Need More Info Intel processors are underpreforming

Users who are viewing this thread

Thank you :smile:

The scene doesn't really matter since preformance loss is due to CPU bottleneck.
So I just tested a 1000 unit cavalry battle, during the main clash my frame rate ranged from 15-30. Before the main clash and during the aftermath my frame rate ranged from 25-50.

This is running the game at 1080p and all settings highest apart from bloom and motion blur on a SSD drive.
 
My i7 8700K @3.7 GHz can't handle 500v500 battles, running at a sloppy 20-30 fps. I'm pretty sure that it's a cpu bottleneck because turning graphics down gives me maybe 1 fps more. There seems to be a general issue with Intel proccessors, my guess is that Intel's cores arent utilized properly.

My friend, I have the same kind of post and a similar i7 processor from Intel as well.
Same problem, and it might as well be because of that.
 
Guys, can you try these tests with Shadows on off or on static only? And then post some results? Dynamic shadows may be using 30 to 40% of you FPS up. The game will probably be more optimised later, but as a short term fix, i would like to know if dynamic shadows are adding to the bottleneck or not.
 
I recently upgraded from an i5 8400, to an R5 3600. I have an RTX 2060 Super, with 32 gigs of ram. Games installed on an SSD. On the i5, with full max settings in 500v500 I was getting between 15-30 FPS, on my R5 3600, I'm getting anywhere between 50-70 FPS. This is at 1080p btw. To answer your question, at least on my end dynamic and static shadows have little to no difference. I assume this is just due to how fast CPUs are now. As most AAA titles use dynamic shadows and we've gotten very efficient with them.
 
Caesar 123: what about shadows dynamic or static. Any big difference?
I get okay fps when I set them on static only but when they're dynamic my GPU usage doesn't go to 100%, it goes to like 70% and FPS drops to like 45. I have an rtx2060, are shadows also CPU bound?
 
Dropping battle sizes to 250 has helped a lot for me (the original max warband size for optimal stability/fps). It seems very random..some battles will be smooth, others will be choppy. CPU is maxed out nearly the entire time I'm playing - 4790k.
 
I have a i7 6700k, 16 gb ram and a gtx 970 and no matter the settings (shadows on/off, fps limiter set to 30, set audio to low settings, default very low or very high/max settings) I have 94%-100% cpu, whether in a battle with 600 men or the games main menu. I tried every fix I could find, but to no avail. To note when I first launch the game and load into my saved game/the campaign, on the default high settings I get around 40% across the cpu, memory and gpu but after 10-15 minutes the gpu and memory drop to 10-20% and the cpu sky-rockets and I can't find a reason why
 
Guys, can you try these tests with Shadows on off or on static only? And then post some results? Dynamic shadows may be using 30 to 40% of you FPS up. The game will probably be more optimised later, but as a short term fix, i would like to know if dynamic shadows are adding to the bottleneck or not.
I have in fact done it with graphics at max and at lowest presets (so yea dynamyic shadows turned on and off) and only got 1 fps more.


I recently upgraded from an i5 8400, to an R5 3600. I have an RTX 2060 Super, with 32 gigs of ram. Games installed on an SSD. On the i5, with full max settings in 500v500 I was getting between 15-30 FPS, on my R5 3600, I'm getting anywhere between 50-70 FPS. This is at 1080p btw. To answer your question, at least on my end dynamic and static shadows have little to no difference. I assume this is just due to how fast CPUs are now. As most AAA titles use dynamic shadows and we've gotten very efficient with them.
This proves my point a bit more, I really think Intel CPU's are underpreforming for no apparent reason. Thank you for the info.
 
Last edited:
I have in fact done it with graphics at max and at lowest presets (so yea dynamyic shadows turned on and off) and only got 1 fps more.



This proves my point a bit more, I really think Intel CPU's are underpreforming for no apparent reason. Thank you for the info.
Same. Also, one of the reasons Intel's CPUs underperform could be not because the game is at fault in all regards, but because the design of their processors is utter **** compared to AMD at this stage. they have recycled their same architecture in a lot of places and used plenty of tricks in order to get more performance in game. Which in the long run is not a good idea anyway. Just a fun fact, you can do some more research yourself on the matter technology wise on that, but besides that, yes, the game looks like it also has a lot of problems in handling, calculating and effectively using ANY PROCESSOR, never mind Intel's
 
CPU : i7 8700K overclocked to 4.7 GHZ
GPU: 5700 XT
RAM: 16 GB 3200 MHZ
Running the game on a brand new SSD. My fps is 27 to 35 in 500v500 on highest setting, turning the game to lowest setting increases FPS by like 15 which is a complete joke.

Lowering battle size does give some FPS increase even in highest setting but with these specs I should be able to do 500v500 on highest just fine. Something is seriously wrong with the optimization.

Just to clarify, I have tried all the supposed fixes, sound enhancements, checking drivers, setting audio quality to lowest in game, checking if it's using my GPU and it is, it can reach to 80 CPU and 60/80 GPU usage and I still get **** fps and lag.
 
CPU : i7 8700K overclocked to 4.7 GHZ
GPU: 5700 XT
RAM: 16 GB 3200 MHZ
Running the game on a brand new SSD. My fps is 27 to 35 in 500v500 on highest setting, turning the game to lowest setting increases FPS by like 15 which is a complete joke.

Lowering battle size does give some FPS increase even in highest setting but with these specs I should be able to do 500v500 on highest just fine. Something is seriously wrong with the optimization.

Just to clarify, I have tried all the supposed fixes, sound enhancements, checking drivers, setting audio quality to lowest in game, checking if it's using my GPU and it is, it can reach to 80 CPU and 60/80 GPU usage and I still get **** fps and lag.

Added to the list, thank you for reporting.



Same. Also, one of the reasons Intel's CPUs underperform could be not because the game is at fault in all regards, but because the design of their processors is utter **** compared to AMD at this stage. they have recycled their same architecture in a lot of places and used plenty of tricks in order to get more performance in game. Which in the long run is not a good idea anyway. Just a fun fact, you can do some more research yourself on the matter technology wise on that, but besides that, yes, the game looks like it also has a lot of problems in handling, calculating and effectively using ANY PROCESSOR, never mind Intel's
I agree and disagree on some bits. Right now yes, AMD has better processors. But in comparison usually Intel has more core strength while AMD has better threads. And as seen in the submitted specs and preformances it's obvious that Intel is running even on some high end Intel processors.
 
With 500v500 cavalry it's almost like 2000 man battle because each horse is kind of like an extra man. With a ryzen 3600 I get about 45fps before contact and then some pretty low dips once the mosh begins. When they all stack on top of each other and the collision starts wigging out, everyone starts vibrating as they all try to push each other to make room, but there is nowhere to go. GPU utilization drops way down to like 30% because the CPU is getting slammed so hard trying to calculate all the collision physics, pathfinding, animation, etc. and there are 2000 actors on screen.

At this point no graphics setting will make much difference because with the sheer volume of stuff happening the GPU is just barely even being used. Things like shadows and character detail which can improve performance with lower troop counts still help but I'm still at 40ish with both on low/off.

There's just a limit to how fast you can calculate animation and physics for 1000 overlapping mounted troops all twitching uncontrollably and trying to kill each other. More realistic battles with mixed troops go a bit better, 500v500 cav is worst case. 250v250 is nice and smooth.

I think they need to seriously consider changing the way unit collision is handled, the way they all overlap and slide around like their on ice just doesn't work very well for gameplay, cavalry charges do no damage because they just bump each other out of the way instead of slamming into each other, and you get civ2-style stacks of doom with 20 infantry units all occupying the same space, like a big angry porcupine. I think increasing the unit spacing would indirectly reduce the CPU burden in these situation, could be completely wrong about that though.
 
I take that back. I tried cav archers 500v500, thinking they would be more spaced out, which they were. No ice rink mosh pits. But performance was even worse, 20fps.
 
cant run siege's past 200 army count
my specs:
Geforce RTX 2060
intel Core(tm) i7-9750H cpu @2.60ghz
16gb Ram
 
Back
Top Bottom