Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

GTX 970, Low FPS


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 DasReichtangle

DasReichtangle
  • Member
  • Posts: 5

Posted 26 October 2018 - 04:18

I have been searching around for answers as to how to fix the low FPS I have been getting in ROF, but as of yet none have seemed to solve the issue.

 

On some maps starting out on the ground the frames are at a solid 45-50 FPS, however on other campaigns on the ground they're in the 25-30 FPS range. My CPU usage seems to be around 50% and GPU usage around 25%. Temperatures are fine. Clock speed and all that checks out to be fine. GPU drivers were last updated in June.

 

I've tried just about everything from setting ROF to run for maximum performance, messing around with the PhysX features, turning off reflections. It just baffles me that some people say they are able to get a solid 60-80fps on the same card, or sometimes on a 700 level card. Really don't know what to do. IL2 BoS runs fine at around 60 FPS, but that's not the case for ROF. I'm going to be getting a GTX 1080 soon, so I'm hoping that will improve my performance, but I still want to make sure there's nothing wrong on my end. I've seen that others are having similar issues with 970s and ROF, so who knows.

 

Any help appreciated.

 

FX 8350 4.1 ghz

GTX 970 4GB

16GB DDR3 RAM

 


  • 0

#2 J2_Bidu

J2_Bidu
  • Posts: 969

Posted 26 October 2018 - 06:34

Don't mix HDR with Anti Aliasing. Total performance killer.


  • 0

#3 DasReichtangle

DasReichtangle
  • Member
  • Posts: 5

Posted 26 October 2018 - 15:52

Don't mix HDR with Anti Aliasing. Total performance killer.

HDR is off and Anti Aliasing is set to 2.


  • 0

#4 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4351

Posted 26 October 2018 - 16:33

We can now only geuss whats going on with him.
Publish screen shots from your ingame, nVidia global and game settings, for a better help.
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#5 DasReichtangle

DasReichtangle
  • Member
  • Posts: 5

Posted 26 October 2018 - 17:51

We can now only geuss whats going on with him.
Publish screen shots from your ingame, nVidia global and game settings, for a better help.

Here you are. Nvidia game settings are basically the same except I have power management set for maximum performance. I've tried checking the SLI/Crossfire options since I've heard it can increase FPS but that was not the case for me. Do I just need to wait for the 1080?

Attached Files


  • 0

#6 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2393
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 27 October 2018 - 03:50

Any help appreciated.

 

FX 8350 4.1 ghz

GTX 970 4GB

16GB DDR3 RAM

 

 

AMD was never an option for ROF.

 

In the beginning, ROF home page had Phenoms as recommended specs, but after a while they removed AMD processors from the list of recommendations. The ROF page only had Intel specifications. I used to have a Phenom 1090T and back then I created a thread similar to yours, complaining about performance. Nothing helped. The day I replaced my Phenom for an i7-3770K, my card (back then a HD 6870) gained a new life. Really, it looked like I had replaced the graphics card as well. No more constant stutters, no more low FPS.

 

It is not core usage, it is bad usage of the core. On my i7, the first core never gets even close to 100% and I see that it could be better used. On the 1090T, it would hover around 35% usage and have a pifious performance. I suppose it is an old coding, not optimized for multithread, especially for AMD.

 

Even with a high end i5 or i7 you are going to get some FPS dips over heavy clouds and cities in ROF and the graphics card will never be fully used (not even in Il-2 by the way). From what I recall, my current GTX 1060 6GB won't go above 70/80% on Il-2 and only during explosions and such. It more or less hovers around 50/60% all the time. But at least with an Intel you can run the game properly.

 

In fact, I don't advise a simmer to buy an AMD processor. It just doesn't go hand in hand at all. You will see some people defending Ryzen on Il-2, but an Intel will always give a better performance, especially for VR as they say.

 

If you could, I would try to sell and buy a new rig. Even try to swap for an old i7-4790K. Then you don't even have to replace the RAM. Or you could overclock the hell out of your FX, but they aren't good overclockers and it might just alleviate the problem. But you could try. Just don't spend money in water cooling, because then you will have much better results investing in an Intel.

 

You could gain some room with the GTX 1080, but not as much as if you have an Intel.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#7 US103_Baer

US103_Baer
  • Posts: 420

Posted 27 October 2018 - 04:53

@DasReichtangle. Here's what i'd do based on what worked for me when i had to optimize an older setup. Your mileage may vary :)

 

1. Use the same simple mission setup every time. I use the default Alb DVa Fly now and take fps readings when a) sitting in cockpit, engine running, looking straight ahead, B) just after takeoff looking down right at the trees, c) flying over the city. Generally i dont bother going as far as the city unless i see improvement in a and b. 

 

2. Find a low quality setting that gives very good fps and then start increasing settings one at a time and assess results. Its a bit time consuming but will lead to reliable results. I'll give some recommendations from what worked for me below.

 

3. From the cpu/gpu utilization data you give, it seems your cpu isn't delivering enough work to the gpu. So i suggest leave your gpu as is to begin with, adjust settings that improve cpu-driven performance and then look to overclock your gpu at the end.

 

4. Try start with the settings in pic attached. Then start looking to up Filter, AA, Obj vis, and Landscape by 1 setting each, one at a time. If that's still ok, try turning on reflections.

 

5. The biggest cpu hogs i found were Post effects, Forest vis, Reflections, Shaders, Landscape, trees. You don't really need grass or high trees once you're in the air.

 

6. Fullscreen and non-fullscreen can sometimes make a difference. Just test it and use the best on your setup.

 

7. Suggest don't worry about post effects. Reshade (start with Panthercules setup in another thread) can do a similar job for less performance hit.

 

Hope this helps

Attached Files


  • 0

"Gathering his pilots around him on arrival he gave a pep talk, saying that they were equipped with the finest machine of all time and had three battle-experienced flight commanders. He expected every one of them to fight like hell and that it must never be said that any of them ever failed to go to the aid of a comrade, regardless of the cost, and that no patrol was ever to be late in taking off."

 

Major Keith 'Grid' Caldwell, 74 Sq


#8 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4351

Posted 27 October 2018 - 07:23

Way in the early days the Phenom quad like the x4 965be and the sixcore X6 1090 could handle RoF, so as long your  CPU is not an laptop or energy saving version, nothing is wrong using AMD. So I do not suspect it is wrong inhere, check if one of the cores is peaking to max if so then this core is the weakest link .

You did disable Vsync, which I think is the first step you should do, when troubleshooting, good action. 

 

Avoid the channel map, because this is real bad made, full of performance eating bugs, use the westernfront map. 

Check in your bios if all the energy saving adjustments are set to disabled or max performance, also the power settings in windows.

I would like to know do you run graphic enhancers like nVidia inspector, DDoverload, EBN, SweetFX or whatever call this troublesome software. 

Screen resolution must be game resolution.

Check what's happen if set to full screen. 

Disconnect the internet and disable your virusscan and windows update.

 

I'm not at my computer but I will post my sreenshot settings tomorrow if not being solved. 


  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#9 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2393
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 27 October 2018 - 09:43

Way in the early days the Phenom quad like the x4 965be and the sixcore X6 1090 could handle RoF

 

No, it can't. I had a Phenom 1090T and it was bad. If you did not notice, back in the day the ROF page had recommended AMD CPUs. After a while, they took it out and only left Intel CPUs. Since I owned an AMD CPU, I know exactly why they took it out.

 

Of course we are talking about people, and what some consider good enough is below par for others. I also use TrackIR, And the HD 6870 gain with the i7 was true. It became another whole ball of wax.

 

Not trying to diminish anyone's CPU, because the FX is better than an old i7 for converting huge PDFs and such, but for simulators? It does not even come close. And this is for FSX, X-Plane, DCS, ROF, BOX and simulators in general.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#10 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4351

Posted 27 October 2018 - 10:26

Great but if one did not run on your system does not mean it did run bad on others rig, do a search here and you will see the results from W1ndy and Airbiscuit (Jay Dolan) both did run the 1090t and the 965, both did have good results and did do testings that contains good FPS.

They did leave the whole AMD, because the whole Bulldozer/Pilldriver/Vishera range was a bad designed CPU and not much used by gamers, so 777 could not test it nor had any decent info. While some BoS player could use the FX before the swap to 64/DX11 this also means he should be able to run RoF, because at that time the BoS game engine was simulair to the RoF engine.

This CPU is a rather bad performer but it can run an 2009 game like rof, ok agree when entering a flight of 35 Gotha bomber it will collapse.
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#11 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2393
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 27 October 2018 - 11:26

Honestly I try to avoid AMD exactly because of ROF, BOX and DCS. Intel's Ring Bus architecture in special still rules for simulators. If people play other games, they can make a compromise and buy a Ryzen, which is fine for mainstream titles, and invest more money on the GPU, but since I only play simulators, I don't see AMD as an option.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#12 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4351

Posted 27 October 2018 - 12:44

Yep on that point you are right wanting the best performer for games: Intel is still the king on the hill. Only with the prices of the actual Intel CPUs and you have a small budget, AMD RYZEN does have some good alternatives. 


  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#13 DasReichtangle

DasReichtangle
  • Member
  • Posts: 5

Posted 27 October 2018 - 14:19

Alrighty guys thanks for the advice! I always sort of knew that the 8350 was kind of a piece of trash and I was planning to get the new Ryzen 2700x but after seeing your suggestions and some benchmark comparisons between the Ryzen and the newer intels I think I'm going to be switching over to intel, probably save up and switch over to an i5-8400 with DDR4. I can deal with the 30fps~ until then.

 

Happy flying.


  • 0

#14 Dutch2

Dutch2
  • Posts: 4351

Posted 27 October 2018 - 14:36

I do not think the CPU is the cause, but ok, it is your sollution.

Bye and Good luck in buying.
  • 0
If I wrote something in this forum that is hurting or abuse a member, organisation or country? Let me know by pm for the corrections, please do not react back by bashing/trolling/flaming or other personal attacks!

Yep I’m an 2009 Rof pre-order buyer and one of the few that did buy the Sikorsky game.

#15 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2393
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 28 October 2018 - 00:10

Alrighty guys thanks for the advice! I always sort of knew that the 8350 was kind of a piece of trash and I was planning to get the new Ryzen 2700x but after seeing your suggestions and some benchmark comparisons between the Ryzen and the newer intels I think I'm going to be switching over to intel, probably save up and switch over to an i5-8400 with DDR4. I can deal with the 30fps~ until then.

 

Happy flying.

 

But the 2700X is way more expensive than the i5-8400. Better then to get the i5-8600K, which is still $50 cheaper than the 2700X. Then you can overclock it. But like I said, if you work with your computer with render and such or play mainstream games, get a Ryzen. ROF is reaching the end of the line and it seems that BOX does fairily well with Ryzen. Ask around. The soft spot for simulators right now to me is the i7-8700K if you pair it with a good motherboard.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#16 US103_Baer

US103_Baer
  • Posts: 420

Posted 28 October 2018 - 08:54

At this point i believe both AMD and Intel CPUs are fine for all games including Sims unless you're talking about VR. GPUs, different story, though AMD are close to some new card releases there.

Intel cpus are a bit better for frame rates in most games (not all btw). But the question is how high an fps is enough. What other limiting factors do you have in your setup? Is 1080p, 60-80fps enough? Going much higher you'll probably start wanting a high-res, hi-hz gsync monitor to make it worth while.

RoF is horribly unoptimised, but a mid-range Ryzen 2600 (not X) is still plenty either on auto boost or an easy 4.0 all cores OC. I get 60-120fps @1440p with just auto (about 3.7ghz) and a gtx1080. I suggest that's plenty for most ppl, especially with RoF's lifespan.

BoX and FC are much better optimised and 100-144fps @1440p is common with ultra and most other settings max.

The gtx1080 is running 70-80% so a r7 2700x might get a bit more from the card but then it'll be the card that's throttling.

@DasReichtangle.
I feel it's worth the effort tuning your system so it's running as efficiently as possible. Then, when you invest in expensive additions like a new gpu, you're maximizing your return and potentially not having to spend on a whole system when you don't need to.

Intel has just released its new coffeelake refresh and I'm sure it'll be excellent for RoF, but again, how much is enough? Next year ryzen Zen 2 launches using 7nm, so we can expect AMD to close the performance gap further and still be much cheaper and better for productivity.


  • 0

"Gathering his pilots around him on arrival he gave a pep talk, saying that they were equipped with the finest machine of all time and had three battle-experienced flight commanders. He expected every one of them to fight like hell and that it must never be said that any of them ever failed to go to the aid of a comrade, regardless of the cost, and that no patrol was ever to be late in taking off."

 

Major Keith 'Grid' Caldwell, 74 Sq


#17 DasReichtangle

DasReichtangle
  • Member
  • Posts: 5

Posted 22 March 2019 - 19:55

Hey guys,

 

A little bit of an update:

 

Rise of Flight in general runs better now, and I'm averaging 50-60fps over no man's land in dogfights, 60-80fps elsewhere. However, sometimes I have dips into the low 40s. I guess I could be overreacting, but I imagined I'd be getting more stable framerates. I noticed that RoF is only using around 40% of my CPU, with one core being used around 80%, several others being used around 30%, and others not at all. I'm not very tech savy, so I'm wanting to know - is this normal? I've seen people have smooth 60fps dogfights with lower-tier hardware than I have. If if this is/isn't normal, why can't my CPU use more of itself to run the game better? I basically have the same settings since I last posted.

 

Stock i5-8600k

GTX 1080 8GB

16GB DDR4 RAM


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users