1.27 poor core optimization?

[Tarso]

The thing i didn't get is why my humble kit: FX6100 @3.8GHz + RX470 is doing 60FPS capped by V-Sync at 1080p 200% and yours much more powerful don't get it

[shalafi]

ATS 1.6(last) and ETS2 1.26(old)
See the cores usage. In ATS one core in 100% limit the GPU use. In ETS2 none core in 100% and GPU have all potential to make 60fps... And in ETS2 i'm in Paris at night, this should be much heavier...

Hi Andre, are you running OpenGL, or DirectX? Both ATS and ETS2 were running OpenGL for me (not sure why, or since when - I have a completely new machine). When I switched to DirectX the CPU usage is mostly normal ..

[Andre Santos]

Tarso
I dont know.

shalafi
DirectX

[FlyingPigeon]

i have only seen a great game performance from 1.27, i have been able to bump my graphics up quite alot without any performance issues at all, compared to 1.26.
Most my settings are high with one ultra an one low and medium and 100% scaling, 1080p, i have in 1.27 now constant 60fps (v-sync) all over map 99% of time, and i use mods too.

The things i foumd to be powerfull graphics is mirrors and reflections, turning down reflections to low still has very good reflection graphic but dont decrease fps, also mirrors are turned to medium with short distance, i am still able to use them perfect, this also increases frames alot.

my system from 2013

i5 4430 3.0 Ghz
Evga gtx 650Ti 2gb
8 gb 1600mhz ram
ssd hd


maybe you that have performance issues have to many mods or to high settings vs what your system can handle.

[sikejsudjek3]

Better fps for me on 1.27 i3 6300 and gtx 1060

[atcade]

I don't know if you've kept up with recent tech news lately Twin, but Ryzen single core performance is on par with Haswell- and Broadwell-E and steadily improving with each BIOS update. We're a long way from the AMD FX processors of old.

I did implement your suggestion to set affinity for ets2.exe away from Core 0 (and Core 1, just to be safe). While FPS gains were only marginal (maybe 1 - 2 fps), forcing the game to use the other cores has completely solved the stuttering issues I was experiencing. The game is now playable again, so, despite your obvious disdain for my decision to go with Ryzen, thank you.

@teckerBP, @ SCS-Team

Hi tecker, I thought about getting a ryzen system. But then I saw some videos on you tube with really bad ETS2 / ATS performance compared to Intel-Systems. Especially in ATS the framerate dropped in one video using a Ryzen 5 1600 OC at 3.8 down to 3~ fps in cities with ultra settings an 200% scaling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_btZXINP78

Compared to that you can get stable 60 up to 80fps and more fps with comparable ultra-settings on intel Systems using i5 6600k and more than 80+fps on a core i7 7700k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyj9KJTXs1I

This user seems to have comparable problems with his new ryzen-System.

So, what is your experience with ETS2 and ryzen. Which framerates do you get? Especially in cities and / or rainy weather?

Now - I only play ETS2 / ATS - I don´t think that I will get a ryzen as long as performance doesn´t get significant better on ryzen. I think, that it should be possible to get at least stable 60+fps with Ultra-settings an 400% scaling even with a ryzen. Maybe that will need some work from SCS on the game engine. Is that planned or will ETS2-gamers be forced to Intel-Systems also in future?

Regards,
Markus

[IonutL]

From what i've read and heard Ryzen is better for multicore applications or for users who need to run multiple applications at once than a same price Intel.

[TwinShadow]

AMD still can't hold a candle to Intel, even after Ryzen came out. They're trying to compete with CPU's from Intel that are at least 3 years old.

Now grant it, for those looking to keep to a certain budget, AMD's are great for what they do though. And, on that note, the more cores/threads for certain applications, it would be better. The high core count is great for number crunching applications and the like and is what they're typically designed for.

Games now are starting to finally get their heads in gear for multi-core support, but I honestly still think it is a little ways away still before all these developers finally realize what they've been missing since the first multi-core processors came out, about a decade ago.

Still can't wait for SCS to implement it, it would tremendously help, but I do know adding such support into the engine is, at most, an astronomical task to do without doing it from the ground up.

[Reinhard]

This game already exploits some cores, and it might get better at this, in future. I'm confident there is potential. This is a difficult field, but for sure not about "it is a little ways away still before all these developers finally realize what they've been missing since the first multi-core processors came out, about a decade ago.".

4 cores don't make everything 4 times faster. For some problems it will (almost) work, for others it totally doesn't.

If you need 20 minutes to cook some potatoes, 10 cooks will not get it done in 2 minutes. But they will cook 10 pots of it faster than the single one can, provided there is more then one pot, and more than one stove. And more potatoes than what would fill one pot.

The big AAA-companies are throwing many millions each year at these problems. Because speeding up games with multi-core totally is a "multi-million-dollar" problem. But guess what, ironically, hiring more programmers will raise even more "kitchen-like" problems in itself.

Multi-core and multi-thread programming is difficult, this is known for decades, and number-crunching is one of the easiest tasks. Because it is a "ten helpmates can peel ten potatoes ten times faster than one can" problem. Speeding up games is like a team of cooks fighting shortages of pots, stoves, and even potatoes, all the time.