Page 8 of 14
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:17 pm
by Thorham
Okay, I can do that:
Settings are on low, textures are on high. Resolution is 1280x720. Area is Sleet island. Fps is 14, which should be enough to be playable, but movement is slow. Very odd. Note that the GPU temp and fan speed aren't relevant, because the card is fan-less.
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:46 pm
by badhabit
Thorham wrote:Okay, I can do that:
Settings are on low, textures are on high. Resolution is 1280x720. Area is Sleet island. Fps is 14, which should be enough to be playable, but movement is slow. Very odd. Note that the GPU temp and fan speed aren't relevant, because the card is fan-less.
Wow...this is bad, for low settings and a HD 6450. Seems to be GPU bound while the GPU clocks looks OK (full speed).
Beside, god bless you that you accept 14FPS as playable.
The slowness might come due to additional lag introducted by the low frame-rate (+73ms) as the game mechanic engine is (sadly) not independent from the frame-rate--- this might also lead to unsolvable timed puzzles.
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:28 am
by Dr.Disaster
badhabit wrote:Wow...this is bad, for low settings and a HD 6450.
What are you talking about? Those values are not bad.
They are actually great for a GPU that is on par with an Intel HD 3000; their fps is better than expected.
Check it yourself here:
Code: Select all
http://videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=267&cmp[]=26&cmp[]=1243
Here is the same spot with the same resolution and setting with my P4HT/GF7 (his HD 6450 has 50% more rendering power)
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 1:01 am
by badhabit
Dr.Disaster wrote:badhabit wrote:Wow...this is bad, for low settings and a HD 6450.
What are you talking about? Those values are not bad.
They are actually great for a GPU that is on par with an Intel HD 3000; their fps is better than expected.
Check it yourself here:
Code: Select all
http://videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=267&cmp[]=26&cmp[]=1243
Ah, you are right, the 6450 is a severely crippled entry level card: 64bit bus & 30Watt max. TDP... still, all low should provide a better performance on a PC game.
Dr.Disaster wrote:
Here is the same spot with the same resolution and setting with my P4HT/GF7 (his HD 6450 has 50% more rendering power)
interesting, your P4 setup seems to be CPU limited.
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 1:38 am
by Dr.Disaster
badhabit wrote:Dr.Disaster wrote:
Here is the same spot with the same resolution and setting with my P4HT/GF7 (his HD 6450 has 50% more rendering power)
interesting, your P4 setup seems to be CPU limited.
No it's not.
The GF7 renders 5 fps with 86% load. Rendering 6 fps would require 103% load which is obviously impossible.
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:10 am
by badhabit
Dr.Disaster wrote:badhabit wrote:Dr.Disaster wrote:
Here is the same spot with the same resolution and setting with my P4HT/GF7 (his HD 6450 has 50% more rendering power)
interesting, your P4 setup seems to be CPU limited.
No it's not.
The GF7 renders 5 fps with 86% load. Rendering 6 fps would require 103% load which is obviously impossible.
emmhhh... computer don't render a integer number of frames. They render in clock cycles per frame e.g. 10,356,777 cc which would be 2.87689ms -> 347.5985 FPS.(on a assumed 3.6GHz CPU)
In the case you described (assumed the base 5FPS would have not been rounded, but most probably it was rounded) 100% GPU load would lead to 5.814FPS, which is perfectly fine for a computer. So, still CPU bound.
Edit: typo fixed
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:21 am
by Dr.Disaster
Oh my CPU does render the frames? Then my GPU prolly does the sound
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:42 am
by badhabit
Dr.Disaster wrote:Oh my CPU does render the frames? Then my GPU prolly does the sound
Yeah, most probably as your systems seems of strange architecture overall if is locked to integer FPS only.
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 3:43 am
by Dr.Disaster
badhabit wrote:Dr.Disaster wrote:Oh my CPU does render the frames? Then my GPU prolly does the sound
Yeah, most probably as your systems seems of strange architecture overall if is locked to integer FPS only.
badhabit wrote:In the case you described (assumed the base 5FPS would have not been rounded, but most probably it was rounded) 100% GPU load would lead to 5.814FPS, which is perfectly fine for a computer. So, still CPU bound.
Edit: typo fixed
Aye must be my system because it now manages to be CPU bound with 100% GPU load
Re: Beta 2.1.18
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 6:03 am
by Nexus
So I had a wierd idea today, I chugged my ram with 400 meg of images and ran grimrock. Lo and behold the stuttery movement became more pronounced, this leads me to the possibility that the movement issues I came across this patch has to do with that memory usage increase. I am going to try killing almost everything and seeing if the movement jitteryness reduces with more free ram.
