ADVANCED Limit Frame Rate is at least 30 if not ideally 60 Hz like >90% use today.
Though I admit even after ensuring both were 60, I still often notice frame rates <30 FPS. Which really has me guessing what did they do cause it never occurred prior to MOD 14?
I also never used to have set in MOD 13 Framerate stabilizer OR Auto-stabilize framerate set to ON and still NEVER had a problem. Yet since MOD 14 I've turned both ON and still *sometimes* seeing issues? Why I said I'm 'guessing' what did they do?
Though I admit even after ensuring both were 60, I still often notice frame rates <30 FPS. Which really has me guessing what did they do cause it never occurred prior to MOD 14? </p>
That's odd because, in every zone I have been in, since module 14, my frame rate is 20-30% higher than before module 14, except Barovia which did not exist prior to module 14. Thanks to the higher and smoother frame rate, I enjoy playing Neverwinter more than ever before. Previously, my frame rate in Port Nyanzaru was often slightly below 30, but now my frame rate is usually slightly above 30 in Port Nyanzaru. Not a huge improvement, but still a welcome improvement.
Cryptic should not waste time optimizing their game for dual core cpu's with 4GB or less ram, and 1 GB or less vram, when consoles have 8 core cpu's and 8 GB of shared ram/vram.
Seems to me, module 14 is optimized more for consoles than for PC, and that is probably a wise decision. On the preview server forum, during module 14 development, it was mentioned more than once that some PC's had problems running module 14 but no comment from Cryptic developers, so don't expect Cryptic to do anything about this.
If Cryptic were to revert the changes back to before module 14, then I would loudly object to that. But that's very unlikely in my opinion because that might cause serious problems with the Barovia map.
Though I admit even after ensuring both were 60, I still often notice frame rates <30 FPS. Which really has me guessing what did they do cause it never occurred prior to MOD 14? </p>
That's odd because, in every zone I have been in, since module 14, my frame rate is 20-30% higher than before module 14, except Barovia which did not exist prior to module 14. Thanks to the higher and smoother frame rate, I enjoy playing Neverwinter more than ever before. Previously, my frame rate in Port Nyanzaru was often slightly below 30, but now my frame rate is usually slightly above 30 in Port Nyanzaru. Not a huge improvement, but still a welcome improvement.
Cryptic should not waste time optimizing their game for dual core cpu's with 4GB or less ram, and 1 GB or less vram, when consoles have 8 core cpu's and 8 GB of shared ram/vram.
Seems to me, module 14 is optimized more for consoles than for PC, and that is probably a wise decision. On the preview server forum, during module 14 development, it was mentioned more than once that some PC's had problems running module 14 but no comment from Cryptic developers, so don't expect Cryptic to do anything about this.
If Cryptic were to revert the changes back to before module 14, then I would loudly object to that. But that's very unlikely in my opinion because that might cause serious problems with the Barovia map.
This should be *well* above & beyond the Minimum requirements: Intel Core i7 CPU that shows 4 Core's each with virtualization (8 Processor's showing @3.07 GHz) with 12 GB of Ram EVGA NVidia 1050 Ti SC Video Card with 4 GB running Windows 10 with 64 bit OS.
I shouldn't be seeing frame rates suddenly drop to <30 FPS at times since MOD 14. I used to always clearly see 60 FPS or at least where most things appeared seemless in their transitions. There was no problem while MOD 13 was still in effect and I've in fact had settings at 60 FPS for several YEARS.
So I'm honestly puzzled despite your earlier claims, that you were running a powerful computer, yet were only seeing *slightly below* 30 frames per second, and now only slightly above?
I mean I have a Intel Core i7 Quad-core i7-950 3.06GHz Processor.
I shouldn't be seeing frame rates suddenly drop to <30 FPS at times since MOD 14. I used to always clearly see 60 FPS no problem while MOD 13 was still here. </p>
Your ram is probably DDR3 800? That is old and slow.
Both You and pedro2908926 need to buy a new modern PC with modern DDR4 ram.
Did you disable Spectre and meltdown patches?? The patches for spectre and meltdown can reduce cpu performance.
This utility will disable Meltdown and Spectre protection. I used it. It works. If there is no improvement, then re-enable protection. On my PC, the fps improved by approximately 10%. https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm
I changed to 32bits and the performance is a lot better now.
This. How could i miss this obvious option. Memory usage is definetely lower than 64bit. for me, now it's running at 1 - 1.3 GB. I think using 32bit client should be recommended to be used at low spec devices and cryptic should give some note on the option window.
0
arcanjo86Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,093Arc User
Have you checked if you run the 64-bit or 32-bit client? They changed that not long before mod 14 to use 64-bit by default
yeah im using 64bit client, its a lil better then 32bit but my problem with FPS is on combats (rarely in populated crowds) most on my cw when im casting skills, my FPS start to drop very fast when casting skill, but i've seen that on my other characters that issue rarely happen (it happens, but less often then on my cw), and when starts to patching my game freeze for a few seconds. (on-demand is disabled, but it keeps patching anyway).
edit: looks like the client is trying to render the skills and it makes my FPS drop, im probably talking HAMSTER but who knows? lol
isnt that a feature for preview server only? mine doesnt have it on the option menu, im using steam version.
I'm using the standalone version and it works on the play server. I used it to get rid of the sound bug in CODG where the sound sometimes disappeared if you used the 64-bit version.
Maybe there's a command line option to select the 32-bit version under steam
I mean I have a Intel Core i7 Quad-core i7-950 3.06GHz Processor.
I shouldn't be seeing frame rates suddenly drop to <30 FPS at times since MOD 14. I used to always clearly see 60 FPS no problem while MOD 13 was still here. </p>
Your ram is probably DDR3 800? That is old and slow.
Both You and pedro2908926 need to buy a new modern PC with modern DDR4 ram.
Did you disable Spectre and meltdown patches?? The patches for spectre and meltdown can reduce cpu performance.
This utility will disable Meltdown and Spectre protection. I used it. It works. If there is no improvement, then re-enable protection. On my PC, the fps improved by approximately 10%. https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm
If you think they need a "new modern pc with DDR4 ram", by all means send them the money to buy one. This is not a helpful comment, nor a realistic way to help them to reduce the issues they are having.
I mean I have a Intel Core i7 Quad-core i7-950 3.06GHz Processor.
I shouldn't be seeing frame rates suddenly drop to <30 FPS at times since MOD 14. I used to always clearly see 60 FPS no problem while MOD 13 was still here. </p>
Your ram is probably DDR3 800? That is old and slow.
Both You and pedro2908926 need to buy a new modern PC with modern DDR4 ram.
Did you disable Spectre and meltdown patches?? The patches for spectre and meltdown can reduce cpu performance.
This utility will disable Meltdown and Spectre protection. I used it. It works. If there is no improvement, then re-enable protection. On my PC, the fps improved by approximately 10%. https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm
If you think they need a "new modern pc with DDR4 ram", by all means send them the money to buy one. This is not a helpful comment, nor a realistic way to help them to reduce the issues they are having.
Yea thanks for your words of wisdom. I mean the PC is still quite powerful and to the contrary does multi core fine - as this technology has been around coming over a decade. It's just Neverwinter that's only recently gotten to X64 or multicore in the last 2-3 months.
Sure I mean DD4 is going to be faster than DD3 but still - none of the FPS issues occurred in MOD 13. Also I have 12 GB of Ram which is 2x more than many who run the game currently. Also those who have also noticed the issues, some have newer CPU's not as powerful as the i7-950 with the Intel Extreme Board. I mean I see in Windows 10 64 bit Device Manager the CPU listed 8 (Eight) times as i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07 Processor's; with a total CPU Utilization while playing even with IE and other programs at BEST 3-7% typically-- My goodness greatly underpowered? I bet several newer CPU's often use more than that.
DD4 I admit may be faster but DD3 should easily run the game requirements FINE. Also my Graphic's card uses DDR5 Memory if you want to be specific. Despite you claiming to previously having run at less than 30 FPS, and now only often run slight above 30 frames per second, I've always run far closer to 60 with no problems what so ever until now. Which is strange give my computer is older, than you brand new high performance machine?
I mean in MOD 13 the game ran FINE with none of these FPS issues. Also when I use /fpsgraph 1 I'm always seeing extreme low blues except slightly higher if Auto-stablize or Framerate stabilizer is both set to ON. Previously in Mod 13 both were OFF and I never even saw those issues.
I've since turned both Auto-stabilize & Framerate stabilizer to ON - yet still the problem often occurs; while in MOD 13 with both OFF I never saw that!
Example: Just noticed running thru fence posts near the farm in Barovia the posts wouldn't even make the 3-5 blockier transitions when falling off -- they'd just disapear and that's worse than I'd see if Limited Frame Rate to 30. If I set it at 30 down from 60 I always see 3-5 blocky transitions when walking thru fence posts; yet even then I don't just see them disappear. It's like the GAME doesn't realize what Frame Rate it should be rendering at somehow?
I mean 75-90% of the time despite my Limit Frame Rate being set at 60; it seems to display 60 'most' of the time perfectly fine. But then clearly at others it's like it decides to start (sometimes for brief periods) like it's rendering <30 FPS or worse. These effects seems to come and go and at least 90% of the time they do look to be 60 FPS; yet as I say now I'm playing the game with /fpsgraph 1 always turned on and the graph shows everything in the very low blues 97% of the time. Yet when fence posts start dispearing, or looking like I had limited Frame Rate to 30 FPS with 3-5 blockier transitions rather than the seemless transition I usually see -- something is up. I've also noticed at times many Daily's, Encounters, or At-wils often have several .15-.25s pauses as FX are rendering.
Yet now I'll be running with /fpsgraph 1 set to on to make any more notes if the low blue's show any yellow or red bars higher up even if briefly when this occurs in future. But 97% of the time I'm always seeing very low blues while set at 60 FPS? This just as Pedro the THREAD author stated only started in MOD 14, I mean my computer is perhaps a little or a lot more powerful, but just like him this only started in MOD 14.
pedro2908926 started this discussion. The discussion is about "FPS drop issue", not about every problem you have. Rending problem is a separate issue. Just because your cpu has the name "core i7" does not mean it is a good cpu.
I greatly appreciate the cpu/ram/vram usage increase in module 14, and anyone who posts in this thread with an old PC, complaining about FPS issues or stuttering/freezing or anything like that, will get a response from me. I will not be silent while anyone asks for a rollback on the cpu/ram/vram performance enhancements implemented in module 14.
core i7 950 was launched in 2009. Your cpu is a first (or second) generation core i cpu and it's weak. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-950 Your motherboard is almost certainly, very outdated, compared to modern motherboards. Good luck never replacing your motherboard, cpu, and ram. I can only imagine other problems you might have with your old PC.
If you think that other thread relates to your problem, then it seems more appropriate to post over there.
If you think they need a "new modern pc with DDR4 ram", by all means send them the money to buy one. This is not a helpful comment, nor a realistic way to help them to reduce the issues they are having.
My comment is very helpful but your comment is useless. A new PC would solve all these problems. It is a very realistic solution. If these people wanted help "to reduce issues", they should ask for help in the technical forum, not in the bug forum. These "issues" are not a bug. These issues are a hardware problem.
You are indeed going to get a lot of hate from a lot of people if you carry on like that, I run at 60FPS almost everywhere on an older PC than that (win 7, i5, although I do have a more modern GPU after the old one blew) with most of the settings at reasonable levels. Not everybody has the money for a new PC and saying that like they do is not constructive, I'm part of 3 guilds and a substantial number of the people can't just buy a new PC and have spent time out of the game until they could say afford to buy a new graphics card to replace the one that had blown up. We had one person who thought she was going to be forced out of the game by the requirement to use the new version of DirectX for example.
The issue IS plainly one of 3 things:
a bug/memory leak a fault on the PC an uncommunicated change in minimum required requirements
The second can be checked with benchmarking and other games, the first and third are reasonable questions.
Yea I typically replace my video card every 3 years and updated mine to a EVGA NVidia 1050 Ti SC 4GB.
Still things worked fine up until MOD 14 on June 26th; then I've seen several others in these forums and other external forums be it Reddit or others... talking about FPS (Frame Rare) or other FX related apparent issues since MOD 14.
Strangely enough even when I notice the Frame Rate of (some) not all FX pause .15-.25s or seem more choppy/blockier - transitions my /fpsgraph 1 still often shows extremely low blue bar's.
DISPLAY: Full Screen resolution 1920x1200 Fullscreen refresh rate 60 Hz Aspect Ratio Widescreen 16:10 Antialising MSAA 8x (find it looks better than all the others - including FXAA)
GRAPHICS: Max to ALL.
ADVANCED: Framerate stabilizer ON Auto-stabilize framerate ON
Part of me wonder's if something is forgetting either the display refresh or framerate settings. Cause at times it appears to drop some FX to <30 FPS for short or sometimes extended period's before then mostly returning to normal.
Yet you seem to MISS the part where I suggest there could be a BUG in the form of a memory leak; or something that could be the cause that needs to be corrected. Cause the fact it works most of the time but not ALL the time seems like a clear BUG.
Still the FPS for me can often RENDER prefectly FINE, it's why I wonder if it's a memory leak? My friend who has a new computer and one of the best Video Card's on the market with 8GB; unlike mine which has 4GB which is still perfectly adequate also notices while in River District many times the Ritual Sites aren't always rendering where the Boss is inside. Sometimes he only see's the Bubble or nothing at all just like me. Yet in Mod 13 I always saw the Ritual Sites and never had any of the FPS issue either. I mean running /fpsgraph 1 I'm almost always very low blues even while the Frame Rate on some Daily, Encounters, At-Wils has momentary pauses or hiccups.
Your PC has 12 GB of ram and 4 GB of vram. If there were a memory leak, your PC would be one of the last to be affected. My PC only has 8 GB of ram and 2 GB vram, but I do not experience "momentary pauses or hiccups" as you mentioned because my cpu/motherboard/ram is 2017 (Intel Kaby Lake/DDR4 2400MHZ CL14/Sata III SSD) technology, not 2009 intel technology.
Possible causes of "momentary pauses or hiccups": Poor cpu performance (due to 2009 cpu), poor ram performance (due to old,slow DDR3 ram), poor motherboard performance (due to old,slow intel chipset), poor HDD/SDD performance (due to old,slow chipset or due to old, slow drive).
Your PC was good enough for module 13, but the cpu/ram/vram usage enchancements in module 14 mean that your cpu/motherboard/ram/etc. may no longer be adequate. Cryptic won't tell you this, but I will.
If there were an actual "bug", then lots and lots of players would be affected, not only players with dual-core cpu's, not only players with low amounts of ram/vram, not only players with old PC hardware. I would be affected too but I am not affected. If you want help to optimize the performance of your PC, then list complete hardware specs, including ram/motherboard/drive/etc.
Updating drivers, updating bios, or fresh windows install could possibly help, but maybe not. Make sure your ram is configured for triple channel, not for single/dual channel. If possible, overclock cpu, overclock ram (or lower timings), and/or check bios to see if settings are configured for optimal performance.
Again - Your speculating on what your certain is the cause, I didn't claim it was a memory leak, just one possibly in how the Graphic card itself is handling it. While many friends even with brand new systems, in River District the Ritual Sites often are disappearing; that never used to happen in Mod 13. Changing the viewing angle can sometimes cause them to refresh at least for a little while. I'm not sure why it's mostly just the rituals sites that are frequently disappearing, and I don't want to over complicate too many issues all at once.
It's why I'm focused on (sometimes) seeing FPS drop <30. Cause if I run through fence posts when I set ADVANCED tab to 30 Frames they ALWAYS appear choppy and blocky in their transitions. Yet I've always for 5 years always run at 60 FPS with no issues. Yet for while set at 60 FPS it looks just like I had set it at 30 FPS; as Fence Post appear choppy / blocky falling off. I've also identified sometimes ¼ (25%) or less can see .15-.25s pauses in rendering of various VFX like Daily's, Encounters, or At-Wils. This occurs even after setting Framerate-stabilization & Auto-framerate stabilization, despite never having turned those on in MOD 13 and never noticed a problem. Also with /fpsgraph 1 enabled I'm regularly seeing very low blue bars even while the FPS on Fence Posts appears <30 and Choppy which is what's particularly confusing.
Realize if CPU performance were the issue: CPU load would be >40% and might be an indication to upgrade!
My Goodness: CPU/RAM/VRAM usage requirements may no longer be adequate? I've identified on multiple occasions a 3-7% CPU load, also lots of available Memory, and GPU load typically of 20% on a 4GB DDR5 Ram New Video Card while playing the game though it can spike slightly. Windows also doesn't report on the Graphic Card Memory utilization within task manager, or what if any graphic issues are encountered without specific diagnostics. Still I prefer to withhold speculating mostly, and rather stick to describing what I'm in fact seeing. Realize there are some more advanced diagnostic tools I could utilize; yet I wait until asked to provide them.
Yes Ram is also installed in proper channel banks for optimize usage -- thank you. At least this is trying to be constructive - but as I told you I worked in Technology/Telecom for 20+ years.
While I have in the past seen people identifying workarounds, or possible solutions to try and fix things, your approach has been different--not always coming across as helpful. Let others focus on describing what things their seeing if they are having problems; in hopes Cryptic may identify a possible cause and may hopefully find a resolution. But try not to confuse the issue for people who are simply trying to despite what they've seeing.
But I do admit it is helpful when you noted that others reported some similar if not slightly different issues in PREVIEW with Mod 14. Still I'd rather try to keep to a friendly tone in hopes maybe a FIX is possible, in fact its possible a FIX might actually improve your performance as well.
Your PC was good enough for module 13, but the cpu/ram/vram usage enchancements in module 14 mean that your cpu/motherboard/ram/etc. may no longer be adequate. Cryptic won't tell you this, but I will.
You're hitting the core of the problem. If Mod 14 is indeed more ressource-dependant and need a more powerful material than Mod 13, then Cryptic should update their minimum requirements. If this is true, the fact that they didn't change anything on requirements needed leads logically to threads like this.
I too have big fps drops issues since Mod 14, and my PC didn't change a bit between M13 and M14. So what can explain this kind of VERY problematic problems, that I'm not the only one to have? Not a lot of things: - My PC is not powerful enough to run the game any smoother than previously. But that means the game requirements are much bigger than they were, and it's not listed anywhere. If it's the case, we players should have been informed of that. - There is a problem somewhere in the game. Bad optimization, some graphic effects that cause drop issue with M14 patch, something.
It's legitimate to ask for an official answer on this, and not only on a "Buy a new PC it'll get smoother". There IS a problem, for several people, the question is what is it really?
If the requirements have changed, and peoples' old computers are not supposed to be able to play NW any more, like with the DirectX change, then it should be communicated in advance and normally is.
This was reported on the preview forums soon after module 14 launched on preview server. That was a few months ago. No comment from the devs. I don't care whether or not the devs make an annoucement regarding these changes. I am very much against undoing these changes.
its funny how a bug from on demand patching who cant be disabled and create allot of spikes and huge loading screens who its a game bug u need now a better pc to play game
Yea I admit I've reported that in STO for 2-4 months, though it only started in Neverwinter with MOD 14. I find it doesn't adversely even EFFECT my performance all that much - yet it's still extremely annoying. It doesn't even TRANSFER any files cause the game for me is always FULLY patched - but yet it does often take 1-3 seconds at least to sometimes confirm all the 17 or files indeed aren't required.
So it would be very NICE if they got it working how it used to. But they always have A LOT to work or and so it comes down to priorities. So hopefully that and the other issue above may hopefully be fixed in the near future...
Still having the patching even when i have the patch on demand option disable, i think the it's not intendend and the game is having huge performance issues. Patch after patch and they haven't a solution for this.
Seems a little bitter or miserable in his approach. I just wish he was at least OPEN to the possibly so it wouldn't DESTROY the performance he enjoys; but that we might also see ours improve.
I mean the higher requirements haven't impacting my RAM / Memory utilization / CPU / GPU load that significantly....
The reason for increased frame rate is, in my opinion, mainly due to increased cpu multi-threading. Before module 14, the game used two cpu cores, and rarely more. Since module 14, based on the numbers I see in-game, this game now uses two cpu cores almost constantly, and often three. The increased multi-threading is too much for a dual-core cpu to handle which results in stuttering and freezing.
If Cryptic were to make this game run smooth on dual-core cpu's again, they would have to decrease multi-threading, and that's a step in the wrong direction.
Think about this .... in order for Cryptic to support old dual-core cpu's and old hardware, they would need to have such hardware available for testing. They might not even have a dual-core cpu in their office. They could simulate one by disabling some cores, but that's not quite the same thing as testing on an actual core2duo.
If someone wants to talk about solutions, we can talk about solutions. Or you can wait ..... possibly forever.
Think about this .... in order for Cryptic to support old dual-core cpu's and old hardware, they would need to have such hardware available for testing. They might not even have a dual-core cpu in their office. They could simulate one by disabling some cores, but that's not quite the same thing as testing on an actual core2duo.
My i5-5300U is dual core, and it's only 2 years old. Dual core hardware's not that hard to find. And as a data point, I tried the 32 bit version of the game, and found it seemed to perform better.
Seems a little bitter or miserable in his approach. I just wish he was at least OPEN to the possibly so it wouldn't DESTROY the performance he enjoys; but that we might also see ours improve.
I mean the higher requirements haven't impacting my RAM / Memory utilization / CPU / GPU load that significantly....
The reason for increased frame rate is, in my opinion, mainly due to increased cpu multi-threading. Before module 14, the game used two cpu cores, and rarely more. Since module 14, based on the numbers I see in-game, this game now uses two cpu cores almost constantly, and often three. The increased multi-threading is too much for a dual-core cpu to handle which results in stuttering and freezing.
If Cryptic were to make this game run smooth on dual-core cpu's again, they would have to decrease multi-threading, and that's a step in the wrong direction.
Think about this .... in order for Cryptic to support old dual-core cpu's and old hardware, they would need to have such hardware available for testing. They might not even have a dual-core cpu in their office. They could simulate one by disabling some cores, but that's not quite the same thing as testing on an actual core2duo.
If someone wants to talk about solutions, we can talk about solutions. Or you can wait ..... possibly forever.
Well as I denoted I have a total of 4 cores (4) threads.
Yet unlike your claims (while Ignorant•lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing; as I'll forgo the •informal - discourteous or rude.) isn't the difference between 32 & 64 applications running on a 64 bit OS.
Any software that supports parrallel computing / applications should be fully capable of recognizing the available cores from the OS; then determine how to best utilize them to reach optimum system performance resulting in more efficient utilization. If your system is a 64 bit architecture (chip/cpu) you should see IMPROVED performance on 64 bit applications not the other way around. In fact you REQUIRE the 64 bit Operating system to even RUN on 64 bit PROCESSORS as Microsoft denotes below. 64 bit chip's have been around since 1964 when IBM first created the very first one; it's however only in the mid 2000's we saw added to Home computers; a result of the 3.6 GB theoretical maximum of 32 byte-addressable memory. FACTS not conjecture, or misunderstandings, about how Technology actually works.
"Which version of Windows should I install: the 32-bit version or the 64-bit version?
To install a 64-bit version of Windows, you need (REQUIRE) a CPU that's capable of running a 64-bit version of Windows. The benefits of using a 64-bit operating system are most apparent when you have a large amount of random access memory (RAM) installed on your computer, typically 4 GB of RAM or more. In such cases, because a 64-bit operating system can handle large amounts of memory more efficiently than a 32-bit operating system, a 64-bit system can be more responsive when running several programs at the same time and switching between them frequently."
"lp231 said: Supports both 32 and 64bit". -- "Wrong. Dual-core doesn't necessarily mean that it supports 32 AND 64 bit. There were plenty of dual-core processors that were 32-bit only (the old Core Duo series for example, before Core 2 Duo)."
In fact I'll add to that: As the 64 bit Operating system only supports 32 bit support thru WOW64 which emulates 32-bit Windows. But many in technology would likely realize that. The fact Cryptic has only recently launched a 64 bit application; while it's a huge milestone for them, it also may require improvements to parallel processing. Though realize this could also likely effect both the 32 &/or 64 bit application. Cause MOD 13 used to support 64 bit parallel processing; but somehow has seen performance degrade (at times) for some. This should NOT be the case.
▪ In fact there's no reason why majority of these CPU's or at least the TOP >75%++ can't still fully supported 32 or 64 bit application requirements while running on a 64 bit architecture / OS as everyone in this thread is likely doing.
While sangrine is confused about many things - I do admire his tenacity - still I largely suspect this is likely a BUG that started with MOD 14 mostly in the 64 bit version of software; as swamarian correctly denoted his i5 which was only released in January of 2015 is a Dual Core and does not support (2) or (4) virtualized Cores either. Still it should easily meet application requirements.
This is NOT an issue unlike what (someone) above claiming it is as a result of the # of Cores (Dual, or Multicore) or even the Number of Threads the Chip support as almost all Chips support virtualization of twice as many threads.
Operating System Windows® Vista, 7, 8 or 10 CPU Core 2 Duo 2.8Ghz (or equivalent AMD CPU) RAM 2GB (minimum) : thought it will place a higher demand on disk swapping (virtual memory).
---
This is STILL a bug likely with the 64 bit client still needing some tweak's to better and more FULLY support what those in the industry like myself or 20+ years call parallel computer - ability for a OS/Application to jointly recognize and utilize the available cores within the OS to share or more efficiently utilize CPU performance.
"The instructions are ordinary CPU instructions (such as add, move data, and branch) but the single processor can run multiple instructions on separate cores at the same time, increasing overall speed for programs amenable to parallel computing."
"The improvement in performance gained by the use of a multi-core processor depends very much on the software algorithms used and their implementation... ...Most applications, however, are not accelerated so much unless programmers invest a prohibitive amount of effort in re-factoring the whole problem.[3] The parallelization of software is a significant ongoing topic of research."
As I've denoted my system has 4 cores with 4 threads or a total of 8 cores. My system also has 12 GB of Ram. And my Video Card is EVGA NVidia 1050 Ti SC 4GB DDR5; and Graphics are listed cause higher off board Graphics cards will render only higher graphics.
Two others in this thread have Dual Core systems one sold as recent as 2016; don't even support CPU threads. Still the fact remains the 64 bit application (only released 3-4 months ago) likely needs some enhancements to better determine and more fully utilize the each individual systems available resources so performance improves not is made worse. Mod 13 had 64 bit support and those issues didn't effect it; and that does not mean correcting the issues since MOD 14 should equally mean a performance decrease for others either.
One thing to note is that 3D graphic programs and games do not benefit much, if at all, from switching to a 64-bit computer, unless the program is a 64-bit program. A 32-bit processor is adequate for any program written for a 32-bit processor. In the case of computer games, you'll get a lot more performance by upgrading the video card instead of getting a 64-bit processor.
I just wish some (one individual) would TRY to inspire a little more HOPE in how he approaches things on the forum; rather than fulfilling both definitions of the aforementioned word above. I only continue to actively try and encourage those with better behaviors to demonstrate them more; and while we can sometimes point out those we don't appreciate. I still even try to at least be kind or respectful to everyone.
Still an official note from Cryptic might perhaps help shed light on the situation.
My i5-5300U is dual core, and it's only 2 years old. Dual core hardware's not that hard to find. And as a data point, I tried the 32 bit version of the game, and found it seemed to perform better.
If the system doesn't have more than two core's then it certainly can't use what it doesn't have; so it should support what it has. Most applications that support MULTITHREADING have for YEARS be able to determine if their were Two, Four, or even Eight or more Core's and determine correctly how to utilize the SYSTEMS available resources.
I don't know any PC games that analyze the cpu, and run different code (with different degrees of multi-threading) depending on the number of cpu cores. Cryptic already decided to stop supporting dx9. You are dreaming if you think Cryptic will, after 5 years since this game launched, suddenly decide to support different code for different cpu's.
My i5-5300U is dual core, and it's only 2 years old. Dual core hardware's not that hard to find. And as a data point, I tried the 32 bit version of the game, and found it seemed to perform better.
without hyperthreading, you would have serious problems.
True. But likely every person in this thread, has full support for Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology. At least almost every Dual or Quad Core Chip does; in fact it came about in some single core chip's first. And little to nothing has changed how it's been implemented every since.
If the system doesn't have more than two core's then it certainly can't use what it doesn't have; so it should support what it has. Most applications that support MULTITHREADING have for YEARS be able to determine if their were Two, Four, or even Eight or more Core's and determine correctly how to utilize the SYSTEMS available resources.
I don't know any PC games that analyze the cpu, and run different code (with different degrees of multi-threading) depending on the number of cpu cores. Cryptic already decided to stop supporting dx9. You are dreaming if you think Cryptic will, after 5 years since this game launched, suddenly decide to support different code for different cpu's.
Yes Sangrine while above I started by opening with, "Any software that supports multicore or parallel computing &/or applications should be fully capable of recognizing the available cores from the OS". Still I likely realized you'd likely want more so I later remove what you identified above, as I decided to more fully explain things in the above message more towards the bottom.
The OS handles Dual or Multi Core support and makes all those resources available not only to the OS but also any applications that support multi cores or parallel computing. That's why I still included that in the opening part of the above message. Though while swamarian identified which you previously claimed people would require a Quad Core processor (which I have) and even supports (4) Threads or (8) recognized cores by the Operating System; still the other person had a new Dual Core that supports (0) Virtualized threads. Still he purchased his Processor in early 2016 and as I've always stated both should easily fully run this application. You'll gain far more performance improvements by upgrading your Video Card than your CPU. Both this and even the original author's computer also fully support Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology; and that hasn't even changed since it was first designed. As far as Intel Turbo Boost technology is concerned they've ever only made 1 (minor) revision to even it since introduced. AMD does NOT even use either of those technologies, instead preferring to run more cores/threads.
Still all CPU's identified in this thread support at least Intel Turbo Boost technology 1.0 which really only activates during high CPU load to potentially see a 12.5-25% performance improvement; while those running Intel Turbo Boost technology 2.0 may see a 15-30% improvement. Still the % gain's as all things will be higher for those processor's capable of more sure.
"Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 accelerates processor and graphics performance for peak loads, automatically allowing processor cores to run faster than the rated operating frequency if they’re operating below power, current, and temperature specification limits."
But as I've denoted my CPU utilization is often 3-7%; often somewhere in the middle. So the Hyper Threading or Turbo Boost isn't what is causing any of these issues either. Also that also doesn't explain why swamarian claims to see his game run better on a 64 bit Operating System; using Windows WOW64 support to emulate 32 Bit Operating System within a 32 bit application! Despite you claiming he's just lucky he has Intel Hyperthreading which all Dual or Multicore Intel Chip's have that support.
- If you go into Windows Device Manage, it lists all the cores available and recognized by the Operating System, however it's the applications that independently choose to support or utilize multithreading &/or parallel processing. My goodness Adobe Photoshop in CS3 only supported single threaded applications before extending future versions to parallel processing as it's more commonly referred to as. The application however is responsible for choosing how the algorithms work or deciding when, or how, it decides to run various tasks in parallel processes - depending upon how much inter communication is required between the various tasks.
It's also why some applications in a Network environment "Load Balancing" sometimes works well behind Network Routers &/or Application Load Balancers. If something simply requires lots of reads based on static or rarely updated information it works fantastic - yet if you require constant synchronization of the data/records for the application to make the correct decision sometimes the two have to remain in constant synchronization and sometimes that results in slower performance even load balancing the application cause the gains are offset by the need to stay in synchronization. It's why the application or people in Software Engineering/IT/Telecom generally know where best to use what features or methods to improve performance to obtain optimum performance.
"The improvement in performance gained by the use of a multi-core processor depends very much on the software algorithms used and their implementation... ...Most applications, however, are not accelerated so much unless programmers invest a prohibitive amount of effort in re-factoring the whole problem.[3] The parallelization of software is a significant ongoing topic of research."
Still improving performance for us does not have to mean it will result in lower performance for you. It may also have nothing to even do with multicore support as I denoted my CPU load is 3-7% typically at best. It could be driver issues or any number of things which is why I've stated what drivers I'm using.
Post edited by strathkin on
0
kreatyveMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 10,545Community Moderator
Thread has been cleaned up. Please do not insult your fellow gamers who are only trying to help. Further flaming my lead to closure of the thread.
My opinions are my own. I do not work for PWE or Cryptic. - Forum Rules - Protector's Enclave Discord - I play on Xbox Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official. Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
OK, I'm going to address items from a bunch of posts, so I won't be quoting them. Threaded software: If it's using thread pools, or a variable number of threads, the software might care about the number of logical processors on a computer. If it's using a set number of threads, then it won't care. I was writing multithreaded software in the 90s for single processor computers, and getting decent performance increases. (The CPU isn't your only bottleneck. We got noticeable network improvement by moving the net code into its own thread. I've also gotten 3x throughput for an app that processed data from a database using threads, and almost all of the performance increase was better I/O handling.) Processors: 1 hyperthreaded processor is roughly 1.5 logical processors, for performance. Also, turbo boost may not be available on all machines. My processor supports it, but I have it disabled. Neverwinter (or just about any game) drives the processor hard, so on my system, it'll eventually overheat and shut down. (I play on a docked laptop, with dual screens.) 32x64 bit code: In general, 32 bit code's faster than 64 bit code, because 64 bit pointers are twice as large, requiring more memory bandwidth. X64 processors compensate by having more general purpose registers, which is more efficient, if your code uses them. X64 also requires better floating point support from the processor, but that's a bit of a wash these days. The Unreal engine went 64 bit early, because while the games remained 32 bit, the tools went 64 bit to support more memory. (In general 32 bit apps can only address 2 Gigabytes of memory. The app has to be specially marked to indicate that it'll use more.)
OK, I'm going to address items from a bunch of posts, so I won't be quoting them. Threaded software: If it's using thread pools, or a variable number of threads, the software might care about the number of logical processors on a computer. If it's using a set number of threads, then it won't care. I was writing multithreaded software in the 90s for single processor computers, and getting decent performance increases. (The CPU isn't your only bottleneck. We got noticeable network improvement by moving the net code into its own thread. I've also gotten 3x throughput for an app that processed data from a database using threads, and almost all of the performance increase was better I/O handling.) Processors: 1 hyperthreaded processor is roughly 1.5 logical processors, for performance. Also, turbo boost may not be available on all machines. My processor supports it, but I have it disabled. Neverwinter (or just about any game) drives the processor hard, so on my system, it'll eventually overheat and shut down. (I play on a docked laptop, with dual screens.) 32x64 bit code: In general, 32 bit code's faster than 64 bit code, because 64 bit pointers are twice as large, requiring more memory bandwidth. X64 processors compensate by having more general purpose registers, which is more efficient, if your code uses them. X64 also requires better floating point support from the processor, but that's a bit of a wash these days. The Unreal engine went 64 bit early, because while the games remained 32 bit, the tools went 64 bit to support more memory. (In general 32 bit apps can only address 2 Gigabytes of memory. The app has to be specially marked to indicate that it'll use more.)
Yea I agree swamarian I still am not convinced this has anything to do with Dual / Multi-core or Hyperthreading issues either. I mean my CPU load which I've claimed is 3-7% at the best of times, that fact alone likely means it's likely not something to do with Hyper-threading; and I don't think it's related to Turbo Boost, that only works during higher load times. AMD does not even use either of those technologies, preferring to use more cores/threads alone.
I certainly wasn't trying to claim either of these is the cause, other than explaining to sangrine what they do and why I previously said it's likely not the cause.
Cause I do believe a fix is possible to improve or fix performance were seeing--in fact it may improve his as well.
Your comment that you see better performance in the 32 bit application running on a 64 bit OS; while Windows uses WOW64 to emulate 32 bit OS I find stunning. I mean I believe you entirely. Still you'd almost always expect to get better performance on a 64 bit architecture; using 64 bit software to more effectively use resources.
In fact I've actually noticed some nice graphical improvements since MOD 14; not seeing shadowy blocks (2-3 inches) cast on the ground in checkbox pattern that used to appear in many underground area's--now I hardly if EVER notice it at all. Previously I used to always see that around the NPC I was attacking on darker maps as bright weapons enchantments flashed and updated the ground incorrectly.
Yet despite that greatly improving I'm seeing FPS issues or slight pauses with Daily's, Encouters, or At-wils sometimes up to 25% of the time. It can go and run fine sometimes for 1-2 hours then returns. Its funny I seem to notice it more on my HR though than most other characters; similar to how my GWF often sometimes see his Perfect or Pure Vorpal display like the visual is disabled despite being enabled. My HR however has the exact same weapon enchantment and her's is always ON as it also appears for every other of my characters. This is why Nitocris83 earlier said sometimes these things can be tricky to find the cause; but they can and do find them.
Still unless were Cryptic we don't know the changes made between MOD 13/14. All we can do is describe what where seeing and when it started (MOD 14) and hope they find some things to Improve or Fix things. I've also denoted a similar but slightly different issue here as well.
Comments
DISPLAY
Monitor is set to 60 Hz as well.
ADVANCED
Limit Frame Rate is at least 30 if not ideally 60 Hz like >90% use today.
Though I admit even after ensuring both were 60, I still often notice frame rates <30 FPS. Which really has me guessing what did they do cause it never occurred prior to MOD 14?
I also never used to have set in MOD 13 Framerate stabilizer OR Auto-stabilize framerate set to ON and still NEVER had a problem. Yet since MOD 14 I've turned both ON and still *sometimes* seeing issues? Why I said I'm 'guessing' what did they do?
than before module 14, except Barovia which did not exist prior to module 14. Thanks to the higher and
smoother frame rate, I enjoy playing Neverwinter more than ever before. Previously, my frame rate
in Port Nyanzaru was often slightly below 30, but now my frame rate is usually slightly above 30 in Port Nyanzaru.
Not a huge improvement, but still a welcome improvement.
Cryptic should not waste time optimizing their game for dual core cpu's with 4GB or less ram,
and 1 GB or less vram, when consoles have 8 core cpu's and 8 GB of shared ram/vram.
Seems to me, module 14 is optimized more for consoles than for PC, and that is probably a wise decision.
On the preview server forum, during module 14 development, it was mentioned more than once
that some PC's had problems running module 14 but no comment from Cryptic developers, so don't expect
Cryptic to do anything about this.
If Cryptic were to revert the changes back to before module 14, then I would loudly object to that.
But that's very unlikely in my opinion because that might cause serious problems with the Barovia map.
I mean I have a Intel Core i7 Quad-core i7-950 3.06GHz Processor. This should be *well* above & beyond the Minimum requirements:
Intel Core i7 CPU that shows 4 Core's each with virtualization (8 Processor's showing @3.07 GHz) with 12 GB of Ram
EVGA NVidia 1050 Ti SC Video Card with 4 GB running
Windows 10 with 64 bit OS.
I shouldn't be seeing frame rates suddenly drop to <30 FPS at times since MOD 14. I used to always clearly see 60 FPS or at least where most things appeared seemless in their transitions. There was no problem while MOD 13 was still in effect and I've in fact had settings at 60 FPS for several YEARS.
So I'm honestly puzzled despite your earlier claims, that you were running a powerful computer, yet were only seeing *slightly below* 30 frames per second, and now only slightly above?
https://ark.intel.com/products/37150/Intel-Core-i7-950-Processor-8M-Cache-3_06-GHz-4_80-GTs-Intel-QPI
The cpu performance of a new,modern core i7 is double (or more).
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-950
Your ram is probably DDR3 800? That is old and slow.
Both You and pedro2908926 need to buy a new modern PC with modern DDR4 ram.
Did you disable Spectre and meltdown patches?? The patches for spectre and meltdown can reduce
cpu performance.
This utility will disable Meltdown and Spectre protection. I used it. It works.
If there is no improvement, then re-enable protection. On my PC, the fps improved by approximately 10%.
https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm
Maybe there's a command line option to select the 32-bit version under steam
Sure I mean DD4 is going to be faster than DD3 but still - none of the FPS issues occurred in MOD 13. Also I have 12 GB of Ram which is 2x more than many who run the game currently. Also those who have also noticed the issues, some have newer CPU's not as powerful as the i7-950 with the Intel Extreme Board. I mean I see in Windows 10 64 bit Device Manager the CPU listed 8 (Eight) times as i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07 Processor's; with a total CPU Utilization while playing even with IE and other programs at BEST 3-7% typically-- My goodness greatly underpowered? I bet several newer CPU's often use more than that.
DD4 I admit may be faster but DD3 should easily run the game requirements FINE. Also my Graphic's card uses DDR5 Memory if you want to be specific. Despite you claiming to previously having run at less than 30 FPS, and now only often run slight above 30 frames per second, I've always run far closer to 60 with no problems what so ever until now. Which is strange give my computer is older, than you brand new high performance machine?
I mean in MOD 13 the game ran FINE with none of these FPS issues. Also when I use /fpsgraph 1 I'm always seeing extreme low blues except slightly higher if Auto-stablize or Framerate stabilizer is both set to ON. Previously in Mod 13 both were OFF and I never even saw those issues.
I've since turned both Auto-stabilize & Framerate stabilizer to ON - yet still the problem often occurs; while in MOD 13 with both OFF I never saw that!
Example:
Just noticed running thru fence posts near the farm in Barovia the posts wouldn't even make the 3-5 blockier transitions when falling off -- they'd just disapear and that's worse than I'd see if Limited Frame Rate to 30. If I set it at 30 down from 60 I always see 3-5 blocky transitions when walking thru fence posts; yet even then I don't just see them disappear. It's like the GAME doesn't realize what Frame Rate it should be rendering at somehow?
I mean 75-90% of the time despite my Limit Frame Rate being set at 60; it seems to display 60 'most' of the time perfectly fine. But then clearly at others it's like it decides to start (sometimes for brief periods) like it's rendering <30 FPS or worse. These effects seems to come and go and at least 90% of the time they do look to be 60 FPS; yet as I say now I'm playing the game with /fpsgraph 1 always turned on and the graph shows everything in the very low blues 97% of the time. Yet when fence posts start dispearing, or looking like I had limited Frame Rate to 30 FPS with 3-5 blockier transitions rather than the seemless transition I usually see -- something is up. I've also noticed at times many Daily's, Encounters, or At-wils often have several .15-.25s pauses as FX are rendering.
Yet now I'll be running with /fpsgraph 1 set to on to make any more notes if the low blue's show any yellow or red bars higher up even if briefly when this occurs in future. But 97% of the time I'm always seeing very low blues while set at 60 FPS? This just as Pedro the THREAD author stated only started in MOD 14, I mean my computer is perhaps a little or a lot more powerful, but just like him this only started in MOD 14.
@nitocris83 @terramak
Rending problem is a separate issue. Just because your cpu has the name "core i7" does not mean it is a good cpu.
I greatly appreciate the cpu/ram/vram usage increase in module 14, and anyone who posts in this thread
with an old PC, complaining about FPS issues or stuttering/freezing or anything like that, will get a response from me.
I will not be silent while anyone asks for a rollback on the cpu/ram/vram performance enhancements implemented in module 14.
core i7 950 was launched in 2009. Your cpu is a first (or second) generation core i cpu and it's weak.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-950
Your motherboard is almost certainly, very outdated, compared to modern motherboards.
Good luck never replacing your motherboard, cpu, and ram.
I can only imagine other problems you might have with your old PC.
If you think that other thread relates to your problem, then it seems more appropriate to post over there.
Still things worked fine up until MOD 14 on June 26th; then I've seen several others in these forums and other external forums be it Reddit or others... talking about FPS (Frame Rare) or other FX related apparent issues since MOD 14.
Strangely enough even when I notice the Frame Rate of (some) not all FX pause .15-.25s or seem more choppy/blockier - transitions my /fpsgraph 1 still often shows extremely low blue bar's.
DISPLAY:
Full Screen resolution 1920x1200
Fullscreen refresh rate 60 Hz
Aspect Ratio Widescreen 16:10
Antialising MSAA 8x (find it looks better than all the others - including FXAA)
GRAPHICS:
Max to ALL.
ADVANCED:
Framerate stabilizer ON
Auto-stabilize framerate ON
Part of me wonder's if something is forgetting either the display refresh or framerate settings. Cause at times it appears to drop some FX to <30 FPS for short or sometimes extended period's before then mostly returning to normal.
My PC only has 8 GB of ram and 2 GB vram, but I do not experience "momentary pauses or hiccups" as you mentioned because my cpu/motherboard/ram is 2017 (Intel Kaby Lake/DDR4 2400MHZ CL14/Sata III SSD) technology, not 2009 intel technology.
Possible causes of "momentary pauses or hiccups": Poor cpu performance (due to 2009 cpu), poor ram performance (due to old,slow DDR3 ram), poor motherboard performance (due to old,slow intel chipset), poor HDD/SDD performance (due to old,slow chipset or due to old, slow drive).
Your PC was good enough for module 13, but the cpu/ram/vram usage enchancements in module 14 mean that your cpu/motherboard/ram/etc. may no longer be adequate. Cryptic won't tell you this, but I will.
If there were an actual "bug", then lots and lots of players would be affected, not only players with dual-core cpu's, not only players with low amounts of ram/vram, not only players with old PC hardware. I would be affected too but I am not affected.
If you want help to optimize the performance of your PC, then list complete hardware specs, including ram/motherboard/drive/etc.
Updating drivers, updating bios, or fresh windows install could possibly help, but maybe not.
Make sure your ram is configured for triple channel, not for single/dual channel. If possible, overclock cpu, overclock ram (or lower timings), and/or check bios to see if settings are configured for optimal performance.
It's why I'm focused on (sometimes) seeing FPS drop <30. Cause if I run through fence posts when I set ADVANCED tab to 30 Frames they ALWAYS appear choppy and blocky in their transitions. Yet I've always for 5 years always run at 60 FPS with no issues. Yet for while set at 60 FPS it looks just like I had set it at 30 FPS; as Fence Post appear choppy / blocky falling off. I've also identified sometimes ¼ (25%) or less can see .15-.25s pauses in rendering of various VFX like Daily's, Encounters, or At-Wils. This occurs even after setting Framerate-stabilization & Auto-framerate stabilization, despite never having turned those on in MOD 13 and never noticed a problem. Also with /fpsgraph 1 enabled I'm regularly seeing very low blue bars even while the FPS on Fence Posts appears <30 and Choppy which is what's particularly confusing.
Realize if CPU performance were the issue: CPU load would be >40% and might be an indication to upgrade!
My Goodness: CPU/RAM/VRAM usage requirements may no longer be adequate? I've identified on multiple occasions a 3-7% CPU load, also lots of available Memory, and GPU load typically of 20% on a 4GB DDR5 Ram New Video Card while playing the game though it can spike slightly. Windows also doesn't report on the Graphic Card Memory utilization within task manager, or what if any graphic issues are encountered without specific diagnostics. Still I prefer to withhold speculating mostly, and rather stick to describing what I'm in fact seeing. Realize there are some more advanced diagnostic tools I could utilize; yet I wait until asked to provide them.
Yes Ram is also installed in proper channel banks for optimize usage -- thank you. At least this is trying to be constructive - but as I told you I worked in Technology/Telecom for 20+ years.
While I have in the past seen people identifying workarounds, or possible solutions to try and fix things, your approach has been different--not always coming across as helpful. Let others focus on describing what things their seeing if they are having problems; in hopes Cryptic may identify a possible cause and may hopefully find a resolution. But try not to confuse the issue for people who are simply trying to despite what they've seeing.
But I do admit it is helpful when you noted that others reported some similar if not slightly different issues in PREVIEW with Mod 14. Still I'd rather try to keep to a friendly tone in hopes maybe a FIX is possible, in fact its possible a FIX might actually improve your performance as well.
I too have big fps drops issues since Mod 14, and my PC didn't change a bit between M13 and M14. So what can explain this kind of VERY problematic problems, that I'm not the only one to have? Not a lot of things:
- My PC is not powerful enough to run the game any smoother than previously. But that means the game requirements are much bigger than they were, and it's not listed anywhere. If it's the case, we players should have been informed of that.
- There is a problem somewhere in the game. Bad optimization, some graphic effects that cause drop issue with M14 patch, something.
It's legitimate to ask for an official answer on this, and not only on a "Buy a new PC it'll get smoother". There IS a problem, for several people, the question is what is it really?
That was a few months ago. No comment from the devs.
I don't care whether or not the devs make an annoucement regarding these changes.
I am very much against undoing these changes.
So it would be very NICE if they got it working how it used to. But they always have A LOT to work or and so it comes down to priorities. So hopefully that and the other issue above may hopefully be fixed in the near future...
Before module 14, the game used two cpu cores, and rarely more.
Since module 14, based on the numbers I see in-game, this game now uses two cpu cores almost constantly, and often three.
The increased multi-threading is too much for a dual-core cpu to handle which results in stuttering and freezing.
If Cryptic were to make this game run smooth on dual-core cpu's again, they would have to
decrease multi-threading, and that's a step in the wrong direction.
Think about this .... in order for Cryptic to support old dual-core cpu's and old hardware,
they would need to have such hardware available for testing. They might not even have
a dual-core cpu in their office. They could simulate one by disabling some cores, but
that's not quite the same thing as testing on an actual core2duo.
If someone wants to talk about solutions, we can talk about solutions.
Or you can wait ..... possibly forever.
And as a data point, I tried the 32 bit version of the game, and found it seemed to perform better.
Yet unlike your claims (while Ignorant•lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing; as I'll forgo the •informal - discourteous or rude.) isn't the difference between 32 & 64 applications running on a 64 bit OS.
Any software that supports parrallel computing / applications should be fully capable of recognizing the available cores from the OS; then determine how to best utilize them to reach optimum system performance resulting in more efficient utilization. If your system is a 64 bit architecture (chip/cpu) you should see IMPROVED performance on 64 bit applications not the other way around. In fact you REQUIRE the 64 bit Operating system to even RUN on 64 bit PROCESSORS as Microsoft denotes below. 64 bit chip's have been around since 1964 when IBM first created the very first one; it's however only in the mid 2000's we saw added to Home computers; a result of the 3.6 GB theoretical maximum of 32 byte-addressable memory. FACTS not conjecture, or misunderstandings, about how Technology actually works.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/15056/windows-7-32-64-bit-faq
"Which version of Windows should I install: the 32-bit version or the 64-bit version?
To install a 64-bit version of Windows, you need (REQUIRE) a CPU that's capable of running a 64-bit version of Windows.
The benefits of using a 64-bit operating system are most apparent when you have a large amount of random access memory (RAM) installed on your computer, typically 4 GB of RAM or more. In such cases, because a 64-bit operating system can handle large amounts of memory more efficiently than a 32-bit operating system, a 64-bit system can be more responsive when running several programs at the same time and switching between them frequently."
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/316072-28-dual-core-architecture
"lp231 said: Supports both 32 and 64bit". -- "Wrong. Dual-core doesn't necessarily mean that it supports 32 AND 64 bit. There were plenty of dual-core processors that were 32-bit only (the old Core Duo series for example, before Core 2 Duo)."
In fact I'll add to that: As the 64 bit Operating system only supports 32 bit support thru WOW64 which emulates 32-bit Windows. But many in technology would likely realize that. The fact Cryptic has only recently launched a 64 bit application; while it's a huge milestone for them, it also may require improvements to parallel processing. Though realize this could also likely effect both the 32 &/or 64 bit application. Cause MOD 13 used to support 64 bit parallel processing; but somehow has seen performance degrade (at times) for some. This should NOT be the case.
https://ark.intel.com/products/series/79666/Legacy-Intel-Core-Processors"
▪ In fact there's no reason why majority of these CPU's or at least the TOP >75%++ can't still fully supported 32 or 64 bit application requirements while running on a 64 bit architecture / OS as everyone in this thread is likely doing.
While sangrine is confused about many things - I do admire his tenacity - still I largely suspect this is likely a BUG that started with MOD 14 mostly in the 64 bit version of software; as swamarian correctly denoted his i5 which was only released in January of 2015 is a Dual Core and does not support (2) or (4) virtualized Cores either. Still it should easily meet application requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors
This is NOT an issue unlike what (someone) above claiming it is as a result of the # of Cores (Dual, or Multicore) or even the Number of Threads the Chip support as almost all Chips support virtualization of twice as many threads.
Current Game Requirements found here:
https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/neverwinter
Operating System Windows® Vista, 7, 8 or 10
CPU Core 2 Duo 2.8Ghz (or equivalent AMD CPU)
RAM 2GB (minimum) : thought it will place a higher demand on disk swapping (virtual memory).
---
This is STILL a bug likely with the 64 bit client still needing some tweak's to better and more FULLY support what those in the industry like myself or 20+ years call parallel computer - ability for a OS/Application to jointly recognize and utilize the available cores within the OS to share or more efficiently utilize CPU performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor
"The instructions are ordinary CPU instructions (such as add, move data, and branch) but the single processor can run multiple instructions on separate cores at the same time, increasing overall speed for programs amenable to parallel computing."
"The improvement in performance gained by the use of a multi-core processor depends very much on the software algorithms used and their implementation... ...Most applications, however, are not accelerated so much unless programmers invest a prohibitive amount of effort in re-factoring the whole problem.[3] The parallelization of software is a significant ongoing topic of research."
As I've denoted my system has 4 cores with 4 threads or a total of 8 cores. My system also has 12 GB of Ram. And my Video Card is EVGA NVidia 1050 Ti SC 4GB DDR5; and Graphics are listed cause higher off board Graphics cards will render only higher graphics.
Two others in this thread have Dual Core systems one sold as recent as 2016; don't even support CPU threads. Still the fact remains the 64 bit application (only released 3-4 months ago) likely needs some enhancements to better determine and more fully utilize the each individual systems available resources so performance improves not is made worse. Mod 13 had 64 bit support and those issues didn't effect it; and that does not mean correcting the issues since MOD 14 should equally mean a performance decrease for others either.
https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001498.htm
One thing to note is that 3D graphic programs and games do not benefit much, if at all, from switching to a 64-bit computer, unless the program is a 64-bit program. A 32-bit processor is adequate for any program written for a 32-bit processor. In the case of computer games, you'll get a lot more performance by upgrading the video card instead of getting a 64-bit processor.
I just wish some (one individual) would TRY to inspire a little more HOPE in how he approaches things on the forum; rather than fulfilling both definitions of the aforementioned word above. I only continue to actively try and encourage those with better behaviors to demonstrate them more; and while we can sometimes point out those we don't appreciate. I still even try to at least be kind or respectful to everyone.
Still an official note from Cryptic might perhaps help shed light on the situation.
https://ark.intel.com/products/85213/Intel-Core-i5-5300U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_90-GHz
without hyperthreading, you would have serious problems.
The OS handles Dual or Multi Core support and makes all those resources available not only to the OS but also any applications that support multi cores or parallel computing. That's why I still included that in the opening part of the above message. Though while swamarian identified which you previously claimed people would require a Quad Core processor (which I have) and even supports (4) Threads or (8) recognized cores by the Operating System; still the other person had a new Dual Core that supports (0) Virtualized threads. Still he purchased his Processor in early 2016 and as I've always stated both should easily fully run this application. You'll gain far more performance improvements by upgrading your Video Card than your CPU. Both this and even the original author's computer also fully support Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology; and that hasn't even changed since it was first designed. As far as Intel Turbo Boost technology is concerned they've ever only made 1 (minor) revision to even it since introduced. AMD does NOT even use either of those technologies, instead preferring to run more cores/threads.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html
Still all CPU's identified in this thread support at least Intel Turbo Boost technology 1.0 which really only activates during high CPU load to potentially see a 12.5-25% performance improvement; while those running Intel Turbo Boost technology 2.0 may see a 15-30% improvement. Still the % gain's as all things will be higher for those processor's capable of more sure.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html
"Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 accelerates processor and graphics performance for peak loads, automatically allowing processor cores to run faster than the rated operating frequency if they’re operating below power, current, and temperature specification limits."
But as I've denoted my CPU utilization is often 3-7%; often somewhere in the middle. So the Hyper Threading or Turbo Boost isn't what is causing any of these issues either. Also that also doesn't explain why swamarian claims to see his game run better on a 64 bit Operating System; using Windows WOW64 support to emulate 32 Bit Operating System within a 32 bit application! Despite you claiming he's just lucky he has Intel Hyperthreading which all Dual or Multicore Intel Chip's have that support.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-3269692/amd-technology-reverse-hyper-threading.html
-
If you go into Windows Device Manage, it lists all the cores available and recognized by the Operating System, however it's the applications that independently choose to support or utilize multithreading &/or parallel processing. My goodness Adobe Photoshop in CS3 only supported single threaded applications before extending future versions to parallel processing as it's more commonly referred to as. The application however is responsible for choosing how the algorithms work or deciding when, or how, it decides to run various tasks in parallel processes - depending upon how much inter communication is required between the various tasks.
It's also why some applications in a Network environment "Load Balancing" sometimes works well behind Network Routers &/or Application Load Balancers. If something simply requires lots of reads based on static or rarely updated information it works fantastic - yet if you require constant synchronization of the data/records for the application to make the correct decision sometimes the two have to remain in constant synchronization and sometimes that results in slower performance even load balancing the application cause the gains are offset by the need to stay in synchronization. It's why the application or people in Software Engineering/IT/Telecom generally know where best to use what features or methods to improve performance to obtain optimum performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor
"The improvement in performance gained by the use of a multi-core processor depends very much on the software algorithms used and their implementation... ...Most applications, however, are not accelerated so much unless programmers invest a prohibitive amount of effort in re-factoring the whole problem.[3] The parallelization of software is a significant ongoing topic of research."
Still improving performance for us does not have to mean it will result in lower performance for you. It may also have nothing to even do with multicore support as I denoted my CPU load is 3-7% typically at best. It could be driver issues or any number of things which is why I've stated what drivers I'm using.
Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official.
Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
Threaded software: If it's using thread pools, or a variable number of threads, the software might care about the number of logical processors on a computer. If it's using a set number of threads, then it won't care. I was writing multithreaded software in the 90s for single processor computers, and getting decent performance increases. (The CPU isn't your only bottleneck. We got noticeable network improvement by moving the net code into its own thread. I've also gotten 3x throughput for an app that processed data from a database using threads, and almost all of the performance increase was better I/O handling.)
Processors: 1 hyperthreaded processor is roughly 1.5 logical processors, for performance. Also, turbo boost may not be available on all machines. My processor supports it, but I have it disabled. Neverwinter (or just about any game) drives the processor hard, so on my system, it'll eventually overheat and shut down. (I play on a docked laptop, with dual screens.)
32x64 bit code: In general, 32 bit code's faster than 64 bit code, because 64 bit pointers are twice as large, requiring more memory bandwidth. X64 processors compensate by having more general purpose registers, which is more efficient, if your code uses them. X64 also requires better floating point support from the processor, but that's a bit of a wash these days. The Unreal engine went 64 bit early, because while the games remained 32 bit, the tools went 64 bit to support more memory. (In general 32 bit apps can only address 2 Gigabytes of memory. The app has to be specially marked to indicate that it'll use more.)
I certainly wasn't trying to claim either of these is the cause, other than explaining to sangrine what they do and why I previously said it's likely not the cause.
Cause I do believe a fix is possible to improve or fix performance were seeing--in fact it may improve his as well.
Your comment that you see better performance in the 32 bit application running on a 64 bit OS; while Windows uses WOW64 to emulate 32 bit OS I find stunning. I mean I believe you entirely. Still you'd almost always expect to get better performance on a 64 bit architecture; using 64 bit software to more effectively use resources.
In fact I've actually noticed some nice graphical improvements since MOD 14; not seeing shadowy blocks (2-3 inches) cast on the ground in checkbox pattern that used to appear in many underground area's--now I hardly if EVER notice it at all. Previously I used to always see that around the NPC I was attacking on darker maps as bright weapons enchantments flashed and updated the ground incorrectly.
Yet despite that greatly improving I'm seeing FPS issues or slight pauses with Daily's, Encouters, or At-wils sometimes up to 25% of the time. It can go and run fine sometimes for 1-2 hours then returns. Its funny I seem to notice it more on my HR though than most other characters; similar to how my GWF often sometimes see his Perfect or Pure Vorpal display like the visual is disabled despite being enabled. My HR however has the exact same weapon enchantment and her's is always ON as it also appears for every other of my characters. This is why Nitocris83 earlier said sometimes these things can be tricky to find the cause; but they can and do find them.
Still unless were Cryptic we don't know the changes made between MOD 13/14. All we can do is describe what where seeing and when it started (MOD 14) and hope they find some things to Improve or Fix things. I've also denoted a similar but slightly different issue here as well.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1241360/game-crashes-pc