Grimrock

My first playthrough of LOG2 was on a machine 6+ years old, i7 920 and with a gpu released 2.5 years ago, GTX 660ti. Sure some outdoor scenes dropped to 30~ fps, but the game is perfectly playable. This isn't exactly a first person shooter. I never encountered any timed puzzles that were affected by low framerate and I especially do not consider performance issues to be a bug if you are using old hardware.

Please post your specs. CPU, ram, gpu, PSU, temps at full load

GoldenShadowGS wrote:I never encountered any timed puzzles that were affected by low framerate

There are multiple reports for Log1 and 2, e.g. this one

GoldenShadowGS wrote: and I especially do not consider performance issues to be a bug if you are using old hardware.

Normally me neither, but if a games breaks so many standard PC game expectations (independent resolution rendering, good scaling of engine with GFX options, decoupled rendering & physics engine) & delivers also not on the own defined system requirements & despite often reported, no real progress is seeable patch wise ... yeah, then I get a little bit annoyed & consider the situation a "bug".

badhabit wrote:

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:In context of not enough FPS on systems inside the specification in all situations (outside of dungeons) it becomes a bug, as there are also not enough possibilities in the options to achieve a significant reduction on the computational burden (currently only approx factor 2, the lowest value I had ever in a PC game).

Please define "not enough FPS" if you can.

Last time you talked with petri about this you could not convince him: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8091&p=82389#p82386 and further down

Not stable >60FPS everywhere, which makes timed puzzles excessively/impossible hard by additional lag.

When >60 FPS everywhere is what you really want you need to massively upgrade your hardware.

badhabit wrote:I (or better my machine) could generate the needed FPS if the engine would not generate a excessive number of draw calls of to small calls, creating just heat in the CPU/GPU by overhead.

It's not the game's fault that your now ok CPU (Athlon X2 280) still only has a min-req GPU (HD 5670) to work with.

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote: Not stable >60FPS everywhere, which makes timed puzzles excessively/impossible hard by additional lag.

When >60 FPS everywhere is what you really want you need to massively upgrade your hardware.

Not want, I need it, due to the FPS dependent physics engine. I played other games with fun below 20FPS.

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:I (or better my machine) could generate the needed FPS if the engine would not generate a excessive number of draw calls of to small calls, creating just heat in the CPU/GPU by overhead.

It's not the game's fault that your now ok CPU (Athlon X2 280) still only has a min-req GPU (HD 5670) to work with.

Contrary to AH's "optimal" recommendations of a quad core system, only a hypothetical 7.2GHz CPU system would bring the advertised speed (in my case). The recommended quad core system would bring nothing, as verified also by you, so the recommendations are wrong and false advertisment. (My GPU card is above minimum and even with everything set low I don't achieve suitable FPS everywhere.)

sigh .. let's just have a bit of a comparison

Your CPU (Athlon II X2 280) is a Dual-Core running at 3.6 GHz.
My CPU (i7 950) is a Quad-Core with enabled HyperThreading running at 3.07 GHz.

Now let's assume for a moment that your claim to having a Quad-Core does not matter is correct and in regard to LoG2 we are both effectively running Dual-Cores. According to both CPU core performance ratings shown here(*) my cores are only 6.5% faster then yours giving my effective LoG2-Dual-Core a rather small 13% advantage, maybe a tad more. Not really a huge difference, right?

So the effective difference that remains in our systems is the GPU and here(**) we pit a Radeon HD 5670 vs a GTX 760. I already posted enough screenshots in 1920x1080 running LoG2 with everything maxed and proofed that there is not a single place in the game where my FPS fall below 44. Now with our systems having LoG2-wise almost identical CPU performance where do you think the difference in system performance comes from?

(*) (**) direkt clicking the links does not work due to the brackets involved so use copy'n'paste

Dr.Disaster wrote:sigh .. let's just have a bit of a comparison

Your CPU (Athlon II X2 280) is a Dual-Core running at 3.6 GHz.
My CPU (i7 950) is a Quad-Core with enabled HyperThreading running at 3.07 GHz.

Now let's assume for a moment that your claim to having a Quad-Core does not matter is correct and in regard to LoG2 we are both effectively running Dual-Cores. According to both CPU core performance ratings shown here(*) my cores are only 6.5% faster then yours giving my effective LoG2-Dual-Core a rather small 13% advantage, maybe a tad more. Not really a huge difference, right?

So the effective difference that remains in our systems is the GPU and here(**) we pit a Radeon HD 5670 vs a GTX 760. I already posted enough screenshots in 1920x1080 running LoG2 with everything maxed and proofed that there is not a single place in the game where my FPS fall below 44. Now with our systems having LoG2-wise almost identical CPU performance where do you think the difference in system performance comes from?

(*)

Code: Select all

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1887&cmp[]=837

(**)

Code: Select all

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=28&cmp[]=2561

direkt clicking the links does not work due to the brackets involved so use copy'n'paste

It is well known that Intel CPUs have more performance per clock then AMD CPUs. AMD offers a better price to performance ratio. But this is not relevant here, relevant here is the recommendation from AH, where I'm clockwise way above for the AMD CPU and also above with my GPU card. What is wrong is the recommendation from AH that an quad core CPU would bring a benefit over a dual core CPU. (even the the dual core recomemndation is wrong, looking at my CPU load ~75%... 25% wasted, they should recommend 1.6 core systems)

In case you didn't notice: your HD5670 is only 2-3% faster then the AH min-req GPU HD4850. Also i am comparing your system to mine, not our systems towards LoG2 requirements. Our CPU cores are almost on par although yours is running with over half a GHz faster but your GPU is weak and this is what you are not willing to accept.

Dr.Disaster wrote:In case you didn't notice: your HD5670 is only 2-3% faster then the AH min-req GPU HD4850.

Code: Select all

http://videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=28&cmp[]=24

Also i am comparing your system to mine, not our systems towards LoG2 requirements. Our CPU cores are almost on par although yours is running with over half a GHz faster but your GPU is weak and this is what you are not willing to accept.

Lol. I'm beyond the age for defining myself over PC performance contests, please look for someone else to compare your system.

But I'm not out of age for being angry about bad software design & bugs and misleading customer specifications! Please, AH, fix the most annoying aspects of the engine, you had already time enough.

It's pretty unlikely that AH will buy you better hardware.

Dr.Disaster wrote:It's pretty unlikely that AH will buy you better hardware.

Yes, but it hope I will get Petri on his developer pride and he will finally fix the engine / options.