View Full Version : Stat - Game Performance
I thought I would post some notes about game performance on my system for those still waiting on the game! Those who got it, please share your findings as well.
My system:
AMD Phenom x2 550 (3.1GHz, Dual-Core); 4GB RAM; ATI 5770 (1GB); Win7 x64
1680x1050 resolution, all details on full, AA setting at medium
Here is the FPS I get:
Alone at sea:
45-60 in external camera
55-60 on conning deck
average of 70 in sub interior (some closed-off areas like the torpedo room hit over 100)
At sea next to convoy:
5-10 FPS less than above figures. Very small FPS hit, however the time compression is a serious pain in the ass next to a lot of traffic (drags down the performance a lot).
At sea next to convoy with submarine flooding due to damage:
Same as above, except interior FPS now averages 35
In port:
30 in external camera
30 on conning deck
30-35 in sub interior
In bunker:
20-25 average (FPS hog, this)
Other remarks:
Loading times are LONG. Not as long as some later-day SHIII mods like GWX, but substantially longer (as much as 3-5 times) than SHIV.
TC, as noted above, is a big pain when a lot of contacts are nearby. 256 or 512 is a realistic maximum next to a port or large convoy (in SHIV I would get up to 1024-2048 in same situations). However in open seas with few contacts, TC performance is comparable to SHIV.
Overall, though, the game performs remarkably well. Aside from TC and loading times, the performance is very close to what I get in SHIV on my machine, with substantially more detail.
I concurr about loading times and TC chug. It's even harder to stop it a high rates than it was in SHIV (atleast for me).
Also, In past games you cold sweep your hydrophone quicker with 2x (or 4x) time compression. Not here.. It won't move any faster. And at times the needle seems to move a tad slower under TC.
Though i did find a work around to get the thing to sweep at normal speed under TC. Hold one of the hot-keys (Home/End), and spin the mouse wheel at the same time. It will move faster than it will using only one of the control methods.
is it actually using more than 1 cpu core?
and if you're going to post specs+framerates...i think the O/S you are using will be rather important for comparison too (including if its the 32/64bit version)
Oh right, edited on the OS...
AFAIK, the game does use both cores. System monitor shows both cores running about evenly.
I think some measure of multi-core support has been in here since SHIV though.
sergbuto
03-01-10, 05:03 AM
It was no rocket science to predict that loading times will be long. No fast internet connection can compete with direct loading from the hard drive on the player machine. Too bad for modders when it would start to make sense to do modding after the end of patches from UBI servers (if any).
Hartmann
03-01-10, 08:07 AM
Can my 2400 single core with 2 gb of ram and 2600 XT move the game ??
:D :hmmm: :doh: :wah: :dead:
codmander
03-01-10, 09:05 AM
havin minimum specs will surly suk no super mods without upgrade:down:
Bilge_Rat
03-01-10, 09:17 AM
I have a Intel Duo core E8500, ati 4890, win XP. Running SH5 on a 27" widescreen Dell at 1920x1200. Max graphics option, but AA off. I have not checked the FPS, but have not noticed any slowdowns whatsoever, even in harbours with many ships or when watching explosions.
It was no rocket science to predict that loading times will be long. No fast internet connection can compete with direct loading from the hard drive on the player machine. Too bad for modders when it would start to make sense to do modding after the end of patches from UBI servers (if any).
I don't think that's a server issue at all. The game doesn't load anything from the servers, unless you put save-games there (which are small). All the mission files are on the HD, and that's where it's loading those from. In fact I don't think it talks to the server at all when starting a new game.
sergbuto
03-01-10, 03:56 PM
I don't think that's a server issue at all. The game doesn't load anything from the servers, unless you put save-games there (which are small). All the mission files are on the HD, and that's where it's loading those from. In fact I don't think it talks to the server at all when starting a new game.
I did not mean the actual loading of the game via internet, but rather an UBI server checking and trying to synchronize the version of the game and making sure that the game you bought is run only on one computer at the time.
I did not mean the actual loading of the game via internet, but rather an UBI server checking and trying to synchronize the version of the game and making sure that the game you bought is run only on one computer at the time.
Fair enough, although I actually wasn't talking about that... the game startup time isn't really different from SHIII/IV actually. The mission loads are the different story here.
But now that I looked at the campaign files, I think I understand why this is...
My system:
AMD Phenom x2 550 (3.1GHz, Dual-Core); 4GB RAM; ATI 5770 (1GB); Win7 x64
1680x1050 resolution, all details on full, AA setting at medium
...
Very small FPS hit, however the time compression is a serious pain in the ass next to a lot of traffic (drags down the performance a lot).
Your machine has a secret "Hardware Convoy Detector" installed!
Your machine has a secret "Hardware Convoy Detector" installed!
Hehe, yeah. That's been the case since SHIII though. It's always a house rule for me to ignore this slow-down.
Oh right, edited on the OS...
AFAIK, the game does use both cores. System monitor shows both cores running about evenly.
Not a valid test, even if you're probably right about it using multi-core. If the process were a monolithic single-threaded elephant, the OS would context-switch it to balance load on multi-cores and you'd see exactly what you'd describe (but it would run like a slug).
sergbuto
03-01-10, 04:14 PM
Fair enough, although I actually wasn't talking about that... the game startup time isn't really different from SHIII/IV actually. The mission loads are the different story here.
But now that I looked at the campaign files, I think I understand why this is...
My guess is that the UBI servers try to synchronize both the version of the game and also each mission the player tries to load every time. Should be easy to check that by creating a small/tiny mission, unless the game always loads campaign files in the backgound as in SH3/SH4.
@CCIP
Could you be a little more detailed on the CPU usage (a % value maybe?)?
Thanks.
Galanti
03-01-10, 08:22 PM
Running a Q9550 here, GeForce GTX 260, 8 gigs RAM in Win 7 64-bit, all options maxed with medium AA and my FPS are in the toilet inside the sub. On the bridge and external 40-60 fps. But inside the boat, especially in the control room and the radio shack they are anywhere from 15-20 and very jerky. Pretty wierd inconsistency, must be a driver issue
@CCIP
Could you be a little more detailed on the CPU usage (a % value maybe?)?
Thanks.
Well, I'm told my methods are inaccurate. I haven't really pinned it down very well, but in normal situations task manager is showing me about 65% on both cores. It seems somwhat more CPU-intensive than SHIV, but really not by much.
Galanti: yeah, sounds like a driver issue very possibly. Might be an nvidia thing...
I tried it on my other PC today, haven't done the exact metrics mostly for the reason that I didn't feel like testing it through on an older Athlon 64 with a 256-mb video card when I have a much better rig to enjoy it on :88) It's rather so-so. Low 20s on that.
jwilliams
03-01-10, 08:39 PM
If your using windows 7, it automaticly devides all cpu use, between all availible cores.
mookiemookie
03-01-10, 09:14 PM
I wonder if they didn't get the chance to optimize as much as they would have liked. Perhaps patch 1 will address this?
I wouldn't say that. TC might need a little optimizing but frame rates are actually better than expected for me. The difference with SHIV is minor but the graphics improvements are actually pretty big.
Galanti
03-01-10, 09:39 PM
Galanti: yeah, sounds like a driver issue very possibly. Might be an nvidia thing...
.
It's the shadows, I turned them off and viola, fps quadrupled in the control room, and up to 80+ on the bridge. But obviously it's a conflict between shadows and my driver version in particular, as I'm pretty sure a GTX 260 can handle the shadows this engine renders.
I'm running 191.07, will try a few tomorrow. I know there's more recent drivers available, but they tend to suck with other games.
Feuer Frei!
03-01-10, 10:57 PM
Anyone using a ATI HD 4870 1GB card on this game?
Any dramas/issues?
Not from a fps point of view but from a driver issue or otherwise point of view?
If using the card, how's the performance? FPS, especially in sub?
cheers...
Anyone using a ATI HD 4870 1GB card on this game?
Any dramas/issues?
Not from a fps point of view but from a driver issue or otherwise point of view?
If using the card, how's the performance? FPS, especially in sub?
cheers...
Hm, isn't it almost the same card as my 5770, only without the DX11 support?
Feuer Frei!
03-01-10, 11:05 PM
Hm, isn't it almost the same card as my 5770, only without the DX11 support?
true, very similar cards actually, i noticed your specs and how you are running the game ie setup, what's the max tc in this game?
I haven't really pinned it down very well, but in normal situations task manager is showing me about 65% on both cores. It seems somwhat more CPU-intensive than SHIV, but really not by much.
thanks, that's good news for me. :salute:
Flopper
03-02-10, 12:53 PM
I thought I would wait to purchase, but I dunno... I drop 50 bucks a week at the liquor store. But my system is several years old:
AMD Athlon 64x2 dual core 3800+
2 Ghz
2 GB RAM (unfortunately that's a full bank of 500MB dimms, or i would have upgraded already)
NVidia GeForce 8600GTS, 256MB
So strictly from a performance standpoint, should I even bother considering a purchase of sh5? :hmmm:
Hey Flopper,
My other PC, where I have SH5 also installed, is almost identical to yours (AMD 4600+, 2GB RAM, 8600GTS). I will try and look into it a bit more later today, but from my first look at it.... It wasn't especially great, but it seemed playable on med-low options and 1680x1050. I was getting low to mid 20s as far as FPS goes in the open sea, which is actually fairly decent. I'll try to lower the settings and resolution a bit after I get back from work later today and see what happens.
The General
03-02-10, 01:53 PM
I wonder if they didn't get the chance to optimize as much as they would have liked. Perhaps patch 1 will address this?Patch 1 has apparently addressed this very issue, how are frame-rates now (They specifically say that there's an FPS improvement in the Sub Penn)?:hmmm:
Decoman
03-02-10, 01:55 PM
I implore people to state their version of the graphics driver that they are using when they comment on their gfx card and fps count.
alexradu89
03-02-10, 01:56 PM
they say they've improved the frame rates "in the bunker" and by bunker i'm guessing they mean the sub pens... if anyone can clear this up for us
Flopper
03-02-10, 02:57 PM
Hey Flopper,
My other PC, where I have SH5 also installed, is almost identical to yours (AMD 4600+, 2GB RAM, 8600GTS). I will try and look into it a bit more later today, but from my first look at it.... It wasn't especially great, but it seemed playable on med-low options and 1680x1050. I was getting low to mid 20s as far as FPS goes in the open sea, which is actually fairly decent. I'll try to lower the settings and resolution a bit after I get back from work later today and see what happens.
'Preciate that... I guess I could go in and pilfer my son's box and swap out his 4gb of ram for my 2gb... as he's off to college. I wonder if he'd notice when he comes home next weekend...
BillCar
03-02-10, 04:24 PM
I know before posting this that it's not likely, but I still figure I'll ask a Hail Mary question:
would it be possible for me to run this game with my Macbook Pro?
2.26Khz Intel Core 2 Duo
Windows 7 Professional 32 bit
2 gigs SDRAM
and, the :( part...
nVidia 9400M.
fallenyggdrasil
03-02-10, 04:36 PM
My PC:
AMD Phenom Quad Core 2,3 GHz
4 GB Ram
Vista 64 home
ATI 3650, 512 MB
Any guess?
@CCIP,
would also like to read about your experience with your 2nd PC. I think my video card is a little weak.. and wonder how a 8600 will perform....
I´m planning to play at 1024x768..
Alright, will test it in a bit.
What has come to my attention though is people reporting poor-ish performance on nvidia cards. Can anyone confirm this?
Game runs great on my ATI, but in some of the more grumbling threads I've seen people hint at it not running so well and listing nvidia cards in their system.
Again, I can confirm that the game performs excellently on my 5770 and I cannot fault its' optimisation on a brand-new mid-range ATI card at least.
Galanti
03-02-10, 07:37 PM
Tested on the new 196.75 drivers. Shadows still drop the fps to mid-teens in interiors. Exteriors are fine.
Well, unfortunately I have to scrap my test - my drivers are a bit out of date (185 series) and I can tell that the game does not like this. I don't want to change the drivers since I have a couple of older sims on that PC (FS9 and Falcon 4.0) which are rather finicky about nvidia driver updates so it takes a while for me to find a good version that those games will not hate.
The game does run though, but I think you will be looking at mid-20s as far as FPS, with detail on low or mid-low.
However I would hold off for a moment and wait until there's some definite feedback here about potential nvidia driver issues. It does look like this game was built mainly on ATI (it was definitely true of SHIII, which had the silly UZO bug on release) so its optimization for nvidia cards could potentially be a lot poorer.
Re: patch 1.01
The devs' promise of improving bunker framerates is indeed fulfilled with this patch - now doing about 40fps in there. The rest of the game seems to be performing about same as in my first post, which is just fine. No changes in TC performance - still quite slow around ports/convoys, so it's only really workable near those up to about 512x.
marleymen
03-06-10, 10:32 PM
(sorry for my bad english, i´m from spain)
@galanti & everyone on this forum
IMPORTANTE !!! nVidia has REMOVED latest driver ForceWare 196.75 because of problem with the fan of the graphic card.
Take care and downgrade to 196.21.
http://forums.laptopvideo2go.com/topic/26253-nvidia-forceware-19675-a-card-killer/
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.