now work when console is enabled
- Fix for game starting in windowed mode on first run
Minor localization fixes

http://www.gamrreview.com/news/9208...=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+gamrfeed+(Gamer+Feed)

I just tried the demo last night.

Fraps on.

Average was 60 fps and lows dropped to about 40fps.


My settings were

1920x1200

60fps vsync

AA FXAA

Shawdow quality high

Motion Blur enabled

SSAO enabled

Reflections enabled

 

[SPBHM]

some spots in this demo are really hard on my i3 2100, low 20s are not to rare
(to be fair I'm running old drivers and slower than average GPU, but I tested with half the resolution and it didn't change much, also GPU usage goes down in these areas, CPU usage shows 1 thread at basically 100% another more like 50-60 and others more like 40-30 I think)

I don't know what to think about this game so far... it's interesting... as for the quality of the port, it didn't seem to bad for me, I've had games with far more crashes and visual problems, also with worst interface and controls (for the PC),
you can play it at 60FPS if your hardware is fast enough, and you can play it at 16:9 full screen, something consoles can't (I think).

also releasing a demo like they did is quite nice, I can't feel to negative towards this game.

 

[alcoholbob]

it was never 2.35:1 in the first place. it was 16:9 with black bars simply stuck right on top to fake being more "cinematic".

Yup. Which means if you have a non 16:9 display you get black bars in all directions O_O

What a piece of crap game. The guys at flawless widescreen mode had engineered a fix for it but since the patch on 10/30/14 it was broken again. They pretty much just mailed in the PC version.