Star Wars Jedi Survivor: CPU Bottlnecked on 7800X3D | RTX 4090
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 сен 2024
- Jedi Survivor is out with day 1 patches and drivers, and its performance still leaves a lot to be desired. The main culprit seems to be the Ray Tracing hit to the CPU, but the CPU limitation can be pretty bad even without RT if you don't have one of the fastest new CPUs. In this video I test how it performs on an extremely high end system with an RTX 4090 and Ryzen 7800X3D.
Test system specs:
GPU: RTX 4090 amzn.to/3LC6Olm
CPU: Ryzen 7800X3D amzn.to/3Hkf7Qi
Cooler: Corsair H150i Elite amzn.to/3VaYqeZ
Mobo: ROG Strix X670E-a amzn.to/3F9DjEx
RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 CL30: amzn.to/41XRtkM
SSD: Samsung 980 Pro amzn.to/3BfkKds
Case: Corsair iCUE 5000T RGB amzn.to/3OIaUsn
PSU: Thermaltake 1650W Toughpower GF3 amzn.to/3UaC8cc
Monitor: LG C1 48 inch OLED amzn.to/3nhgEMr
Keyboard: Logitech G915 TKL (tactile) amzn.to/3U7FzA9
Mouse: Logitech G305 amzn.to/3gDyfPh
What equipment do I use to make my videos?
Camera: Sony a6100 amzn.to/3wmDtR9
Camera Lens: Sigma 16mm f/1.4 amzn.to/36i0t9t
Camera Capture Card: Elgato CamLink 4K amzn.to/3AEAPcH
PC Capture Card: amzn.to/3jwBjxF
Mic: My actual mic (AT 3035) is out of production but this is a similar mic (AT 2020) amzn.to/3jS6LEB
Portable Mic attached to camera: Rode Video Micro amzn.to/3yrT0R4
Audio Interface: Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen: amzn.to/3wjhlad
Greenscreen: Emart Collapsable amzn.to/3AGjQXx
Lights: Neewar Dimmable USB LED amzn.to/3yw4frD
RGB Strip Backlight on desk: amzn.to/2ZceAwC
Sponsor my channel monthly by clicking the "Join" button:
/ @danielowentech
Donate directly to the channel via PayPal:
www.paypal.com...
Disclaimer: I may earn money on qualifying purchases through affiliate links above.
I hope to have time to test some lower end GPUs soon, but this is all I had time for tonight.
Again, make sure your RT actually applied before comparing performance!
And I know people will want to debate whether this is "CPU limited" since the CPU shows such low utilization, but the GPU is clearly waiting around for the CPU to finish whatever it is doing. The game is just not coded well to fully utilize the CPU cores. I didn't have time to A/B test different CPUs but this is the same behavior that I have seen in other Unreal Engine 4 games (especially with RT enabled) like Hogwarts Legacy and The Callisto Protocol, where I have done A/B testing of different CPUs and seen it improve performance, so I am confident in my diagnosis.
Daniel look at you now, I was with you at 30k subs and told you that you will get big. I'm happy for you Daniel, cheers to your success sir. Edit: I love how you keep things simple for us to understand and are like an doctor for pc, unoptimization issues.
Would be interesting to see how this game runs on a 4070(ti) at 1440p
I don't understand why even use the term "CPU limited" if no theoretical CPU can fix this
Gay game from gay devs.
test this with a 9600k
This actually isn't really a bad thing. It just saves me $70 on buying a broken POS game.
@@SirCharlzTV So, it's broken. Thanks for the heads up. Will wait until it's $5.
Nvidia drivers overhead in full glory
Genius
You pay money for games? That's weird :/
@@fiecylick3981 Yes, some people like to support the makers of games they're interested in instead of stealing or receing handouts all the time.
Just think of how amazing games like RDR2 or Metro look while running normally on cards like 3060ti, this is indefensible
Nah, just throw FSR and DLSS and 16gb of vram at 1080p because that's how terribly inefficient games are with using the system resources
It is weird to think about that, those games is also not optimized properly, sure they still look so good and I love both but rtx 3060ti is not a nowhere near normal card for them, one of them maded to 2018 and other one 2019. You have the performance of the best card available for them when they released. Simply you are bruteforcing.
Check gears 5, doom eternal, re 2 remake, crysis 3, bf1, rottr, wolfensteins.. for what a good optimization on pc can do.
You can play RDR2 with a i5 7400 and a 1060 6gb flawlessly
@I crediits Exactly my thoughts.
How short of a memory do you people have? RDR2 PC port was awful on launch
The current state of Pc Ports Reminds me of the x360 and ps3 era of Pc ports. Which were Pretty bad
It's coming back again but with FSR and DLSS as Devs answer to a fix
GTA4 flashbacks 😵
@@aaz1992 Even today, it runs pretty poorly on my 3080.
Some dude says he got 50 fps with RT on, in idle position, with 4090 💀
@@dnakatomiuk but in this game fsr won't help you at all because the game is bottlenecked by the CPU even with the most powerful gaming CPU in the world ....
This age of completly broken games not utilizing the hardware properly is just maddening. First Hogwarts Legacy with its RAM/VRAM problems, now this.
It comes down to structure difference in consoles vs PC, shared memory pool and dedicated chip that handles assets compile.
Then Xbox and PS5 have AMD chips in them, while PC market is dominated by nvidia cards, while there is limited time and so optimization for a platform have to be prioritized.
As you noticed last couple titles are AMD sponsored and consoles are all AMD, publishers just choose their target with their limited time.
Especially when games are getting more and more massive, with unreasonable targets to beat the last game/release.
It's hard to hit the targets set by publisher, not mentioning optimization, while the Devs are still probably underpaid.
@@KryssN1 no, no excuse. It's just bad optimization.
By the way, i still remember that the PS3 has dedicated RAM and VRAM.
@@saricubra2867 I agree the devs have no excuse but they won’t bother optimising for launch most games are rushed. Pc players need to not buy.
@@KryssN1 As a PC gamer I would be 100% happy waiting potentially a year or more for ports of console games if it meant they actually got the treatment they deserve. And I suspect I'm not in the minority either, so it boggles me to no end why publishers think shovelling out half-finished crap and charging $70+ (in the US, more in other regions) for it is a sustainable strategy. With all the money spent on marketing, buying positive reviews for metacritic, and the cost of the dev team who have to run around like chickens trying to finish titles up to 6 months or a year after launch, they could... I don't know... use that money on finishing their products before trying to sell them to consumers. But what do I know, I don't work for a multi-billion dollar publishing giant like EA :/
And the $70 price tag... I think the consumer base just have to stand their ground and not buy these awful products anymore. Even if you are addicted and just want to keep playing videogames, hell, there's a huge backlog anyway, you can emulate other consoles, etc.. there is plenty of options, no reason to stay "upgraded", "up to date" or whatever if the industry is offering really bad products. But people are still buying this crap, the Harry Potter game sold a lot of copies just with the power of the brand alone, extremely generic and repetitive, technical issues, etc.. doesn't matter, the sheep embrace it
I think we hit the point where UE4 just cant keep up with the size of new games any more. How the hell can the fastest available CPU not even hit 100fps.
Especially when the RT plugin is used.
It basically has to render an extra game world in low res and then merge the RT lighting into the final image.
So this game like Hogwarts Legacy kind basically double's its resoruce usage when RT is on.
Cause developers have inexperienced interns developing games who dont know anything about optimization.
2+2+2+2+2+2+2 ...... till infinity will break the optimization.
But, 2+2 = 4 + 2 = 8 + 2 = 10 will give result then optimized the memory size together.
The problem is devs push graphics regardless of system requirements and frame rate. I wish game devs prioritized performance. Call Of Duty for example looks great,but also performs very well. And scales a lot with different settings. Obviously at 4K ultra+RT it's quite demanding. But on the basic present the game looks decent enough and most midrange CPUs can handle 128 players mode while pushing more than 100 frames.
@@100500daniel I mean, it's clear that the game is just broken. Nothing to do with pushing graphics settings too far.
Unreal, I literally just upgraded my system to a 7800x3d and a 4080 in order to enjoy this game on my 4k TV. Well, guess I'll wait 6 months until they fix it.
It is Unreal afterall, what do you expect at this point
@@insector2093It's not the engine it's how the engine is used. There's loads of UE4 games that run well
@@gamesmaster1060 You mean Fortnite, and atomic heart? 🤣 you know that's not a lot
@Insector, Dead Island 2 is a recent example, and it runs decently. The trick is to not use RT at all. Every UE4 game with RT will turn out to be like crap, such as Hogwarts Legacy and this one. Even Atomic Heart decided to remove RT despite heavily promoting it before.
nah man i bet there's a fix to it in the meantime. Developers have been puttin out unoptimized games for awhile now
First 3 months of any PC release is beta testing now. Thanks for doing your part. The devs will get to this right away!
Not just that, but they never get fixed because they are fundamentally broken. There is no way that they can all of sudden get this game running much better.
*The devs will get to this, "eventually"
They won't.
Just get an XBOX/ Playstation and stop paying for getting fucked in the a**
No they won’t, they never fixed Fallen Order lmao
The game might be bouncing like crazy between the various CPU cores, since it seems to be on 30%ish on all the cores. The 7800X3D is so much faster than the console CPU this game runs on, it's not even funny. So something is definitely bugged.
Maybe new denuvo
Well the game runs poorly even on console from what i've seen
Like a lot of PC games, its simply not optimized.
@@arenzricodexd4409 Doesn't seem to be a Denuvo game, but it does have some background EA DRM running, that might be causing this.
@@StruggleBoxing Yup, 2020s pc gaming in a nutshell. Everygame seems so un optimised for months after release
Bruh wtf is this cpu demand. Is the game trying to calculate the physics of Cal's balls
could be the drm slowing things down, it's apparently running denuvo
@@mkuhnactual Drm shouldn't slow down a 7800x3d
Optimization has left the chat..😢
Well consoles run it as good as a 4090.
I guess PS5 stock value has just risen once more.
@@KryssN1 PS5 in performance mode upscales from 960P lol
And this game is 70$ lmao
Good representation of market lmfao
☠️
The game is good but the performance is not 😅
$69. Nice
$100 in Australia on Steam 💀
Let's hope it won't become the norm for developers to rely on frame generation to "fix" such CPU bound scenarios.
Oh wait...
That wouldn't even help.
If only the game had frame gen, but it's AMD sponsored so FSR is all you get
@@itsaUSBline Well that will definitely help, but this game does not support it :P But it indeed does not really fix the fundamental problem of it being a non-optimized port.
@@OnlyBlix if frame gen could push fps beyong 100+, the corresponding latency wouldn't be a problem for this type of game
@@HeLithium You would be getting 55~ FPS latency (native FPS latency) regardless of what your FPS counter shows with DLSS 3 turned on.
This game would feel a lot better with 120 or 240FPS latency because of its high skill ceiling.
This is ridiculous. I just splurged hard to build my first desktop a few months ago with a 7700X and a 4080 and it's already not even good enough for 60 fps native at 1440p...this lack of optimization is ridiculous. How do they expect anyone to buy a game when most potential customers can't even run it?
its mainly the cpu bottleneck i think thats fixable quickly they shouldve delayed another month
@@reiudfgq3vrh34ur Unless it's being caused by Denuvo, in which case the performance issues will be around till they patch out denuvo in about a year.
@@mkuhnactual and you can grab the game in like a 50%-70% off steam sale, and this level of GPU powah costs less, and the bugs are patched out. It makes no sense at all for a single player experience to buy full price on release.
Play on 200$ XBox series S, much more fun with no stutters
@@mkuhnactual Dead Island 2 also has Denuvo and that game had absolutely no Performance issues
signs of another unfinished release...
be smart boys buy your games 2 years and 24 patches after release
That's exactly what I do.
I’m on that train too, wootwoot.
Ryzen 5900X, RTX 4080, 32GB DDR4 3600 RAM - I just refunded the game. I play at 3440x1440 ultrawide, and seemingly regardless of the video settings I chose, I could barely get the intro areas to hold between 40-50 FPS with RT off and Medium to Low settings. I think my hardware is still pretty high-end compared to what MANY gamers will be using, and it's shocking to me that Lucasfilm Games released this AAA Star Wars game in this state. There's clearly something horrible wrong with it right now. FWIW, Hogwarts Legacy and most other UE4 games, and even Cyberpunk 2077 Overdrive RT mode, all play perfectly well on my system. As much as I also appreciate AMD's release philosophy with FSR2, I'm also pretty amazing this didn't ship with DLSS2 or even DLSS3.
Xess 1.1 made insane jumping, so now we have 2 or 3 upscaling options or native, thats pretty good.
It just needs more support
Many? That's the second most powerful GPU out there. Easily above 99% of players lol.
skip this game till its fixed in few years and also cracked. denuvo versions always has 10 15% lower fps. enjoy other great games, not broken ones
your cpu is not fast enough. buy a 13900k and you can get better numbers than the guy who made this video.
So if you want to get a good playable experience you need to have even better than a 4090 and 7800x3D. Saved me 70€. Thanks Daniel.
Nah the game runs fine for me with a 4070ti and 5900x. I can’t ever take these pc RUclips channels seriously because my experience is always way different (way better)than what they show.
@@Soapy_Papoose I listed what I have and I play it at 1440p at max settings with an average of 60fps….so yeah kid, it’s fine for me. Sorry you can’t afford it lol
@@Soapy_Papoose That's a good 'Cinematic' Experience
@@Drunkgamer904 I definitely wouldn't be fine with just 60fps at that resolution with those specs. I really don't know why you're defending a shitty port so hard.
@@Drunkgamer904 dum dum nvidiot
Man Daniel... you got a full time job and youre still able to come out with PC game and PC hardware reviews and comparisons of such high quality. I am very impressed with you sir. As much as I love your vids please dont lose any sleep or family time for us!! Let me know if you ever need an helping hand ;)
God dammit. There goes another....
This is why rockstar releases their pc ports much later on. Emberrasing
All we are reminded of in these cases is that devs/publishers nowadays are really prioritizing Consoles and leaving PC performance in the lurch. I was enticed to buy hogwarts legacy on ps5 just because it didn't stutter as much as it did on my 5800x3d/3080 10gb system.
That's not the games fault in your case. You have less vram then a console. Your 3080 is bottlenecked. It's not stuttering because your ps5 is quite literally better for this then a 3080 10gb. Games have always been made for console but Nvidia decided to screw everyone with the amount of vram they gave 3000 series low end 4000 series.
hogwarts legacy was passable on a good system, you still got some stutters but with VRR you barely notice it. Just dont turn on RT
Jedi, looks like a pile or garbage
@@darbstre2900 It stuttered for me with a 5900x+3080 and a 5800X3D+4090 system. In Hogwarts, while VRAM can cause performance issues if you use higher settings than your GPU can handle, many, if not most, stutters come from CPU/system memory bottlenecks in that game.
@@darbstre2900 The consoles have to share the available memory between VRAM and RAM, so no, a system with a 3080 10GB plus 16 GB of system RAM has more memory available.
My game is choppy/hitching and blurry. Can't get above 32 fps standing still. It does not matter what the settings are set to. (Low-Epic) I am running RTX 2070 Super, i7-9700F CPU @ 3.00GHz (4.7 GHz TURBO), 32GB RAM, 144Hz monitor. Hogwarts Legacy ran fine for me after the usual "fixes". Hopefully they can sort this out?
I think wording it as a CPU bottleneck isn't exactly right. As it's clear the CPU in general is not the problem, but the game itself.
This unfortunately happens w/ 95% of AMD sponsored titles when launched. It gets fixed eventually, but it's a common occurrence when using Nvidia GPU's w/ AMD sponsored titles which have RT.
The sad part is the RT in this game is basic as hell. Not surprising since again, it's optimized for AMD who is still 2 gens behind in RT.
It’s not the CPU that’s the issue, yes. It is the fastest gaming CPU around.
However, it was released with a cpu bottleneck because it’s an unfinished port. To say it’s not a cpu bottleneck would be inaccurate.
@Bronson Dixon it's not a CPU bottleneck regardless. The cores aren't even being pushed. This isn't a Spider-Man remastered situation.
It's a coding bottleneck in the game engine that needs to be patched up which does not equate it to being a CPU bottleneck since the cores themselves are barely pushing 30% utilization. It's much broader than simply referring it to as a "cpu bottleneck".
@Kevin P. I get what you're saying and you are correct, but technically poor multithreading is a kind of CPU bottleneck.
@@OC.TINYYY If cpu slower then 7800x3d gets lower fps, then its cpu bottleneck
You have to call it a cpu bottleneck.
DON'T BUY THE GAME until they fix this garbage...
You're literally wasting money on something you can't even play.
This. Unless people stop preordering and buying bugged crap on release nothing's going to change
yet you can play it? is 60fps unplayable?
@@GregoryShtevensh yes, 60fps is unplayable.
I will buy it only to refund it so they get the message.
@@GregoryShtevensh IT CAN'T EVEN HIT CONSISTENT 60 WITH A 4090 YOU FOOL
Anyone else notice how good Daniel's video's are nowadays? 👏
9/10 game btw acc to IGN. Reviewers would have you think its a must-get. Review scores should be affected by this stuff, I'm sorry.
I agree 100%
review sites haven't been trustworthy for a long time
There is an issue turning on and off the RT during gameplay.
If you do turn it on, and reload the save the RT is still on but with the higher FPS.
Tried in the same location you did.
Find a water puddle with the RT reflections in it. And turn off. They will look very different. Then turn back on. Your fps will tank, but if you reload the save point the fps will be fine with RT still on.
Imagine looking into puddles to justify your $1600 gpu.
@@BlackJesus8463 Consoles also do the same thing
It reminds me of the UE Matrix demo and how CPU bottleneck was a significant issue. It appears that using certain features of the engine itself can create a tremendous CPU bottleneck.
UE5 is badly threaded, it literally uses less than HALF the potential of a 16 core system, and EVEN UE5 is VASTLY more efficient than this garbage. Ue5 is particularly efficient in VRAM usage, easily running well in 4K with 8GB.
@@Wobbothe3rd It's not all about cores. Not all about using 16 cores. The CPU itself needs to be faster.
UE5 features like lumen and Nanite have a fairly fixed CPU cost. It's a significant upfront performance cost but once you can run that, you can run almost anything in UE5.
Also worth remembering that any performance metrics taken from the editor are deceptive as a built game will always run significantly better
This isnt the same situation.
UE5 matrix demo was demanding nearly all core usage. (Optimizing this would lessen cpu load perhaps by easing up on loaded assets/culling unseen assets whatever.)
This game on UE4 is under utilizing cores, just like Callisto and well, that story hasnt changed much and seemingly wont.
Design flaw for AMD consoles targeting weak hybrid APU... This game just like Callisto just cant scale up to utilize proper threads/cores.
A damn shame.
Perhaps a few patches and we would gain maybe 5 or 15 percent threaded usage at best like callisto, but because UE4, its probably a wrap. Performance is trash on PC.
Garbage in, garbage out.
@@Wobbothe3rd Man, Unreal Engine sucks so much. Meanwhile Crysis Remastered with Cryengine 4 has those physics, rendering distance, graphics, can ran run pretty well on a potato.
I still remember the Unreal series with the Unreal Tournament games and the Unreal Engine locked to better perfomance and better graphics for each version.
Got this game for free with my 7600x, and I still want a refund.
As soon as the 4090 dropped, we started getting some of the most unoptimized pieces of shit ever known to man, even when strictly looking to GPU usage.
That doesn't even make sense, that card was released back in September/October 2022 while these games were in development for years before that. Your comment makes no sense. Bad PC ports predate the 40 series.
@@RicochetForce It's not a conspiracy, they just don't give a fuck to optimize because there's now a GPU that can run the game to some degree. If ALL the available GPUs suck, they have no choice but to delay the game, but now that a $2000 card can run ok in games where all the other ones run like shit, they are putting these games out because they technically work. We didn't have games using 14-18 gigs of VRAM before the 4090, there are now 4,5 of them in the last couple of months.
Bad pc ports have been around forever. This isn't a new thing. The 4090 also lined up with the covid pandemic which marked a significant rise in unfinished games. Coincidence? I think not.
Its not some conspiracy. Game devs won't make any money making games for the 1% of gamers with a top spec card. It's often the publishers rushing games out to hit arbitrary deadlines.
The one potential impact of the 4090 is raising the requirements of ultra settings to fully utilize the top spec cards, but thats not what's happening here as the whole game is broken no matter the settings
@@omarcomming722 This is conspiracy theory nonsense. Developers begin work on games years ago, on hardware that is now very much dated. The hardware target AAA or even indie developers use is the console hardware of the time.
These games were not intentionally created to run poorly, or somehow strongarm people into throwing out their old gear and buying new stuff.
They're simply bad PC ports, and rushed ones at that. TLOU Part 1, for example, actually has problems that would be fixed by amateur devs.
It's no conspiracy, these are just rushed products with cut corners.
@@RicochetForce I literally said it's not a conspiracy but incompetence. What I'm saying is that without ultra powerful GPUs that can provide somewhat acceptable results, devs would have more pressure to delay the game because the game running at 60 fps on the highest end consumer GPU looks better PR wise than it running at 35 fps. The existence of such powerful hardware gives them more leeway to put out unoptimized garbage
It's clear at this point with TLOU and other games this year that the PC is basically not worth fixing for them until the outrage happens.
You made a small error in your video. You said that the 7800X3D is the fastest gaming cpu. That's not true. The i5-2500k is the fastest gaming cpu.
Disable HPET it fixed the low usage with the first game with ryzen, some other games aswell its in the device manager system devices (high precision event timer) just disable dont uninstall hope this helps people out 👍
I had the same issues with my 7900xt and 5800x3d I updated the drivers with the new ones from today and it fixed it completely
which drivers ? be more specific please?
really? whats your performance? i have a 7700X w/ 7900XT and get like 60-70fps. Bad areas are down to like 40fps tho
@@Ladioz Adrenalin Edition 23.4.3 with support for STAR WARS Jedi: Survivor™.
However, games tend to run perfect on AMD systems. Another blow for Nvidia cards... damn. Next time im 100% buying an AMD card
@@Ladioz You stupid AMD shill, its AMD sponsored tittle, what do you expect? Ofc, it will be better after few patches, and new drivers.
i just can't believe it! just upgraded to ryzen 9000x5D RTX 6990TI OC with DDR6 20000 mHz CL 420 and i can't run this game at 8k 69 fps 😫
I have a theory. Consoles have shared memory between the CPU and GPU, which allows for close collaboration between the two and enables enhanced optimization. However, in current PCs, the GPU's VRAM and system memory are separate. Therefore, if an engine designed with shared memory runs on a PC and the CPU needs to access the VRAM, it can lead to memory bottlenecks. I believe this may be a problem with many current games.
This!'
Badly optimization of memory pool for PC, just copy paste from console, like TLOU1.
Never the less, this game also have performance problems on consoles, but not akin to 4090 running at barerly 55 fps avg. in static envoirment with double as fast CPU.
The problem is ps5 is the system most games are built for and everything else is an afterthought. Sad considering pc pays the same price.
but consoles always had shared memory since at least ps2 and probably before. this is nothing new.
CPU is not accessing the vram. Thats not how this works.
@@apiestink I'm not claiming that my theory is necessarily correct. It could be completely wrong. However, personally, I don't think there were many cases in the past where sharing memory between the CPU and GPU provided significant benefits. Nevertheless, with the rise of computationally expensive features such as path tracing that require huge amounts of memory, techniques that actively utilize CPU-GPU memory sharing have been developed. I believe this phenomenon started not with the new console generation, but rather when path tracing became a new standard for games, which led to the emergence of these memory-related issues.
You guys are up way too early! 3 hours in at 3:33 am and already over 16k views & 700+ comments. Well done!!
I won’t be buying this game. I literally have a 4090 and a Ryzen 5900x. Let’s just say I have a reasonable expectation to be able to play most/all games at 120fps. I won’t be tolerating bulls**t like this. I’m gonna pass on this one.
Good explanation about the cpu bottleneck. Many people assume something has to run at up to 100% for it to be the bottleneck but that's not the case
It's because the calculations of the load on the CPU is based on all the cores. In this case 8 and 16 threads. But the game engine uses 4 cores. So a CPU utilization of 45% really means 90% because the CPU tries to load balance it but the game keeps asking for just 4 cores and 8 threads in how it's used. This likely creates latency.
In a sense if one could disable all the unwanted cores/threads and up the clock speeds to 7Ghz I bet it would run much better.
but it's idiotic how any game engine is designed with fewer cores and faster clocks when we have known for YEARS that only way forward is more parallelism and more cores.
No DLSS in a 2023 game, went as expected
What does RT even do in this game? There is no description. It just says Raytracing. Lol
Considering how bad the cpu bottle neck is. I think a lot of the games code is still running in blue print. As when a game ships all or most, code should be converted to c++ for the best cpu performance. It is what happened with Gotham knights. As they converted a lot more code into c++ and the game is a lot less cpu limited were decent fps is possible on a wide range of hardware. It's sad that a game that was delayed and they still did not have time to get the code in a state where they can start optimizing it. How are you meant to optimize a game when 80 percent the time your gpu is running at 30-50 percent usage with rt. Games keep coming out 2-3 months too early. At this point, I might as well just ignore games for 2-3 months before looking into them on pc. Would not be surprised if Redfall is in the same state next week. Like I will most likely have a better time emulating tears of the kingdom then playing a native AAA pc port. Can a developer just have the balls to tell there publisher that the game is not ready and actually have the ability to make a last minute delay of 2-3 months. Please do not buy until these issues are fixed if most pc users don't buy it the publisher will say to themselves maybe if we want a game to sell well on pc maybe we need release a complete and optimized game. The reason why game keep coming out in this state is because pc a high amount of pc users are still buying it. If want change you have to use the only thing the publisher care amount and that is sales of first 3-6 months of a games release.
^This!
This a misconception. The difference in performance between blueprints and c++ is only significant with very heavy computational operation, and even then it's not that significant. Not to mention, UE can nativize blueprints for packaging so that's not even an issue most of the time. A bad programmer will mess up c++ code just as easily, if not worse. I would bet if we could access the source we'd see all kinds unoptimized code, including the c++ parts and especially shaders.
If you don't buy the game, and sales tank on PC. The publishers will only see that as more reason not to waste too much resources on the PC port and sloppy ports will only get more common ( if that's even possible)...
Hey Daniel I was having the same issue with the first world. When I got to the next world I was hitting 100+ fps, even during combat. This is on my 6800 xt 12700k pc. I am running the game on 1440p, nearly maxed settings (shadows medium settings).
Love your videos, keep up the good work.
It feels like that any ps5 port that get ported, dev seems to pretty much try to make pc emulate the ps5, instead of actually work around and actually port the game to a different platform. That is why the last few ps5 ports have been terrible especially on the cpu side of things. Devs are basically """porting""" game as if they were being emulated rather than work on it for it to fully utilize the gpus pc have. They're treating pc as consoles apus.
They have to improve this a loooot. I lowered all my settings from epic to high and I got barely more FPS with an RX 6900 XT and 4.7 GHZ all core Ryzen 5 5600. I don't even need Rivatuner to see that there is huge bottlenecking. When I pause the game that's when I can hear my GPU fans going harder. During normal gameplay it's very silent and I don't even feel the usual amount heat coming from the case.
The Callisto Protocol was stuttery as hell on launch but the actual performance was pretty decent compared to how insanely detailed that game is. This one is not stuttery but it runs like crap.
I love it when the lightsaber goes through the wall about 50 times without any effects of damage.
In games like Jedi Outcast from 2002, running on an already little bit dated id Tech 3 engine, you could "draw" with the lightsaber. But at least, now we have reflections and crappy performance.
@ The special effects are probably behind a pay wall and will be in a dlc.. 🤣🤣
@ It's kind of funny when you look at some older games that had more interactive environments than most games today have on offer. 😂
@@NotGotchi
Wouldn't be surprised! Hahaha!
Yeah, back then, they cared. I know game development is now much more complex, needs more people, better tools, better hardware, etc... But there is something still very wrong, if they can't reach that level of detail as they did 20 years ago. Sure, graphics are much nicer and sounds are better too. Animations improved a lot since then, but... that's it.
Now, we get games that don't look bad but not looking as good as the hardware requirements would be justified.
When Crysis came out, I think that was justified. That game looked glorious at its time, still a really nice looking game.
even money can't bypass unoptimized games
It's not any better on console. On PS5 it constantly drops out of the VRR range and is usually sitting in the 50s for FPS (at least on Coruscant at the start) and has terrible screen tearing with VRR on or off. I have resorted to the 30 FPS mode just to make the screen tearing stop. I went PS5 and not PC for this one after Hogwarts was actually really good on PS5, but this is just a disaster.
It comes down to structure difference in consoles vs PC, shared memory pool and dedicated chip that handles assets compile.
Then Xbox and PS5 have AMD chips in them, while PC market is dominated by nvidia cards, while there is limited time and so optimization for a platform have to be prioritized.
As you noticed last couple titles are AMD sponsored and consoles are all AMD, publishers just choose their target with their limited time.
Especially when games are getting more and more massive, with unreasonable targets to beat the last game/release.
It's hard to hit the targets set by publisher, not mentioning optimization, while the Devs are still probably underpaid
Consoles have equalivment of a 3060 Ti / RTX 4060 at best and PS5 runs it equaly good as a RTX 4090 combined with a 2x as fast CPU as in console.
Clearly this was optimized for AMD arhcitecture, but it's still poo.
In comparison all other AMD sponsored titles like TLOU1 had no issues running on AMD GPU on PC, only nvidia.
This is a pretty keen observation. it's been a bit since this video was posted, and some patches have made some difference, but really good observation nonetheless. Cheers.
Hey, just so you know GPU utilization percentage doesn't really apply if you don't max out the resolution buffer. You should compare wattages at different resolutions, because the GPU pipeline might not even saturate at a lower resolution. Example, a 3080 Ti goes around 380W on 4K but at 1440p it might not even go 300W even on a balls to the walls 13900K. It's the way the GPU pipeline works. That's why AMD always wins at lower resolutions but suffers disproportionately at 4K.
True but the issue isn't necessarily the resolution itself , it's that nvidia has more cpu overhead when cpu limited resulting in worse performance , and that's more likely to happen the lower you go
And you can get a 3080 to run at 100% usage and wattage at 1440p quite easily but yeah it will probably consume more at 4k since it's most likely to be fully utilized at that resolution
@@lynackhilou4865 Recently I had to choose between a Zotac 3080, an EVGA 3080 Ti and a Sapphire Nitro+ 6800 XT, coming from a 1080 Ti FTW3.
After testing them all on my 1440p monitor with different resolution scalings I settled for a 6800 XT to pair with my 5700X. Particularly because I was saving some cash and getting more VRAM which I need for architectural renders.
I've noticed that the 30 series really stretches its legs at 4K because at 1440p and 1080p there was barely any difference between the 3080 and the Ti while AMD stays competitive till 1440p and 30 series just keeps gapping higher at 4K.
Every game I’ve tried to use FSR in either lowers my performance, or only increases it by a few fps at best. It’s complete trash, and these games need to really use DLSS since it actually works properly 😂
Now I wonder, what kind of system the developers used when testing. I think developers should work with the max setting in order to know how their code perform and able to see the true artistic representation of the game.
they work with consoles first and foremost, especially the AAA studios. Most likely it was optimized for good utilization on current gen consoles, and then ported to PC with very few changes and now can't do shit on a top end system. Could also just be driver issues. In the end of the day, for companies this size, this type of performance is unacceptable no matter the cause. It's the whole reason they get to call themselves AAA in the first place. I think it's time to strip some of them of a couple A's.
They are console developers. They probably tested the game at 30 FPS cap and a controller.
@@monotoneone No, they are not console developers, they have been using source forked engine for long time for their Titanfall series and Apex, all of those games run quite well on pc, they are probably not experienced in UE.
Thanks for that video, this is EXACTLY what i was looking for yesterday and couldnt find
7700 and 7900xt. Played for about half an hour before work with auto settings (everything Epic, RT off, FSR quality at 4k).
The "respawn entertainment" and the like title screens when starting up the game were total slideshows, and cutscenes had noticeable frameskips every now and then. Gameplay was locked 60 FPS though.
I was expecting the performance to be worse to be honest.
to be honest a 7900 xt is not a low end gpu by any means...the fact that you had to use fsr to keep a 4k 60 fps at all times is not a a good sign
it's nvidia...that's why i was waiting to see AMd performance. I have a 7800X3D with a 7900XTX...3440x1440 max settings no FSR, just over 100FPS average.
@@mihai2174 you don't know his frame rate because he has vsync on "locked at 60 fps" clearly he's getting over that if vsync was off or else it would dip below 60 at times as that's how averages work...
@@JoeL-xk6bo for some reason my previous comment was removed
i was saying that i have a 7900 xtx and most of the times i can't get 4 k 60 fps at max settings (no fsr and raytrace), worse, it goes lowe then 50 fps when i am in combat, so i am pretty sure he won't be able to get 60 fps 4 k with a 7900 xt at native
That is correct, it was with vsync, which was enabled by default. My GPU utilization generally hovers around 80%, turning vsync off got me to ~75 FPS on average, but I had some tearing, so turned it back on. I tried enabling raytracing, that dropped my FPS to around 40-45, but the frametimes felt super inconsistent. It did look better with raytracing, but it was absolutely not worth it for me. I didn't try turning FSR off, might test it later
I'm about 6 hours into the game, and my experience is very, very positive so far. I didn't encounter any performance issues or bugs. The game is very much Fallen Order, but bigger and better. I love the visuals and setting (Coruscant looked fantastic!), I love that I got to keep all my abilities from Fallen Order, vibe is truly Star Wars.
I just wish the game ran well on all hardware, not just the latest&greatest AMD gear.
Dan thank you for the tests. Keep it up. Are you going to make a video of the game running on different gpus and resolutions?
you are right about the ray tracing toggle. was getting 55 fps on 1440p Epic settings with FSR quality and ray tracing on 13700k 2080ti. i turned ray tracing off and then back on again, it dropped to 40 fps.
But the wierdest part is that i performance from FSR disabled to quality to ultra performance is within 2-3 fps margin. and i don't think it's because FSR was not working at all because i could see the image degredation from FSR disabled/quality and FSR ultra performance, but fps was not changing
That's just CPU bottleneck, even with your CPU.
Whatever happened to DirectX 12 Ultimate being some omg it is so awesome outlook?
You are the best at testing games Daniel! I know you are very pressed for time, but please see if it's possible to get a reasonable midrange CPU to test on as well. 5800X or so perhaps. A lot of new games starve the CPU.
There’s this bug in the game where FSR2 disabled actually loos so much blurrier than FSR2 quality/balanced, it’s very noticeable at 1080p or even 1440p
Likely the difference between TAA (Native) vs FSR (TAA + Reconstruction + possibly sharpening).
You might be able to get similar results by adding sharpening to the native resolution (Reshade CAS for example, or sharpening through your GPU control panel if available).
My brother machine with a 5700 xt 13700k is getting 80 fps consistently at 1080p looking beautiful while my overkill 64 GB ram, 3080Ti 5950x machine is getting 40 fps looking like I'm playing at 720p when I fkn put the render resolution to 1440p. I remember the callisto protocol was bad on launch too but the next day it was actually fixed and ran better, hopefully this game somehow has it's problem fixed, I really like the faster pace of survivor.
Unfortunately you guys are hardware reviewers and you don't understand software very well. This is not a CPU bottleneck, the game is poorly optimized. If you don't schedule and utilize resources properly in code, you can't blame the hardware, that's nonsensical
Is this a sign of poor optimization or are games actually going to require us to spend $2500 on a pc to play at 30-60 fps in the future?
It reminds me of some of the issues that The Callisto Protocol had with ray tracing which is also a UE4 game.
Same as Hogwarts. My 3090 was only using around 65% utilization with a couple cores really pushed on my 12900k in certain areas like hogsmead, but in most of the open world ran butter smooth.
Wait till 90% sale off, that’s when the game is fully optimized.
Please try the game in the same exact conditions using a 7900xtx, you'll find how AMD gpus handle Cpu bottlenecks way better, because of the better Driver Overhead. You'll get around 10% more performance even with RT on
Daniel,
The problem is the CPU. The game runs fine with %99 GPU utilization on 13900K and RT on and FSR disabled.
The 7800X3D is crippled in this game because it doesn't have enough threads already. Maybe the 7900 or 7950 has a better chance but I didn't see them yet.
If it doesn’t have enough threads why is the cpu utilization across threads so low? If you run a quad core today you will see the utilization above 90%. Clearly something broken is going on with the scheduler if you need 32 threads to run the game. Also, the console the game was built for only has 8C16T like the 7800X3D, but no v-cache, lower frequency and IPC.
@@dex6316 Even on PS5 it runs on fewer cores /threads as some of them are reserved for OS footprint in the background!
Seems like almost all AAA games that come out these days, you need the fastest system possible to run at max settings, and even then there are performance issues.
Studios don't optimize, and a lot of games are running denuvo now for drm which gives a hit to performance. Not sure if that's the problem with this game, but it is running denuvo.
@@mkuhnactual It's like they don't want anyone to be able to play their games.
@@nossy232323 A vast majority of gamers will continue to pre order and buy games on release even after a studio releases multiple games in an unfinished or unfun state. If people will give money no matter what, there's no incentive for a studio to insure it releases in an optimal state.
"So you might be playing this game thinking you have ray tracing enabled, toggle it off and back on.... Notice how our framerate drops..."
When checking the framerate counter for a performance hit is the best way to identify if a graphic setting is on or off, yea... I'd say just leave it off cos it clearly provides no discernible difference in visual quality.
yeah i wont be playing this game till i know its all clear, dont want my 7800x3d or 4090 get nuked
Doom Eternal devs: please start teaching all these developers of bad PC ports how to make a game.
Say what you want about RTX Overdrive in Cyberpunk 2077 but you get every shader unit’s worth on the visual majesty of path tracing for what it costs in performance. And it’s even efficient where you could run it fine with heavy DLSS even on a 3070
And it doesn't even max out most card's vram either.
@@Wobbothe3rd cudos to CDprojektRed they build custom memory pool algorithm for the game, for PC, so that it does not bottlenecks due to differences in consoles vs PC structure.
Basically due to consoles having shared memory pool and dedicated chip that handles compression and decompression games need optimization in that depertment for PCs.
I am on a rtx 3070 + ryzen 5800x non 3D. Yeah you could play on Overdrive raytracing but it doesnt make sense at all on a 3070. I ran some benchmarks and with rt overdrive, dlss balanced, 1080p, everything medium you'll get ~ 50 fps avarage. But you'll get the same framerate or better on rt psycho, dlss quality, 1440p, everything maxed out. Which looks much, much better. So in my opinion rt overdrive is only enjoyable on a 40 series.
PSA. When you start the game with RT on, it is actually on, and it runs much better.
Turning it off, then on again, tanks performance like seen here. I can understand how you'd make the mistake that it isn't activated, because the performance goes down when you toggle it in game, and it is very hard to tell when it is on visually (which begs the question, why turn it on in the first place). There are sections where you can toggle it on and off and see a difference. If you restart with the game enabled, it runs well and you can go to an area where you can see the difference and tell it is in fact actually enabled. There's a video on RUclips that highlights areas where you can actually tell RT is on (and the difference remains subtle).
the state of the game rn makes me so mad, i got a 4070 to play this and can't really get over 40fps without turning the settings way down at 1440p, how can they release something like this
I just changed the distance from "epic" to "high", everything else EPIC with 4K and no raytracing (as I feel it adds very little for the performance hit). Barely ever dip below 70fps, usually stay around 90-120fps in the first couple of levels. This is using the last patch, which improved things a ton!
I'm pretty sure DLSS3 FG would make raytracing pretty playable. I'm running a 4080 btw.
This isn't a cpu bottleneck, it's a bad optimization bottleneck.
Seems like Im asking this for every new title these days, but how the hell are they calculating their requirement specs then? No recent game seems to be playable on minimum thru to above and beyond spec requirement.
There have been videos on the differences between AMD's and Nvidia's driver architecture. Nvidia favors faster clocks versus more threads dating back to Intel's 4-core architecture. AMD went down a parallel thread path years ago with GPU's when they took that path with their FX processors. I am not aware of either fundamentally changing and AMD's choices would finally be paying off here (and would have sooner if their architecture hadn't flopped and innovation stalled).
Getting 130-140 FPS here @ 4k, graphics setting maxed, LOD -3, and image sharpening. This game is one of the best ever made. Needs a top of the line gaming PC with 40 series gpu and proper optimization to run well. 13700K, 32gb 7600mts ddr5 with tight timings, and 4090 all OC'd to the max. Using the DLSS2, frame gen, and gpu utilization mods are a must.
This game is as poorly optimized as gta 4 was for the pc. And it doesn’t even look any good compared to a five year old game like RDR2!
This is basically a worst version of Hogwarts syndrom, Unreal Engine 4 + RT = absolute optimization hell.
Oh come on rdr 2 looked like shit even on 2018, jedi survivor is next game that looks absolutely incredible, yes it has statterstrugle, yes it has horrible cpu performance, but it looks incredible. Played both, just try to play rdr2 today it looks really bad even metro 2033 has better assets than rdr2.
@@4ikibrikivdamk3 That’s great that you think RDR2 is shit, but everybody has opinions. If you go on a list of the top 100 games of all time, rdr2 is probably in the top 10 of that list. RDR2 is a beautiful and intriguing game, and the graphics look phenomenal, and won probably double or even triple the amount of awards Jedi survivor will ever get. Just trying to be honest and other people would definitely agree with me on that.
Giving me flashbacks to The Evil Within 2. 🙀
I have the same setup. For the first hours of me playing I got a solid 95 fps but after I took a break and came back the game starting bottlenecking. Game Def has problems
Crap you right the rtx bugs out. Wow performance on this game is just bug out as he'll.
Could be because RT wasn't actually enabled the first time!
You should visit Koboh, which is the biggest open-world map and by far the most demanding. Coruscant (the start of the game) doens't need much VRAM. Thanks for quoting me in the previous video by the way. :D
Its an Unreal Engine game. What do you expect? Surprised they're not using Frostbite or Respawn's own fork of Source engine...
UE4 is a great engine. Look how well dead island 2 and atomic heart look and run.
@@gavinderulo12 they look outdated
@@user-ye7lp9lg1c they look good. But my main point is that their performance is excellent. So it's not the engine's fault if a game runs poorly.
@@user-ye7lp9lg1c you are out of your mind if you think Atomic Heart looks outdated. Some of the best TAA I've ever seen in any engine ever.
Why are they releasing games in this condition? What in the actual hell? I wanted this game so bad, and now I'm going to have to wait maybe months until they fix it, if they ever do. Damn, damn, damn.
because people keep buying them
i love pc gaming! spending 5k+ so i cant even run the game max settings, nice!
console players are saying the game has performance issues for them too
@@mkuhnactual Not really i am getting stable fps with little to no hiccups on xbox series s and it supports keyboard and mouse, really having fun just played 3 to 4 hours of that
@@shreyasdalal Sub 60 fps tho
@@WizG. I am happy with the 30 to 40ish fps since it is locked and stable with no hiccups, yea I have a 144hz monitor but its a story game, your eyes get used to the 40 fps in about 45 minutes
We knew this game was coming in hot after the announcement of multiple patches incoming after release. Just another game release where I have to wait 6 months to actually have a decent experience.
I'm getting basically the exact same performance with a 5900x and 4090 at 4k. I really hate that I have had to brute force 60FPS for this years AAA games (Hogwarts, TLOU, SWJS) with a system that I spent a lot of money that should do a lot more. I couldn't imagine having "lesser" cards that are supposed to also do 60fps at 4K.
I have this same system, MSFS in vr runs better than starwars 😂
5900x 3090 feels like its 7 yo system lol, pc gaming is a disaster, piracy is the only ethical thing a pc gamer should do, these companies deserve nothing.
I was gonna buy a 4090 but this makes me think twice.
I want to see how UE5 titles run before paying that much money on something that might not even be able to run it well enough.
This game looks like it could run on PS4 when you compare it to Forbidden West.
@@Dionyzos wait a year and get 5090 for the same price, why? That will be the first gen of cards with decent rt performance, 4090 is just barely there, frame generation lag is horrible if you render below 60fps
Similar bro, 5800X 3D and a 4080. Play TLOU right now and it’s frustrating seeing my GPU only running in the 60% range at 1440. 120FPS with dips into the 70’s. Frametimes are so bad it feels like I’m getting 20 FPS!
I dance around 57-60fps 4K maxed settings. 6900XT 5800X 32GB 3600 CL14 XMP2. No raytracying FSR Quality. I'm having a good time. But the game definitely needs to be optimized.
Forgot to add that I am using PBO2 that I per core optimized so I can get up to 4.8ghz on all cores.
Holy Jesus, it's so bad
@Jesus is Lord Why not. Should we blame satan for this shit port?
@Jesus is Lord Did jesus die for the sins of these lazy devs?
@pkadairlet’s just blame Jesus… and corps
Slava cokaini 💸🤑
All games are just designed for 90% consoles and 10% PC nowadays. Not even just in performance even with UI, Controls, system design, game design, everything is designed around consoles and launching on consoles, PC's are just an after thought.
The CPU limitations are likely caused by the Denuvo DRM they're using for the game.
No. Unless you want to use that excuse to pirate a game. Denuvo has 0 performance hit on higher end systems.
It only hurts people with shit hardware, which is why they pirate in the first place. Can't afford it.
This game also doesn't use Denuvo, just basic EA DRM.
@@OC.TINYYY Nothing is free, as a developer myself, a single line of code has performance cost, this is not single line.
BTW, you will be surprised when there are tons of way to improve a single line in the net.
@@OC.TINYYY Nope, the game uses Denuvo DRM.
It's on the steam page
@@OC.TINYYY Digital foundry measured the cpu impact of denuvo and it was around 10% if I remember correctly. So doesn't explain the performance of this game fully but does slightly. Regardless, we know many games with denuvo run fine so can't just blame it on that.
Incorrect. No matter WHAT Denuvo does it doesn't limit the amount of threads a game can use - that's on the developer.
So long story short it's the game that's in dire need of optimization no fault of the system.
We need games to be physical-media-only again. Back then when this was the case, games were delivered 100% done and optimized. Plus they weren't anywhere near 70 bucks like nowadays.
Plus they'd naturally fit in 8GB VRAM
True but they looked like shit and were wayyy less detailed than modern games
How you gonna put a 120GB game on a disc?
That’s an absurd thing to say. Plenty of games shipped with issues and there was nothing to be done about it until the era of the “day 1 patch.” And do you really want to pay another $10-15 for the physical storage device needed to store modern games?
Terrible take.
Daniel, if your wife asks - yes of course you need to complete the game to make sure you tested it properly, we as viewers pretty much demand it. So just tell her it's not your fault and is really required when having a yt channel like yours.haha
Frame generation would probably help with cpu botlenecked performance. Is it AMD sponsored title since it doesnt have any dlss implementation? What baffles me have devs suddenly become incompetent with UE4? There is plenty older UE 4 game what ran perfectly fine.
Propably lack of skilled workforce. its really hard for studios to find skilled employees today.
Daniel according to DSOGaming you have to relaunch the game everytime you change a settings including FSR otherwise your GPU will be underutilized not sure if it actually works
they have an article up
its like developers are competing on who can make the worst optimized game.
Damn I was about to order this on steam and the reviews are "mostly negative"
Nah, on my 14900X2d with 9090ti it runs pretty good. Locked 70 fps of course fsr 17.4 is enabled on performance mode. Something ist clearly wrong with your potato.🤷♂
I've managed to find a way to sit above 60fps the entire time, with all settings maxed, RT enabled and FSR set to Quality at 3840x1600, with a 5950X and a 4090 with a couple of changes:
1. I turned off SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading) in Ryzen Master and applied it (computer will reboot when applying the new settings).
2. Do not change the settings in-game, and if you do. Quit the game and re-launch it.
So the first point, I did this because much weaker CPU's on consoles seem to be much more stable when running the game. With the new consoles developers actually get a choice whether to use 8 cores/8 threads with no SMT, or 8 cores/16 threads with SMT (seeing as they're both running AMD CPUs, SMT is basically Hyperthreading on Intel 'performance cores'). From looking at my own and other peoples CPU utilization in-game, I figured Respawn probably went with the 8 cores/8 threads. So my guess is, the game isn't properly optimized to utilize those extra threads per CPU core, and potentially can't tell the difference.
Second point, at the beginning when you're launching the game, it will always 'optimize game files' or whatever it does. So I figured it would be worth seeing what the performance was like without messing with the settings after that point. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to 'optimize' any new changes to the settings you make properly until you reboot the game and it runs again.
Since making these changes, I haven't dropped below 60fps at all. This lasted all the way through the rest of my play through in Coruscant and when I got to Kobo, I've even been hitting around 120fps in some areas. With an average of probably 80 fps. I can see drops where it goes to around 65-70fps when it's loading things in occasionally and then it jumps back up.
Looks like a lot of work performance-wise still needs to be done but at least I've got it running smoothly to where I don't really have to worry about it and can enjoy the game, cause it's actually a banger so far.
Good advice, thanks!
awesome optimization in this game . gpu using 40-50 % of its power GJ developers! bottleneck should be almost nothing with that cpu and 4 k rolfz
amd sponsored game, what do you expect, they made it that they dont choke on RT and that nvidia cant utilize their gpus fully. nasty tactics