AMD (ATI) 69xx cards & CrossfireX Performance Improvement Request (+Triple Buffering)

[Dexter_]

I've been paying attention, and I've actually lost about 2 fps.

Well, that stinks.

[Fohox]

Just wanted to chime in and address some of the issues reported based on my own experience.

My original PC:
Phenom II 965 (Oc'd to 3.8ghz)
6850 crossfire
8GB 1333 DDR3

On this system I averaged 30 FPS in Sanctum, 45 FPS in dungeons, and 20 FPS in large rifts/warfront battles.

New system:
i5 2500k
6850 crossfire
8Gb 1333 DDR

With this setup I average 50 FPS in Sanctum, 60+ FPS in dungeons, and 30 FPS in large rifts/warfront battles. In open zones like Shimmersand I go over 100 FPS. I basically kept all my old components and only switched out the CPU (with a new MB of course) and my performance improved dramatically. Even at lower clock speeds a sandy bridge will beat any Phenom II on the market due to its improved architecture.

And, to the people saying their CPU usage is at 25% that's where its suppose be at. Rift is designed to put most of the load on 1 core and offload minor threads on any additional cores. So if you have a quad core system core 3 will probably be around 85-100% usage while the other cores will be much less. Your total CPU usage will say 25-30% because only 1/4 of your cores is being fully utilize. There aren't many games that use 4 or more cores with even distribution. Granted, Rift should be able to use multiple cores better than it does now but I wouldn't worry too much about the 25% usage.

[DarkestLife]

Another intel pulling decent numbers.

[extinction]

i use a hd 5850 and i hate the poor performance of ati cards in rift, i really wish they would work with ati/amd and come out with drivers designed specifically for increasing performance in rift.

[Dexter_]

Could we have an official reply, perhaps?
"We are looking into it?"

[brutis]

rift is not at all about the video card, its all cpu. And for that matter, it never seems to be able to use your cpu to its fullest potential. I bet everyone but someone with a latest overclocked i7 is bottlenecked by their cpu.

I've yet to see my i7 peg with Rift. The most was 2-3 cores at 25%. I don't think this game is CPU bound.

[Wytchblades]

i use a hd 5850 and i hate the poor performance of ati cards in rift, i really wish they would work with ati/amd and come out with drivers designed specifically for increasing performance in rift.

I use the HD5850x2 in Crossfire. Most every thing turned on. Worse FPS I hit was 11 on Greenscale. 4 CPUs 12 gigs of ram.

[Dexter_]

I use the HD5850x2 in Crossfire. Most every thing turned on. Worse FPS I hit was 11 on Greenscale. 4 CPUs 12 gigs of ram.

I wouldn't call 11fps playable... Especially with two very good cards...

[GoldenTiger]

Just wanted to chime in and address some of the issues reported based on my own experience.

My original PC:
Phenom II 965 (Oc'd to 3.8ghz)
6850 crossfire
8GB 1333 DDR3

On this system I averaged 30 FPS in Sanctum, 45 FPS in dungeons, and 20 FPS in large rifts/warfront battles.

New system:
i5 2500k
6850 crossfire
8Gb 1333 DDR

With this setup I average 50 FPS in Sanctum, 60+ FPS in dungeons, and 30 FPS in large rifts/warfront battles. In open zones like Shimmersand I go over 100 FPS. I basically kept all my old components and only switched out the CPU (with a new MB of course) and my performance improved dramatically. Even at lower clock speeds a sandy bridge will beat any Phenom II on the market due to its improved architecture.

And, to the people saying their CPU usage is at 25% that's where its suppose be at. Rift is designed to put most of the load on 1 core and offload minor threads on any additional cores. So if you have a quad core system core 3 will probably be around 85-100% usage while the other cores will be much less. Your total CPU usage will say 25-30% because only 1/4 of your cores is being fully utilize. There aren't many games that use 4 or more cores with even distribution. Granted, Rift should be able to use multiple cores better than it does now but I wouldn't worry too much about the 25% usage.

One of the few educated posts in the thread... and yes people, AMD's CPU's are cheap but they are very slow compared to comparable Intel chips nowadays. For what it's worth, at my 2560x1600 resolution on maxed custom settings, edge blur filter on, I get around 80-90fps in shimmersand and 45-60 in sanctum depending on # of people around.

[mooo]

and yes people, AMD's CPU's are cheap but they are very slow compared to comparable Intel chips nowadays.

this is simply not true by the way. they arent slower in ANY way, they just perform bad in very few selected games. namely eq2 and Rift. Now, EQ2 was sponsored/bribed by Intel so it obviously ran like 5 times better on Intel cpus because it was optimized for Intel since Intel obviously invested quite some cash (which is quite common by the way, Intels only idea on how to try to suppress AMD (*)). Now I havent seen any Intel ads in Rift ( I think?) so Im not quite sure what the deal is here but I dont like it too much. just a small FYI

(*) Just like Intel bribes big office PC suppliers to ONLY sell Intel based computers


But... like I said, take this as a FYI and dont derail the thread.

Running a Phenom x2 555 BE @4GHz here, tried both a 4850 and 5870 without any difference.

Whats even worse: I can raid in medium/high settings with EXACTLY the same FPS as I can raid in the lowest possible settings including the "Wow, this looks like Pacman!" renderer.

[Wytchblades]

I wouldn't call 11fps playable... Especially with two very good cards...

Thats my point and I agree with you. Im hope they would do something to improve FPS with Crossfire. System has 4 cpus hardly pegged, drives updated and 11Fps?!? Intell CPU's at that all in 1080P.

[jerwel]

this is simply not true by the way. they arent slower in ANY way, they just perform bad in very few selected games. namely eq2 and Rift. Now, EQ2 was sponsored/bribed by Intel so it obviously ran like 5 times better on Intel cpus because it was optimized for Intel since Intel obviously invested quite some cash (which is quite common by the way, Intels only idea on how to try to suppress AMD (*)). Now I havent seen any Intel ads in Rift ( I think?) so Im not quite sure what the deal is here but I dont like it too much. just a small FYI

(*) Just like Intel bribes big office PC suppliers to ONLY sell Intel based computers


But... like I said, take this as a FYI and dont derail the thread.

Running a Phenom x2 555 BE @4GHz here, tried both a 4850 and 5870 without any difference.

Whats even worse: I can raid in medium/high settings with EXACTLY the same FPS as I can raid in the lowest possible settings including the "Wow, this looks like Pacman!" renderer.

I have experienced the same things as you point out in the end of your post. In sanctum the other day and was getting about 25 fps on Ultra settings, so I turn it down to low and got 23 fps lol. Posted my computer specs earlier, and it just seems that rift doesn't play well with amd/ati products. This could use some looking into by the tech support guys at trion.

To the guy that said AMD products are so much worse, they are not. AMD products tend to preform ever so slightly less than intel products at half the cost lol. My current cpu compared to the comparable intel model performs about 2.5-3% slower but is almost half the price (6core 4.2 ghz proccessor)

[GoldenTiger]

To the guy that said AMD products are so much worse, they are not. AMD products tend to preform ever so slightly less than intel products at half the cost lol. My current cpu compared to the comparable intel model performs about 2.5-3% slower but is almost half the price (6core 4.2 ghz proccessor)

I'll link some reviews later but no, they don't.

[GoldenTiger]

I'll link some reviews later but no, they don't.

http://www.techspot.com/review/305-s...ce/page13.html

The site has a bundle of different games listed with same kinds of tests... simply put yes, the AMD's are cheaper by far, but you get the lower performance... in fact, an i3 2100 can often outperform many of the amd offerings. They're not a good value proposition except for the bottom-end for inexpensive builds, honestly , not that that's a bad thing but it is what it is.

http://www.techspot.com/reviews-software.shtml here's the index

[Sliverspark]

You guys need to learn how to optimize lol...

I am running a single-core processor with 2 gigs of RAM, and a Geforce GTS 250 video card. I get a bit laggy in Sanctum, but it's never unplayable unless I'm rifting with like two other full raids. I'm a pvper and dungeon runner, so I never really have too much of an issue. And this is at 1920x1080 screen resolution. I can usually run maxed out video settings without shadows by myself at a pretty decent framerate.

Just because you have a fast system, doesn't mean you can just max everything out and rock it. Some notches on the video settings you can move and not even have one bit of notice in graphics quality. You need to take time to mess with the settings on both your video card in Windows, and in the game to find the right balance.

The problem with CrossfireX is that you generally have 64-bit video cards that need to be combined together to get the full effect. So what you have are poor quality cards to begin with, and putting them together isn't going to make a huge difference. What you end up getting is the equivalent to one mid to high grade card.

It isn't Trion's problem, it's ATI's problem. The only thing Trion needs to fix is displaying more than 40 characters on screen at a time.