Far Cry 6 GPU performance not bad at all but is severely bottlenecked by CPU

[Joxeon]

I don't understand why that's a problem, it means your cpu well exceeds the minimum required spec. If your CPU was locked at 100% then it would be like your cpu is running a benchmark, and you'd more likely end up with stutters lock ups and lag. The CPU is there to deal with general game code, inputs, physics and networking audio, and whatever else. Packing all that so it somehow uses 100 percent of the CPU at all times is nigh on impossible. It's not something I'd personally want and in my opinion if a game is using 100% of your cpu the majority of the time then its doing something wrong somewhere(or your cpu isn't very good).

It's not so much about CPUs running at 100% but rather that the load isn't spread across all the cores and is just utilising a handful which is limiting the latest GPUs as more CPU power is required to feed them, maybe this is the legacy of quad cores being used for so long that devs just optimise the games to run on 4 cores as that's what most of the target audience have.

 

[LtMatt]

What a quote

TPU's even saying the 3080 ran out on cards that sell for ~£1200.

Indeed, almost sig worthy if I didn't already have a good one that is very apt for this thread.

 

[stooeh]

I don't understand why that's a problem, it means your cpu well exceeds the minimum required spec. If your CPU was locked at 100% then it would be like your cpu is running a benchmark, and you'd more likely end up with stutters lock ups and lag. The CPU is there to deal with general game code, inputs, physics and networking audio, and whatever else. Packing all that so it somehow uses 100 percent of the CPU at all times is nigh on impossible. It's not something I'd personally want and in my opinion if a game is using 100% of your cpu the majority of the time then its doing something wrong somewhere(or your cpu isn't very good).

Its referring to one CPU thread being max'd out or close to and subsequently holding the GPU back.

To gives examples my 5800X will be 20-30% usage at times but one thread 90%+ and also tested on a 5820K and its similar with 30-40% overall usage but 95%+ single thread resulting in frame rates in 40s with GPU power to spare.

 

[dualsense1673]

I don't understand why that's a problem, it means your cpu well exceeds the minimum required spec. If your CPU was locked at 100% then it would be like your cpu is running a benchmark, and you'd more likely end up with stutters lock ups and lag. The CPU is there to deal with general game code, inputs, physics and networking audio, and whatever else. Packing all that so it somehow uses 100 percent of the CPU at all times is nigh on impossible. It's not something I'd personally want and in my opinion if a game is using 100% of your cpu the majority of the time then its doing something wrong somewhere(or your cpu isn't very good).

you're inherently wrong, just bcoz cpu is not seen at %100, does not mean it will not create lags and stutters.

this is still a cpu bottleneck, albeit, its a single thread bottleneck. a single thread constantly running at %100 pegged will also create fps problems and stutters. see the old 8 core zen cpus. they struggle in games hugely, even tho cpu usage is like %20-30 in the games they run. bcoz their singular cores are so pegged that the games do suffer

ofc 9900k etc. will handle it better, but its still a bottleneck. just bcoz other cores are hanging around lying with no work, does not mean there's not a bottleneck

its just these stupid games are not high threaded enough

 

[HRL]

IDK why is such a big deal if it goes above 10Gb, no one plays with everything on Ultra at native settings anyway, not even the 3090 owners.

I do. But then I’m happy with 60Hz with RT on.

 

[Poneros]

I actually love the choice they made for RT. Instead of it being a complete transformation of the lighting system ala Metro Exodus, which would've been cool but taken way more time & effort to do, they instead chose to apply it as a "fix" for the weaknesses of rasterization so you get a big boost in terms of clearing up raster-specific artifacts for each technique (shadows, SSR) BUT you only pay a SMALL performance cost as compare to high-end raster techniques which try do to the same (eg PCSS, HFTS etc). This is absolutely a win for everyone and something I hope we'll see more of for these cross-gen titles. The next-gen RT-heavy titles will come too, in time, as they finish up the engine reworks for the new generation, but it was always going to be a 2022+ target.

 

[Calabi]

Ok yeah I forgot about the multi core aspect and if it's only using 1 core at close to 100 percent them that is not great.

 

[Grim5]

I don't understand why that's a problem, it means your cpu well exceeds the minimum required spec. If your CPU was locked at 100% then it would be like your cpu is running a benchmark, and you'd more likely end up with stutters lock ups and lag. The CPU is there to deal with general game code, inputs, physics and networking audio, and whatever else. Packing all that so it somehow uses 100 percent of the CPU at all times is nigh on impossible. It's not something I'd personally want and in my opinion if a game is using 100% of your cpu the majority of the time then its doing something wrong somewhere(or your cpu isn't very good).

It's not the CPU I want running at 100%, I want my GPU to run at 100% instead of 60 to 70%. After checking out task manager, BF2042's problem is that the load is not evenly spread across the CPU, most of the work is sent to 2 cores only and those 2 cores are locked to 100% load while none of the remaining cores are more than 20%.

So both far cry 6 and bf2042 have the same issue, the developer has coded the game engine in a way that it sends almost all work to 1 or 2 cores and those cores cannot do the work fast enough.

 

[mmj_uk]

It's easy to blame the developer but game engines were never well suited to parallel computing, they benefit mostly from increase IPC but as we've been stuck at 3.5-4.5ghz for about 10 years more cores and trying to offload as much as possible is the only option short of dumping x86-64 architecture.

 

[dualsense1673]

look at doom eternal, i heard it can parallize the entire render stuff. it runs at 60 fps on a ps4 since ps4 is a 8 core design. it runs 250+ fps with high end cpus.

it is not impossible; it is possible. id tech proved it is possible. i dont care about much else. devs should evolve and adapt to new cpus. there are now 12-16 core consumer CPUs. 8/16 can be found everywhere. 6/12 is in every gamer's machine almost. console push 8/16.. it needs to happen. ditch the old engine if must be. these performance issues are too much. needing a 5800x and co. for a consistent 60+ fps experience is a huge bummer. imagine having 3700x 8700k and older stuff and get 40-50 fps

 

[stooeh]

It's easy to blame the developer but game engines were never well suited to parallel computing, they benefit mostly from increase IPC but as we've been stuck at 3.5-4.5ghz for about 10 years more cores and trying to offload as much as possible is the only option short of dumping x86-64 architecture.

That maybe true but the last battlefield game is probably one of most well threaded games I have played along with SOTTR so I don't know what they have done to mess it up. DXR may have something to do with it in FC6 as turning it off alleviates it a bit.

 

[dualsense1673]

That maybe true but the last battlefield game is probably one of most well threaded games I have played along with SOTTR so I don't know what they have done to mess it up. DXR may have something to do with it in FC6 as turning it off alleviates it a bit.

yes its weird

bf 5 used all cpu. in 64 player maps. this game uses much less cpu, its weird

funny stuff: bf5 used better cpu in dx11 mode. much higher fps, more smooth.its dx12 mode worked weird and bad. and now bf2042 is dx12 only and... its a stutter fest.

you want more funny stuff? this game runs 45-60 fps on ps4 right now. yeah with 64 player. but thats still impressive. it would be IMPOSSIBLE without some serious multithread work for this game in ANY condition or shape to work at 45-60 fps with 64 player on a ps4 and xbox one console. those consoles are the OPPOSITE end of high speed single core. literally 1.6 ghz tablet chips.

its really crazy how PC ports differ in terms of CPU performance and stuff. put everything to low and u will still get kinda bad cpu performance in this title. so i dont even know what magic or wizardry they pull on old gen consoles

 

[mmj_uk]

That maybe true but the last battlefield game is probably one of most well threaded games I have played along with SOTTR so I don't know what they have done to mess it up. DXR may have something to do with it in FC6 as turning it off alleviates it a bit.

You have to bear in mind though most PC games in recent years are console ports and PS4/Xbox One had 1.6ghz Jaguar cores that wouldn't be out of place in a 2005 PC IPC-wise, whereas PC processors today are not really much faster than what PS5/Xbox One X have core for core. Which means that if a game is designed around PS5/Xbox One X then PC can't just brute force its way to a much highers fps anymore. PC's no longer have processor cores with 10 times higher IPC than consoles.

I'm not a games programmer and maybe it there is an element of developer laziness but I think if it was easy to just split a game engine into a bunch of small threads and spread it equally across x amount of cores you wouldn't be seeing situations like this. The more complex game engines become (physics etc) the more IPC you need but x86-64 processors have hardly budged in 10 years.

 

[gpuerrilla]

You have to bear in mind though most PC games in recent years are console ports and PS4/Xbox One had 1.6ghz Jaguar cores that wouldn't be out of place in a 2005 PC IPC-wise, whereas PC processors today are not really much faster than what PS5/Xbox One X have core for core. Which means that if a game is designed around PS5/Xbox One X then PC can't just brute force its way to a much highers fps anymore. PC's no longer have processor cores with 10 times higher IPC than consoles.

I'm not a games programmer and maybe it there is an element of developer laziness but I think if it was easy to just split a game engine into a bunch of small threads and spread it equally across x amount of cores you wouldn't be seeing situations like this. The more complex game engines become (physics etc) the more IPC you need but x86-64 processors have hardly budged in 10 years.

Quite true. I remember sampling parallel programming when it was in its infancy, I think at the time the core 2 duo was the latest cpu around and what most programmers that commented on the information said was to implement engines that do it properly the style would not generally suit the task. For example a single thread would be perfect for the job most of the time and divvying out the processes to lots of threads would not necessarily co-ordinate efficiently and sometimes fair worse overall. Its certainly not as simple as 'just split the game to use all the available cores' as people make out, but yes there are some games that seem to harness the resources much better.

 

[Calabi]

You have to bear in mind though most PC games in recent years are console ports and PS4/Xbox One had 1.6ghz Jaguar cores that wouldn't be out of place in a 2005 PC IPC-wise, whereas PC processors today are not really much faster than what PS5/Xbox One X have core for core. Which means that if a game is designed around PS5/Xbox One X then PC can't just brute force its way to a much highers fps anymore. PC's no longer have processor cores with 10 times higher IPC than consoles.

I'm not a games programmer and maybe it there is an element of developer laziness but I think if it was easy to just split a game engine into a bunch of small threads and spread it equally across x amount of cores you wouldn't be seeing situations like this. The more complex game engines become (physics etc) the more IPC you need but x86-64 processors have hardly budged in 10 years.

I am a hobbiest game developer and I mess around with multicore programming on a much simpler level than these developers and I know how complicated it can be. You can't just multithread everything, theres limits, you have to have a main thread which limits what your are able to do, the only engine I think I've heard that doesn't have a single main thread is the Doom engine which those developers are basically magicians for doing so and hence why it runs so well, not everyone can do that though. You can even have cases, where multithreading everything doesn't really make things much faster because your having to get data between back from them and there is overhead from creating and managing all those threads, you can end up with race conditions, where data is conflicting between the threads, you have tons of dependency issues, also it is really hard to debug. Only expert programmers can really handle multithreading and even they can struggle with it.

 

[TNA]

It's not the CPU I want running at 100%, I want my GPU to run at 100% instead of 60 to 70%.

Maybe you need to download some VRAM?

 

[Klunt Bumskrint]

Game runs great for me. Uses about 13Gb Vram, Vsync locked at 60fps at 4k with HD pack.

 

[Mesai]

I am a hobbiest game developer and I mess around with multicore programming on a much simpler level than these developers and I know how complicated it can be. You can't just multithread everything, theres limits, you have to have a main thread which limits what your are able to do, the only engine I think I've heard that doesn't have a single main thread is the Doom engine which those developers are basically magicians for doing so and hence why it runs so well, not everyone can do that though. You can even have cases, where multithreading everything doesn't really make things much faster because your having to get data between back from them and there is overhead from creating and managing all those threads, you can end up with race conditions, where data is conflicting between the threads, you have tons of dependency issues, also it is really hard to debug. Only expert programmers can really handle multithreading and even they can struggle with it.

100% on this. Given how rushed modern games are, there's probably very little room in the project plan to implement proper multithreading; instead they'll go with a more safe distribution to 2, maybe 3 cores especially when most modern CPUs can hit relatively high and consistent clocks on a single core.

 

[LtMatt]

Game runs great for me. Uses about 13Gb Vram, Vsync locked at 60fps at 4k with HD pack.

Good to hear. Could you put some footage (5-10mins) up on YouTube showing your settings and experience?

 

[tommybhoy]

Indeed, almost sig worthy if I didn't already have a good one that is very apt for this thread.

At least Tpu never downlplayed cards going in the bin because they suddenly don't work due to vram limitations .

At least TPU held their hands up (and didn't start all sorts of deflecting) but simply stated they got it wrong while pointing out that although Nv are superior all things RT, 10gb is not enough for the horsepower of the 80.

The best bit is Nv knew it wasn't going to be enough through the lifetime of the gpu, they pulled a blinder yet again.

I dare say Nv will 'fix' the game driver side and limit it to 10gb to make it enough.