We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 46 of 46
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Unthariel View Post
    It seems like there was some improvement made in recent months in terms of performance. There is no improvement to sheer framerate and game is still as CPU limited as it was, but stuttering seems to be less frequent and all of those violent stutters are reduced.
    Reduced stuttering where, and on what server?/ I have been getting stuttering and rubber bands ON FOOT in several low level areas; this has never happened before (Evernight server), and has continued even after the emergency reboot of the server 2 weeks ago. Whereas before, it took a warsteed to go through an area faster than the server could populate it with mobs, now I can sometimes do it on foot (with a Hunter at +15% run speed).


    (Just to annoy Hurin); Gigahertz isnt everything. For the last year I have been slogging the guts out on an AMD FX6300; overclocking it from 3.6GHZ to 5.01GHZ, and then having to back off to 4.6GHZ because my watercooling couldnt keep up in the warmer weather during the summer (my room was hitting 38C due to the heat output from the cooler).

    Well, thanks to a really nice guy on HUKD, I got my hands on a replacement Phenom II 1090T (I managed to kill mine); on paper, the FX6300 blows the 1090T out of the water, but guess what, at 3.6GHz the 1090T blows the FX6300 away on LOTRO, and because the overclock is so small (base is 3.2GHZ), my cpu is running at barely 36C most of the time, and 41C while playing LOTRO, the FX would idle at 42C and reach over 50C during the game on the same cooler.

    Even with the cpu running 1.4GHZ below the max OC of the 6300, LOTRO is only using 65% of the core on average - with occasional peaks to 80%; at exactly the same game settings, the FX6300 was hitting 100% all the time..

  2. #27
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarbro View Post
    Reduced stuttering where, and on what server?/ I have been getting stuttering and rubber bands ON FOOT in several low level areas; this has never happened before (Evernight server), and has continued even after the emergency reboot of the server 2 weeks ago. Whereas before, it took a warsteed to go through an area faster than the server could populate it with mobs, now I can sometimes do it on foot (with a Hunter at +15% run speed).
    I was talking about game performance, not server performance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yarbro View Post
    (Just to annoy Hurin); Gigahertz isnt everything. For the last year I have been slogging the guts out on an AMD FX6300; overclocking it from 3.6GHZ to 5.01GHZ, and then having to back off to 4.6GHZ because my watercooling couldnt keep up in the warmer weather during the summer (my room was hitting 38C due to the heat output from the cooler).

    Well, thanks to a really nice guy on HUKD, I got my hands on a replacement Phenom II 1090T (I managed to kill mine); on paper, the FX6300 blows the 1090T out of the water, but guess what, at 3.6GHz the 1090T blows the FX6300 away on LOTRO, and because the overclock is so small (base is 3.2GHZ), my cpu is running at barely 36C most of the time, and 41C while playing LOTRO, the FX would idle at 42C and reach over 50C during the game on the same cooler.

    Even with the cpu running 1.4GHZ below the max OC of the 6300, LOTRO is only using 65% of the core on average - with occasional peaks to 80%; at exactly the same game settings, the FX6300 was hitting 100% all the time..
    Frequency doesn't mean the same for different products. Each architecture has its own IPC and many other factors. For example any modern Intel CPU at 3 GHz still has more single threaded performance than FX6300 at 5 GHz. Frequency is a comparable factor only within the same architecture.

    Also FX6300 is not blowing 1090T out of the water, they are very comparable, especially in old games like LOTRO. They are similarly bad CPUs with half of the single threaded performance of modern CPUs.
    Last edited by Unthariel; Nov 12 2017 at 05:12 PM.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Unthariel View Post
    I was talking about game performance, not server performance.



    Frequency doesn't mean the same for different products. Each architecture has its own IPC and many other factors. For example any modern Intel CPU at 3 GHz still has more single threaded performance than FX6300 at 5 GHz. Frequency is a comparable factor only within the same architecture.

    Also FX6300 is not blowing 1090T out of the water, they are very comparable, especially in old games like LOTRO. They are similarly bad CPUs with half of the single threaded performance of modern CPUs.
    Wrong way around, the OLDER 1090 is blowing the 6300 out of the water. I do agree that the Intel chips have a lot more horsepower going for them though, even my daughters elderly 3GHz Xeon quad core can match and exceed the single core performance of any FX chip except the 220watt monsters, and even then it gets very close; only a few percent behind when given a very minor 9% overclock.

    However the AMD chips seem to handle LOTRO better when it come to the single core issue; testing both the 1090, the 6300, a core 2 duo and the Xeon (I dont have any newer Intel boards); the AMD boards do a 60/40 spilt when given 2 cores to play with, but revert to single core if given more than 2. The Intel chips wont start on the 2nd core until the first is hammering on the ceiling, which causes heating issues.

    As I said, I cannot test this on newer Intel chips, as I dont have any.

    So playing LOTRO on the 1090 is a lot smoother - when the server is behaving itself.


    Off Topic, My newest Hunter has just entered Moria; the plan is to NOT use LI, but see how far I can take him using weapons made by my Weaponsmith and Woodworker; FPS has been fairly consistent at between 62 and 74 fps so far, no huge fluctuations during combat or while riding my goat around. The Evernight server seem to be behaving itself tonight, only one momentary glitch in several hours of play.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarbro View Post
    Wrong way around, the OLDER 1090 is blowing the 6300 out of the water. I do agree that the Intel chips have a lot more horsepower going for them though, even my daughters elderly 3GHz Xeon quad core can match and exceed the single core performance of any FX chip except the 220watt monsters, and even then it gets very close; only a few percent behind when given a very minor 9% overclock.

    However the AMD chips seem to handle LOTRO better when it come to the single core issue; testing both the 1090, the 6300, a core 2 duo and the Xeon (I dont have any newer Intel boards); the AMD boards do a 60/40 spilt when given 2 cores to play with, but revert to single core if given more than 2. The Intel chips wont start on the 2nd core until the first is hammering on the ceiling, which causes heating issues.

    As I said, I cannot test this on newer Intel chips, as I dont have any.

    So playing LOTRO on the 1090 is a lot smoother - when the server is behaving itself.


    Off Topic, My newest Hunter has just entered Moria; the plan is to NOT use LI, but see how far I can take him using weapons made by my Weaponsmith and Woodworker; FPS has been fairly consistent at between 62 and 74 fps so far, no huge fluctuations during combat or while riding my goat around. The Evernight server seem to be behaving itself tonight, only one momentary glitch in several hours of play.
    Heating issues? How can you get heating issues on just one core with light load like that? Percentage usage is not very accurate, different things are utilizing CPU differently, 100% usage in game is not causing much heat and power draw, while some synthetic benchmark stresses the core to the limits and causes a lot of heat. But still you should never have heating issues when only one or two cores are used.

    There is probably something with 1090T that makes it behave differently vs FX6300 despite similar theoretical performance. Maybe SMT on FX was causing issues? It is known for causing issues, sometimes just physical cores without SMT are performing better. And 1090T has only physical cores.

    Moria doesn't have serious performance issues. You will have some in Tharakh Bazan when looking at the area from the camp and certainly during instances because there are places where mob count is pretty crazy, add to this all the player effects and skills and you will get serious FPS drops, but for questing and exploring there is little issue there. One place where it starts is Bree, and then you won't have any issues all the way to Galtrev. But it has been smooth for me today and I could run around without a single stutter on maxed out settings, it was much worse when I left the game couple months ago. Then the next stuttery place is Stangard and after that you enter Rohan and Gondor and say goodbye to good performance.

    LI are probably the most interesting thing to do, I have maxed out 60lv LIs on my second character. Maxing out and generally caring about equipment and keeping your character the strongest possible at all levels is a great thing to do, especially if you are not rushing to level cap. Just leveling and questing can get boring quite quickly (although I have to say that LOTRO kept me playing for very long periods of time), but if are also doing instances, raids, fellowship quests, crafting and maxing out equipment then game is more diversified.
    Last edited by Unthariel; Nov 12 2017 at 11:46 PM.

  5. #30
    Thanks for great analysis! I'll try to tune up my pc soon

    p.s. I wonder what is SSG saying about performance issues and (hopefully) fixes?

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,101
    Cores have their own temp sensors, if it overheats it will throttle, even if the overall package, and all the other cores are within tolerance. There are a number of hardware monitors that will give you the individual core temps, and if you try one, you will see that the core temps are much higher than the overal package temp

    There mare major differences in architecture between the PII and the FX*, as there are between the Core2 and i series cpus, this was part of my argument with Hurin, you cannot downclock a 2017 i7 to 3GHz and get the same performance you would get from a 2008 core2 running at 3GHz, especially when testing with software designed for 2017 hardware.

    * The FX has much smaller on-die L1 and L2 cache sizes and shares memory controllers between pairs of cores; the Intel i series have identically small cache sizes, except for the most recent i7 version, which quadruples them. Part of my theory about why the old, slow chips perform so well at LOTRO in comparison to new faster chips, is that the game engine devs wrote to what the hardware of the time had - bigger L1 and L2 caches; so although the newer chips are much faster, they can only store a 1/4 of the data in L1 L2 cache that the devs anticipated, as well as being optimised for modern multi-thread software.

    I am aware of the FPS drop hotspots, and I have been complaining that in and around Bree they have been getting bigger in recent weeks, to the point where I was hitting a single digit fps area OUTSIDE of the town as I rode in, and getting single digit fps in parts of Bree where there has never been an issue before BUT ONLY IN ONE DIRECTION! Turn around and go the other way, and fps jumped to 45.

    There has been combat lag and hiatus events all over the low level areas that never usually suffer from it, and rubber banding ON FOOT in the LoneLands. This seems to have been mostly sorted in the last few days, and my last couple of days outside of Moria were nearly hiatus free, only one really noticeable issue; and even that wasnt as bad as the 5-10 second chill-outs the server was having a few days before.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by v0k View Post
    Thanks for great analysis! I'll try to tune up my pc soon

    p.s. I wonder what is SSG saying about performance issues and (hopefully) fixes?
    Turbine had noting to say. SSG mentioned client performance improvements in one of the letters if I remember well, but honestly there is probably not much that they can do. Fixing some seriously broken things is usually harder than just starting anew. And there are most likely no resources for doing either.

  8. #33
    Thank you Unthariel for the thorough analysis. Stuttering in particular has been driving me nuts. I have an older system (but above the requirements - former mechanical CAD system) and have more RAM and GPU than relative CPU power, and a standard HD. I have been testing several things, mostly around display settings and am happy to find that I noted similar results (though I wasn't as methodical and didn't use the nice tools you did, which is why I'm glad to see your data).

    Ironically I found a reduction in stuttering duration and frequency with high graphics settings vs. putting everything as low as I could. A last bit of testing with the texture cache seems to confirm the idea that if you have sufficient RAM, increase this to reduce the frequency of hard drive activity. So, oddly I am doing better for now with very nice graphics settings (I did turn down some things that I think would require more disk reads) and texture cache set to maximum. It isn't great but I think it will be OK.

    Oh, and I did add a small 2GB SD card I had around as a "ReadyBoost" cache, which seems to have helped a little.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by DSeaweed View Post
    Thank you Unthariel for the thorough analysis. Stuttering in particular has been driving me nuts. I have an older system (but above the requirements - former mechanical CAD system) and have more RAM and GPU than relative CPU power, and a standard HD. I have been testing several things, mostly around display settings and am happy to find that I noted similar results (though I wasn't as methodical and didn't use the nice tools you did, which is why I'm glad to see your data).

    Ironically I found a reduction in stuttering duration and frequency with high graphics settings vs. putting everything as low as I could. A last bit of testing with the texture cache seems to confirm the idea that if you have sufficient RAM, increase this to reduce the frequency of hard drive activity. So, oddly I am doing better for now with very nice graphics settings (I did turn down some things that I think would require more disk reads) and texture cache set to maximum. It isn't great but I think it will be OK.

    Oh, and I did add a small 2GB SD card I had around as a "ReadyBoost" cache, which seems to have helped a little.
    It sound like you think some of your problems are caused by the mechanical HDD; if you have enough RAM, you can switch off the page file, and stop the OS from using the HD entirely; alternatively, you can set a static size for the page file and reduce file fragmentation and read times significantly.

    I have been running high RAM with no page file since before XP came out.

  10. #35
    Many thanks for this guide. It was a great read and helped me out with the graphics settings.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    233
    I've tried to get back to the game after many months of break but the stuttering is just unbearable. Everywhere you go you get this, especially on mounts. Every YouTube gameplay from LOTRO you watch, you can see these dreaded stutters every few seconds. I have not seen a single game that would run so bad, and I have really seen a lot on a lot of different configurations. How can you even let the game be in such state.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Moria
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Unthariel View Post
    I've tried to get back to the game after many months of break but the stuttering is just unbearable. Everywhere you go you get this, especially on mounts. Every YouTube gameplay from LOTRO you watch, you can see these dreaded stutters every few seconds. I have not seen a single game that would run so bad, and I have really seen a lot on a lot of different configurations. How can you even let the game be in such state.
    64 bit client coming that should help with this but I don't get the stuttering as bad as most others do apparently.
    Varkking - Dwarf Rune-Keeper - Devout of the Lidless Eye - Anor Server
    Moderator of Lord of the Rings On Prime Subreddit.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Unthariel View Post
    I've tried to get back to the game after many months of break but the stuttering is just unbearable. Everywhere you go you get this, especially on mounts. Every YouTube gameplay from LOTRO you watch, you can see these dreaded stutters every few seconds. I have not seen a single game that would run so bad, and I have really seen a lot on a lot of different configurations. How can you even let the game be in such state.
    Instead of fixing the underlying issues, they just keep lowering the suspension, adding chrome plated spoilers and go faster stripes, in the hope we will be distracted.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Varkking View Post
    64 bit client coming that should help with this but I don't get the stuttering as bad as most others do apparently.
    Stuttering is perceived differently by different people and is vastly dependent on what they are used to, I am running a high-end system for years now, tuned to have the best gaming performance, so I can see any frametime inconsistency right away. I wasn't so bothered when I was using much lower end systems where unstable performance was normal for almost all games played. Testing clearly shows that the game is heavily CPU limited and scales almost 1:1 with CPU and RAM frequency, which is very unusual and just shows bottlenecked this game is and it strives for every single MHz, and also sees drastic improvements from using fast storage like SSD. Also I've proved that stuttering happens mostly in the exact same places repetitively every time regardless of graphics settings. So there is no reason why would anyone magically have less stuttering, because it is impossible to not have crazy stuttering in this game. As of today, you can use world's most powerful CPU under liquid nitrogen in conjuction with the fastest RAM and drive possible and you would still get ridiculous performance in this game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yarbro View Post
    Instead of fixing the underlying issues, they just keep lowering the suspension, adding chrome plated spoilers and go faster stripes, in the hope we will be distracted.
    Problem is that it probably cannot be fixed. There are far more modern games that exhibit similar issues. Basically all MMO engines are build on single threaded #### like this, there are also very recent games like Grim Dawn that are also having the same issue, single core is tortured with 100% usage all the time and the rest of cores in not used, which results in massive CPU bottleneck, stuttering and drops to as low as 30 FPS in very dense scenes even on the most modern heavily overclocked systems.

    64-bit client may help a bit, it apparently did a lot for American and Euro Truck Simulator, in some places I now have over double the framerate compared to 2-3 years back, despite the game still being DX9. Though I don't exactly know what they did and if it is even associated with 64-bit client, I didn't follow the progress.

    For LOTRO the issue is more complicated, because framerate is not that much of an issue, it is bad and all over the place (literally you can just go ahead running around for lets say 30 minutes and your minimum FPS will be like 5 while maximum will be over 300), if there are some places where FPS drops then it is not something overly unusual, this happens in most games. But this stuttering... You can just see that everywhere and it is the same for everyone, even every youtube video from LOTRO shows massive frequent stuttering, especially when mounted. There is no way around it. Simply put LOTRO is amongst the worst performing games on the market, and it is inherent. I wouldn't expect it get fixed after so many years, they would do that long ago if they could, it is nobody's interest to have a terribly stuttery game.
    Last edited by Unthariel; Feb 16 2019 at 02:29 PM.

  15. #40
    I am running on pretty much the fastest hardware possible for GPU & single threaded CPU. The performance issues are annoying, but I resolved a good chunk of my performance woes with a 20-40fps gain.

    -----------------------------

    GPU: Nvidia 1080ti overclocked like a beast (this is basically on par with the fastest GPU in the world, which I believe is the +3-5% 2080 (not 2080 ti, which is 20-32% better) which is horribly rated being such a small improvement)

    CPU: Intel i7 4790K @ 4ghz (this isn't that far below the best possible CPU in the world for singlethread performance)

    Harddrive: SSD of course.

    Monitor: 2560x1440 @ 144hz (this is why I am so frustrated when I don't get 90+ fps. After 90 I can tell the difference but it isn't as big a difference as getting to 90 which is huge to me. Anything below 90 just doesn't cut it for me, but 70 is acceptable. 40-50 is my bare minimum, but I hate it because going from 70-90 to 40-50 gives visible stutter.) I never use V-Sync (gross!) and just cap framerate @ 144hz or not at all.

    Latency: 51% on AT&T fiber 1000gbps.

    ------------------------

    A year ago, I remember getting extremely high framerates. I was running SLI 1080ti, but I don't know if LOTRO takes advantage of SLI. That's the only hardware difference, as I run just one 1080ti now. SLI/Crossfire is also so notorious for stuttering and all kinds of issues, so IMO everyone should always avoid that horrible tech and just go with the best GPU you can afford. However with MMORPG's, as we see here, as well as with most of Bethesda's poorly programmed games, the games I love are often CPU intensive and single threaded. It's horrible, but upgrading to the i7 4790K was the best thing I've ever done for MMO's, especially Hero Engine monstrosities like SWTOR or poorly programmed games like Skyrim (which I have to cap at 90fps anyway bc they violate game programming 101 and tie physics to framerates like some 12 year old incompetent programmer from 1980).

    Anyway, I messed with my settings and got some pretty big improvements. I noticed absolutely no visual difference between these settings being on LOW & ULTRA HIGH.



    Strategy: Turn everything to LOWEST (low/disabled for every possible setting except resolution). I then proceeded to turn every setting to max, to see if it gave any FPS hit. Out of all the hundred settings, only two gave any real FPS hit for me: Shadows (of any kind - blob or stencil) & Surface Reflection.

    In Lalia's Market facing all the clothing from the entrance, I get only 55fps on max settings. I noticed if I turned off shadows (Stencil Shadows and Blob shadows) entirely, I get 115fps. That is a boost of 60 extra frames turning off shadows. (Blob shadows still hits really really hard. And so does Low Stencil.) However no shadows is ugly bad, so I messed around and found only one setting mattered: Stencil Shadows. Turning this to Medium/High gives me 70fps. Anything more than High kills the framerate a lot for no gain. I notice no actual visual difference between Low & Ultra High stencil shadows. But I keep them on Medium anyway. (High outside in Bree lowered my fps a bit, so Medium is good).

    In Bree, I am getting horrible 40 framerate with max settings. Now I am getting 77+ framerate after I finally figured out what was killing my framerate. I noticed it wasn't just shadows killing my framerate outside in Bree (anything higher than Medium Stencil Shadows) It was also SURFACE REFLECTION. I turned this from Ultra High to Low, and bam - from 40fps to 77fps.

    I don't remember having much of ANY hitching/stuttering at all back a year ago when I played. Now it is really bad, especially on horse. The only change was the removal of my second 1080ti and switching internet providers from cable (150mbps) to fiber (1000gbps). I doubt this is the issue. Probably a patch, or a setting on my computer, or just the game sucks.

    Anyway, thought that might help. It gave me 30-40fps boost pretty much everywhere. Performance for MMORPG's is horrible, and LOTRO's is actually pretty good despite how insane it is to only get 70fps average in Bree/Laila's on the world's fastest GPU/CPU combo.

    My Nvidia settings are also max quality, except I do not use any DSR or AA settings in Nvidia Control Panel. No need with 4x AA in LOTRO.

    The only thing I haven't tried is something faster than a SSD. I'd love to see if anyone with Octane or M2 or RAM finds the stuttering to stop. It makes sense in some games, because of how incompetently the game programmers did things. (I am a gamedev myself and a game programmer; nothing close to an expert but I know a bit about the ways a lot of games are programmed when it comes to streaming in assets, large open world logic, and mmo netcode. Game programmers for MMORPG's are extremely disappointing and even big monoliths like Bethesda are notorious for massive violations of gamedev 101. Things even newbies know better than to do!).

    --------------------------------------------


    ==SETTINGS==

    SURFACE REFLECTION:
    Low
    STENCIL SHADOWS: Medium
    Everything Else: Absolute maximum possible.
    4x AA is required IMO and gives 0fps hit. Every other setting gives 0fps hit.

    TESTED IN: Bree only. This is where I was lagging the worst.
    STUTTERING: Unfixable.

    The first image is with the Low/Medium settings I just described. Below that at the very bottom is the same area with ULTRA HIGH settings. I see absolutely 0 difference in quality but look at the drop in framerate from 71 to 56 (framerate in the top left corner).

    edit: I take it back. Puddles on the ground look a lot better changing Surface Reflection to High. However the framerate hit is just way too high. Maybe I should turn this OFF (puddles disappear). For now I will keep it on low, so there are puddles and they dont look amazing but they at least exist. More testing is definitely required. You can see the difference between LOW/HIGH here. No reason at all to go above High though - frame drop with no real quality improvement.



    Last edited by Vivanta; Feb 20 2019 at 01:43 PM. Reason: It is the 2080 that is same as 1080 ti, not the 2080 ti.

  16. #41
    Shadows are very confusing.

    If I keep on DX10 Dynamic Shadows in Bree, I get beautiful shadows and great performance.

    if I turn off DX10 Dynamic Shadows, it's like a 5fps performance hit as long as all other shadows are off (Stencil Shadows, Landscape Shadows, Blob Shadows all disabled).

    If I turn off DX10 Dynamic Shadows but turn ON other shadows (Stencil Shadows, Landscape Shadows, Blob Shadows) then I get an ENORMOUS fps hit. Turn DX10 Dynamic Shadows on with those on, and I get my performance back as the DX10 dynamics seem to take over.

    Notice the settings in the screenshots.


    I am guessing that since DX10 Dynamic Shadows are "OUTDOOR ONLY" this explains why my indoor framerate is so horrible. I assume based on the performance hit that the shadows are CPU intensive indoors (not DX10) but the DX10 dynamics are more up to date tech & use the GPU entirely. My performance hit with DX10 vs No shadows of any kind seems to be 5-16fps. Not bad at all for shadows everywhere. The lack of DX10 dynamics indoors though kills me and destroys my framerate looking at the costumes in Laila's market. Turn around and face the door and I fly up to 250+fps because it's not rendering any shadows but my character's. The sad thing is that in Laila's market there are barely any shadows really. Turning them off isnt a big deal like it is outside.


    For now, I will be keeping these settings:

    Last edited by Vivanta; Feb 19 2019 at 03:30 PM.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    I am running on pretty much the fastest hardware possible for GPU & single threaded CPU. The performance issues are annoying, but I resolved a good chunk of my performance woes with a 20-40fps gain.

    -----------------------------

    GPU: Nvidia 1080ti overclocked like a beast (this is basically on par with the fastest GPU in the world, which I believe is the +5% 2080ti which is horribly rated being such a small improvement)

    CPU: Intel i7 4790K @ 4ghz (this isn't that far below the best possible CPU in the world for singlethread performance)

    Harddrive: SSD of course.

    Monitor: 2560x1440 @ 144hz (this is why I am so frustrated when I don't get 90+ fps. After 90 I can tell the difference but it isn't as big a difference as getting to 90 which is huge to me. Anything below 90 just doesn't cut it for me, but 70 is acceptable. 40-50 is my bare minimum, but I hate it because going from 70-90 to 40-50 gives visible stutter.) I never use V-Sync (gross!) and just cap framerate @ 144hz or not at all.

    Latency: 51% on AT&T fiber 1000gbps.

    ------------------------

    A year ago, I remember getting extremely high framerates. I was running SLI 1080ti, but I don't know if LOTRO takes advantage of SLI. That's the only hardware difference, as I run just one 1080ti now. SLI/Crossfire is also so notorious for stuttering and all kinds of issues, so IMO everyone should always avoid that horrible tech and just go with the best GPU you can afford. However with MMORPG's, as we see here, as well as with most of Bethesda's poorly programmed games, the games I love are often CPU intensive and single threaded. It's horrible, but upgrading to the i7 4790K was the best thing I've ever done for MMO's, especially Hero Engine monstrosities like SWTOR or poorly programmed games like Skyrim (which I have to cap at 90fps anyway bc they violate game programming 101 and tie physics to framerates like some 12 year old incompetent programmer from 1980).

    Anyway, I messed with my settings and got some pretty big improvements. I noticed absolutely no visual difference between these settings being on LOW & ULTRA HIGH.



    Strategy: Turn everything to LOWEST (low/disabled for every possible setting except resolution). I then proceeded to turn every setting to max, to see if it gave any FPS hit. Out of all the hundred settings, only two gave any real FPS hit for me: Shadows (of any kind - blob or stencil) & Surface Reflection.

    In Lalia's Market facing all the clothing from the entrance, I get only 55fps on max settings. I noticed if I turned off shadows (Stencil Shadows and Blob shadows) entirely, I get 115fps. That is a boost of 60 extra frames turning off shadows. (Blob shadows still hits really really hard. And so does Low Stencil.) However no shadows is ugly bad, so I messed around and found only one setting mattered: Stencil Shadows. Turning this to Medium/High gives me 70fps. Anything more than High kills the framerate a lot for no gain. I notice no actual visual difference between Low & Ultra High stencil shadows. But I keep them on Medium anyway. (High outside in Bree lowered my fps a bit, so Medium is good).

    In Bree, I am getting horrible 40 framerate with max settings. Now I am getting 77+ framerate after I finally figured out what was killing my framerate. I noticed it wasn't just shadows killing my framerate outside in Bree (anything higher than Medium Stencil Shadows) It was also SURFACE REFLECTION. I turned this from Ultra High to Low, and bam - from 40fps to 77fps.

    I don't remember having much of ANY hitching/stuttering at all back a year ago when I played. Now it is really bad, especially on horse. The only change was the removal of my second 1080ti and switching internet providers from cable (150mbps) to fiber (1000gbps). I doubt this is the issue. Probably a patch, or a setting on my computer, or just the game sucks.

    Anyway, thought that might help. It gave me 30-40fps boost pretty much everywhere. Performance for MMORPG's is horrible, and LOTRO's is actually pretty good despite how insane it is to only get 70fps average in Bree/Laila's on the world's fastest GPU/CPU combo.

    My Nvidia settings are also max quality, except I do not use any DSR or AA settings in Nvidia Control Panel. No need with 4x AA in LOTRO.

    The only thing I haven't tried is something faster than a SSD. I'd love to see if anyone with Octane or M2 or RAM finds the stuttering to stop. It makes sense in some games, because of how incompetently the game programmers did things. (I am a gamedev myself and a game programmer; nothing close to an expert but I know a bit about the ways a lot of games are programmed when it comes to streaming in assets, large open world logic, and mmo netcode. Game programmers for MMORPG's are extremely disappointing and even big monoliths like Bethesda are notorious for massive violations of gamedev 101. Things even newbies know better than to do!).

    --------------------------------------------


    ==SETTINGS==

    SURFACE REFLECTION:
    Low
    STENCIL SHADOWS: Medium
    Everything Else: Absolute maximum possible.
    4x AA is required IMO and gives 0fps hit. Every other setting gives 0fps hit.

    TESTED IN: Bree only. This is where I was lagging the worst.
    STUTTERING: Unfixable.

    The first image is with the Low/Medium settings I just described. Below that at the very bottom is the same area with ULTRA HIGH settings. I see absolutely 0 difference in quality but look at the drop in framerate from 71 to 56 (framerate in the top left corner).

    edit: I take it back. Puddles on the ground look a lot better changing Surface Reflection to High. However the framerate hit is just way too high. Maybe I should turn this OFF (puddles disappear). For now I will keep it on low, so there are puddles and they dont look amazing but they at least exist. More testing is definitely required. You can see the difference between LOW/HIGH here. No reason at all to go above High though - frame drop with no real quality improvement.
    2080 Ti is on average 40% faster than 1080 Ti, from as low as 25% faster in some games up to as high as 60% faster in some, there are no circumstances at which any 1080 Ti can get within 5% of even stock 2080 Ti, even in games where the difference is only 25%. However that doesn't matter here because realistically you will never get GPU bound in LOTRO, not even close.

    If you have VRR, V-sync is active only on max refreshrate, and is automatically turned off when you drop below. And is still required to avoid tearing even with G-sync or FreeSync, so the common tactics is to turn V-sync On and then lock 2-3 FPS below max refreshrate, this way avoiding V-sync input lag and avoid tearing at the same time, win-win. You can also significantly reduce V-sync input lag by locking 0.010Hz below exact max refreshrate. So it is not "gross", it is required. https://www.blurbusters.com/howto-low-lag-vsync-on/

    There is a link to Graphics Settings Breakdown at the beginning of this thread, you can check the difference between different shadows settings there. There are massive differences depending on the environment. Quality of Stencil Shadows determines how far they can be rendered, and they work mostly for characters. For high quality dynamic shadows for foliage and architecture you need DX10 Dynamic Shadows, otherwise you will have low quality static shadows for foliage for example.

    You can also use x8 AA, it shouldn't affect your performance, it is entirely GPU bound settings and you are entirely CPU bound.

    Surface Reflections is the most unoptimized setting in game. Small pond in Bree has the same performance hit as huge water surfaces in Harwick. There is also very hard to find a good looking setting, because Off looks ok in the day from up close, but bad from the distance and water looks like a black hole during the night. On Low, it reflects only the sky, which looks odd and worse than Off from up close, and similarly bad from the distance. It will also look bad in places where there is no sky to reflect. Then High and Ultra reflect normal objects, High reflects only some part of objects and with lower object detail, while Ultra reflects everything, but both have massive performance hit.

    There are few settings that you can adjust to get huge boost to average framerate, mainly Surface Reflections and Object Draw Distance, but not only they are essential for quality, but also the stuttering is not fixable, so there is no effective difference in performance, you can even have 1000 FPS average and it won't matter if you get massive stutter every 10 seconds. Getting better CPU and RAM to increase single threaded performance also only raises average performance without any affect on stuttering.

    The only thing that has any real affect on stuttering is SSD, which reduces stuttering frequency up to 3 times compared to HDD, but it is still bad. Page File Usage says 0% and there is no difference in performance even from turning Page File off all together, so it doesn't seem that the game is running out of video memory due to 32-bit architecture because it would have to use Page File is such case right?
    Last edited by Unthariel; Feb 19 2019 at 03:56 PM.

  18. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Unthariel View Post
    2080 Ti is on average 40% faster than 1080 Ti, from as low as 25% faster in some games up to as high as 60% faster in some, there are no circumstances at which any 1080 Ti can get within 5% of even stock 2080 Ti, even in games where the difference is only 25%. However that doesn't matter here because realistically you will never get GPU bound in LOTRO, not even close.
    That's not what I've heard from all my friends, but I haven't checked the actual benchmarks so I won't argue. I just heard overwhelming negativity about the newest gen of cards, their price, and their disappointing performance above lastgen. I swear I read an initial review of hte 2080ti being only a 5% gain, but I will concede I am not keeping up with this and a few seconds on google seems to imply there is a 32%-ish difference in some games. Later I think I'll check out the article I initially read, or perhaps I just believed my friends and shouldn't have. Clearly you're right and it's better than I thought.

    If you have VRR, V-sync is active only on max refreshrate, and is automatically turned off when you drop below. And is still required to avoid tearing even with G-sync or FreeSync, so the common tactics is to turn V-sync On and then lock 2-3 FPS below max refreshrate, this way avoiding V-sync input lag and avoid tearing at the same time, win-win. You can also significantly reduce V-sync input lag by locking 0.010Hz below exact max refreshrate. So it is not "gross", it is required. https://www.blurbusters.com/howto-low-lag-vsync-on/
    While I am happy to see someone actually linking blurbusters (great job), I have absolutely 0 need for V-Sync as I don't get any visible tearing even when I hit 250+ in LOTRO. (Remember, this is only required if you actually notice it IRL. Which I find odd...because I usually do notice, but some games I just don't get tearing. I think capping my fps is the reason why most of the time. I never go above 144fps because the fps is capped. However with LOTRO I'm not capping. Then again in most areas I get 70-150, not 250, so that's probably why. Maybe my monitor just kicks butt idk.) So this isn't an issue and V-Sync is indeed gross IMO, always, due to the input lag as well as a few other noticeable issues I've had with it. When I ran FreeSync (my monitor isnt G-Sync but I used to run AMD) I never had to use V-Sync when FreeSync was working with just a few exceptions. It's so weird how every game is different. V-Sync is only something I ever use when I am running on my 4K TV @ 60fps (the input lag is already horrible there, and the screen tearing 4K @ 60 is usually horrific). I'm not going to argue, but I do know it is certainly not a win-win anytime you turn on V-Sync. There is always a penalty to having V-Sync on, even when there is a fancy version of V-Sync (Adaptive Sync excluded of course, since that isn't V-Sync). Boy do I miss Adaptive Sync though. The G-Sync version of my asus monitor is ridiculously overpriced (not just for the G-Sync +$100 but last time I checked it's also +$100 for no reason too so it's +$200 total and I'd have to sell my current FreeSync monitor. Ugh! I hate nvidia's greed on this since the G-Sync hardware is literally just worthless DRM. I saw a few people hacking FreeSync to allow G-Sync, but when I tried I remember it either not working for my monitor or being glitchy.)

    You also can get tearing when below max refreshrate, and all this doesn't always solve that issue. It's been a bit since I've looked into it (maybe a year) but I know my stuff. That is why I am so happy to see someone actually linking blurbusters. That is such an awesome and objective website which so easily debunks the common myths around framerate, the human eye, and monitor refreshrates. Well done. Mucho respect just for linking that site.

    Anyway sorry if I seem argumentative in any way (I can come off that way. I'm actually agreeing with most everything you're saying or conceding without argument since I'm not up to date). For some reason LOTRO just seems to be really well performing when it comes to tearing for me. I'm really not sure why every game is so different, but really I rarely ever get any tearing ever since I upgraded to a 144hz monitor, and when I do capping fps with Riva usually solves all issues for me. Stuttering is another issue entirely though. To remove it entirely, I basically have to cap fps to the MINIMUM framerate I get. So even if I get 90+ 95% of the time, if it consistently dips occasionally below that, like to 70 or 50, then really the only real way to get a smooth experience (not break immersion) is to cap that low. (Ugh!) I thought this was heresy until last year, when I bought a PS4 to play Spiderman, which is a horrific 30fps (unplayable IMO on PC), but was so smooth and acceptable of an experience that I reconsidered average framerate (as high as I can get) and began to focus on minimum framerate (cap at the lows). I still don't cap low, but sometimes I think maybe I should.

    There is a link to Graphics Settings Breakdown at the beginning of this thread, you can check the difference between different shadows settings there. There are massive differences depending on the environment.
    I just did my testing in Bree, so "depending on envirnoment" is definitely true. I remember getting horrific fps in one area the Shire a year ago and lowering Object Draw Distance was the only solution. However with my current settings I am getting 250+ fps in the wilderness and 70fps average inside Bree. And the quality differences isn't very much at all, so I'm really happy. I may take another look when I go into a different environment though. Depends on my framerate when I go to these areas. I will always just adjust until I can get a minimum of 70ish.

    Quality of Stencil Shadows determines how far they can be rendered, and they work mostly for characters.
    Thanks. I figured this when messing around with a few settings, but I noticed absolutely no difference between Low & Ultra, so medium is fine for me since performance is so much more important.

    For high quality dynamic shadows for foliage and architecture you need DX10 Dynamic Shadows, otherwise you will have low quality static shadows for foliage for example.
    I really didn't notice any difference between the shadows, but the performance with DX10 Dynamics was just infinitely better.

    You can also use x8 AA, it shouldn't affect your performance, it is entirely GPU bound settings and you are entirely CPU bound.
    Thanks for this, I will definitely turn it on. I lose only 2fps, lol. I don't think there is any real visible difference between 4x & 8x for me, but maybe there is. For just 2 frames, it's worth it when I'm running 100+ in most places.

    Surface Reflections is the most unoptimized setting in game. Small pond in Bree has the same performance hit as huge water surfaces in Harwick. There is also very hard to find a good looking setting, because Off looks ok in the day from up close, but bad from the distance and water looks like a black hole during the night. On Low, it reflects only the sky, which looks odd and worse than Off from up close, and similarly bad from the distance. It will also look bad in places where there is no sky to reflect. Then High and Ultra reflect normal objects, High reflects only some part of objects and with lower object detail, while Ultra reflects everything, but both have massive performance hit.
    Yea I noticed how weird and iffy this setting is. Since I play LOTRO to relax and play casually duo with my wife, ~~I'm just going to go with the better performance and pretend as if it doesn't look any better, hehe ~~~

    edit: Scratch that. Look at the differences. That river...you're right. I'll take the performance hit. Thank you!

    There are few settings that you can adjust to get huge boost to average framerate, mainly Surface Reflections and Object Draw Distance, but not only they are essential for quality,
    Yea I have a hard time lowering Object Draw Distance, and when I was in the Shire a year+ ago it was painful choice between performance and ODD. I think I kept ODD maxed and just accepted the big hit. I love those trees... LOTRO is gorgeous even in 2019. IMO all games can learn from the beautiful gorgeous environments of LOTRO. (I've never been above lvl 20 though, so there's that. Bree, Shire, Ered Luin are all so gorgeous from Beta to even Today. So gorgeous.) I actually remember comparing LOTRO screenshots to Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, back when both just released, on mmorpg.com forums. The comparisons were amazing in difference. LOTRO was so gorgeous, and it so easily debunked the idea Vanguard was some high end beautiful hand-drawn masterpiece (Which I remember the devs bragging about hand painting all the textures or something. But LOTRO blew it out of the water.) In fact when LOTRO first released, I am pretty sure I thought the graphics (at least environments) were absolutely breathtaking. I kindof hate myself for ditching the game so fast because I was so PvP focused in my youth. I missed out on so many great PvE experiences. Then again, I get to enjoy them with my wife now & that's such an amazing thing.

    I love LOTRO!

    but also the stuttering is not fixable
    Hmm... given the hardware, I actually wonder since it seems I don't dip below 42ish fps, if I capped at 40fps if I would ever even get any stutter. If the stuttering every gets bad enough, I will actually consider trying this out. But if it's just in Bree and relaxed areas like towns, I'll probably just accept the stutter.

    so there is no effective difference in performance, you can even have 1000 FPS average and it won't matter if you get massive stutter every 10 seconds.
    My stuttering actually disappears entirely if I am on lowest settings and can manage at average framerate of 130fps in Bree. At least when I tested (only in Bree). It just requires no shadows of any kind and horrible draw distance, so clearly not worth it since the stuttering isn't that bad most of the time. I'll live with it, even though it's super disappointing with the best high end hardware. Ugh! Then again... once I bought my 1080ti I pretty much played exclusively 2D indie games and pixel art games for years... So there's that, heh. I love having the high end GPU for when I am actually playing a real 3D game that isn't CPU bound (pretty much just Witcher 3, lmao) but overall I probably don't actually need it given my love for indie 2D games and often cpu-bound MMORPG's.

    Getting better CPU and RAM to increase single threaded performance also only raises average performance without any affect on stuttering.
    Man... that CPU upgrade to the i7 4790K was the best upgrade I've ever done since I'm a MMOer. What a topsy turvy world where upgrading your CPU is better than upgrading your GPU. It used to be the opposite back in the day, when games were always so GPU restricted. I remember upgrading GPU's for Vanguard since the game was so unplayable and boy was it an amazing experience to do so. Then again, ever since I got the 1080ti I have never been GPU bound again so there's that. And my framerates have been higher even if always disappointing (70-90 average is awesome compared to my former 30-50 averages I always got my whole life). It is just frustrating since my monitor is 144hz and I can actually feel a big difference even between 90 and 120. (120 to 144 is really tiny. Noticeable but... eh. But I can still never achieve 120).

    I was actually thinking of trying to overclock my CPU, especially since I've read there's some good single thread performance improvements doing so, but between my new child, my job, and my limited freetime, I think those days are behind me. I'll just live - plus you're right, nothing seems to fix the stutter. Bleh.

    The only thing that has any real affect on stuttering is SSD, which reduces stuttering frequency up to 3 times compared to HDD, but it is still bad.
    I hadn't realized it, but my wife's computer was still using LOTRO on her HDD and her stuttering was absolutely unplayable. In Bree she'd lock up and dip to 0-6fps consistently for good chunks of time. It was horrific. Switched her over to her SSD and now it's as smooth as mine (ours stutter, but it's really not that bad at all most of the time. I can get bad for a few moments in Bree on a horse, but just for a few split seconds when first entering the area.)

    Page File Usage says 0% and there is no difference in performance even from turning Page File off all together, so it doesn't seem that the game is running out of video memory due to 32-bit architecture because it would have to use Page File is such case right?
    Yea there's no way the game is running out of RAM or Video Memory, especially on my system.

    Since it's an open world game, I imagine they never took enough advantage of preloading assets into Ram/VideoMemory or didn't program the streaming efficiently enough. So we have all this RAM or Video Memory available, but the game never asks to load any files on the HDD/SDD until they're in immediate demand, so it doesn't really matter how much we have. There might not even be any preloading. It might all just be as-needed, which would be horrible for performance. A really great programmer would be able to build some prediction into what assets may be needed in the future and take advantage of any extra/free memory (RAM or Video) to preload things or preload slowly.

    MMO's are notorious for their bad programming. Sometimes it's just because the engine they use isn't proper, sometimes the game programmers didn't do a good job, and sometimes management didn't allow the game programmers to do a good job. I'm not sure if the technical knowledge wasn't normalized back when LOTRO was developed, they just didn't care (sometimes devs just dont care if a game performs well so they dont even try), or what. Then again, isn't LOTRO based off of DDO's engine? That may be an issue too if the technical know-how to preload in open world games wasnt normalized back then. They're also such different games, since DDO is so heavily instanced. LOTRO being built on top of a different engine with different concerns... that might be the cause.

    Either way, I am very curious if the problem would be removed entirely if the game was placed on RAM, M2, or Octane instead of SSD. The difference between HDD/SSD is so enormous, I bet that would solve the stutter issues. (I remember a few years back reading about how HDD's would become obsolete as they invented basically TB's of RAM, combining the speed of RAM with the space of HDD's, but that tech never seemed to come into existence unless it was renamed. I havent looked into M2 or Octane, but the tech I read about was going to require new mobo's and change everything. Game Programming would change entirely since all assets would always be 100% fully loaded into memory at all times, requiring no caching or preloading at all.)

    edit: I believe the proper term is caching objects, not "preloading". I am entirely self-taught, so I often don't know the proper terms for anything.
    Last edited by Vivanta; Feb 20 2019 at 04:57 PM.

  19. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Unthariel View Post
    2080 Ti is on average 40% faster than 1080 Ti, from as low as 25% faster in some games up to as high as 60% faster in some, there are no circumstances at which any 1080 Ti can get within 5% of even stock 2080 Ti, even in games where the difference is only 25%. However that doesn't matter here because realistically you will never get GPU bound in LOTRO, not even close.
    You know what? I think I was mistakenly reading about 2080 vs 1080 ti, as that seems to be a few frames difference (with one nvidia forum user even claiming 2080 performs worse with 4K 60fps). The 2080 ti is clearly a good chunk better in everything I'm finding, but the 2080 seems to be what I mistakenly thought was the new best.

    Thank you for correcting me. That would be embarassing for me to continue stating such wrong information.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    That's not what I've heard from all my friends, but I haven't checked the actual benchmarks so I won't argue. I just heard overwhelming negativity about the newest gen of cards, their price, and their disappointing performance above lastgen. I swear I read an initial review of hte 2080ti being only a 5% gain, but I will concede I am not keeping up with this and a few seconds on google seems to imply there is a 32%-ish difference in some games. Later I think I'll check out the article I initially read, or perhaps I just believed my friends and shouldn't have. Clearly you're right and it's better than I thought.
    There are a lot of myths and misinformation about Turing, people cannot afford it so it is their ambition to hate it and show it in the worst light so they can delude themselves that they don't buy it because it is bad, not because they are so broke that they cannot spend $700 once per 2 years on a hobby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    You know what? I think I was mistakenly reading about 2080 vs 1080 ti, as that seems to be a few frames difference (with one nvidia forum user even claiming 2080 performs worse with 4K 60fps). The 2080 ti is clearly a good chunk better in everything I'm finding, but the 2080 seems to be what I mistakenly thought was the new best.

    Thank you for correcting me. That would be embarassing for me to continue stating such wrong information.
    At least you are reasonable enough to verify your information instead of defending your wrong ones to death like most people on the web :P 2080 is mostly on par with 1080 Ti, sometimes a bit slower sometimes a bit faster, 5-8% faster on average, and will increase over time. But price is the same, power efficiency is the same, so the only difference is Ray Tracing and AI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    While I am happy to see someone actually linking blurbusters (great job), I have absolutely 0 need for V-Sync as I don't get any visible tearing even when I hit 250+ in LOTRO. (Remember, this is only required if you actually notice it IRL. Which I find odd...because I usually do notice, but some games I just don't get tearing. I think capping my fps is the reason why most of the time. I never go above 144fps because the fps is capped. However with LOTRO I'm not capping. Then again in most areas I get 70-150, not 250, so that's probably why. Maybe my monitor just kicks butt idk.) So this isn't an issue and V-Sync is indeed gross IMO, always, due to the input lag as well as a few other noticeable issues I've had with it. When I ran FreeSync (my monitor isnt G-Sync but I used to run AMD) I never had to use V-Sync when FreeSync was working with just a few exceptions. It's so weird how every game is different. V-Sync is only something I ever use when I am running on my 4K TV @ 60fps (the input lag is already horrible there, and the screen tearing 4K @ 60 is usually horrific). I'm not going to argue, but I do know it is certainly not a win-win anytime you turn on V-Sync. There is always a penalty to having V-Sync on, even when there is a fancy version of V-Sync (Adaptive Sync excluded of course, since that isn't V-Sync). Boy do I miss Adaptive Sync though. The G-Sync version of my asus monitor is ridiculously overpriced (not just for the G-Sync +$100 but last time I checked it's also +$100 for no reason too so it's +$200 total and I'd have to sell my current FreeSync monitor. Ugh! I hate nvidia's greed on this since the G-Sync hardware is literally just worthless DRM. I saw a few people hacking FreeSync to allow G-Sync, but when I tried I remember it either not working for my monitor or being glitchy.)
    NVIDIA now supports FreeSync, you can turn G-sync on normally on FreeSync display in NVIDIA Control Panel. My display has some funny 55-75 Hz FreeSync range, but there is a software called CRU, where you can edit it. I set it to 35-60 and it works decently. FPS variations are drastically less visible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    Anyway sorry if I seem argumentative in any way (I can come off that way. I'm actually agreeing with most everything you're saying or conceding without argument since I'm not up to date). For some reason LOTRO just seems to be really well performing when it comes to tearing for me. I'm really not sure why every game is so different, but really I rarely ever get any tearing ever since I upgraded to a 144hz monitor, and when I do capping fps with Riva usually solves all issues for me. Stuttering is another issue entirely though. To remove it entirely, I basically have to cap fps to the MINIMUM framerate I get. So even if I get 90+ 95% of the time, if it consistently dips occasionally below that, like to 70 or 50, then really the only real way to get a smooth experience (not break immersion) is to cap that low. (Ugh!) I thought this was heresy until last year, when I bought a PS4 to play Spiderman, which is a horrific 30fps (unplayable IMO on PC), but was so smooth and acceptable of an experience that I reconsidered average framerate (as high as I can get) and began to focus on minimum framerate (cap at the lows). I still don't cap low, but sometimes I think maybe I should.
    Thats why you need VRR, without it you need to be hard to locked to given framemrate at all times to achieve smoothness, which is simply not possible across all games, there will always be some that won't run well regardless of hardware used.

    Though for me even with VRR framerate fluctuations are affecting the experience negatively. I can run my display up to 85 Hz overclocked and smoothness difference vs 60 is very big, but after only few hours of playing at 85 Hz 60 started to feel clunky, so I stopped using 85 Hz because after few more days there would be no going back and I wouldn't be able to play 60 FPS anymore, which is a terrible idea. So I am now using 60 Hz to maintain consistency across all games. This is why I never wanted higher refreshrate, because I knew that it is going to introduce huge inconsistency, and that there are tons of games where 60+ is not possible for variety of reasons, and I was right, not only it is harder to focus with varying framerate, but also higher framerates make lower framerates look unplayable over time. High refreshrate is still benefitial, because for example running 60 FPS locked on 120 Hz VRR display feels much smoother than running 60 FPS on 60 Hz display with V-sync, but yea, I will stay with 60 for the sake of consistency. My game library is way too diverse to expect above 60 FPS across the board, regardless of hardware used.

    Don't know how did you manage to find 30 FPS smooth, especially that you are using 144 Hz display on daily basis, but... I cannot stand 30 FPS, I also cannot stand a minute of 24 Hz movies, I have to use interpolation otherwise I get headache and eye strain very quickly.

    I just need stable framerate for vast majority of time, and 60 FPS is the highest possible framerate that you can stable across all games, simple as that. And also I don't tolerate compromises in graphics settings, I want to play games at their maximum visual potential, also I am using huge 38" 21:9 display and here I can especially see all the differences and imperfections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    Yea I have a hard time lowering Object Draw Distance, and when I was in the Shire a year+ ago it was painful choice between performance and ODD. I think I kept ODD maxed and just accepted the big hit. I love those trees... LOTRO is gorgeous even in 2019. IMO all games can learn from the beautiful gorgeous environments of LOTRO. (I've never been above lvl 20 though, so there's that. Bree, Shire, Ered Luin are all so gorgeous from Beta to even Today. So gorgeous.) I actually remember comparing LOTRO screenshots to Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, back when both just released, on mmorpg.com forums. The comparisons were amazing in difference. LOTRO was so gorgeous, and it so easily debunked the idea Vanguard was some high end beautiful hand-drawn masterpiece (Which I remember the devs bragging about hand painting all the textures or something. But LOTRO blew it out of the water.) In fact when LOTRO first released, I am pretty sure I thought the graphics (at least environments) were absolutely breathtaking. I kindof hate myself for ditching the game so fast because I was so PvP focused in my youth. I missed out on so many great PvE experiences. Then again, I get to enjoy them with my wife now & that's such an amazing thing.

    I love LOTRO!
    LOTRO certainly has a lot to it. I am playing games on high-end PC and high-end display for years now, I have seen all the best looking games on max settings, and still LOTRO looks very nice for me, despite it's age. Especially the world design is amazing, it really feels like a huge open world, and you feel so small in it. Add to that other things like beautiful soundtrack, interesting story, great variety of environments... I would play it even if it was single player. It if it was playable that is, because now it just isn't and performance issues are way to extreme.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    Hmm... given the hardware, I actually wonder since it seems I don't dip below 42ish fps, if I capped at 40fps if I would ever even get any stutter. If the stuttering every gets bad enough, I will actually consider trying this out. But if it's just in Bree and relaxed areas like towns, I'll probably just accept the stutter.
    Yea launch frametime graph with MSI Afterburner or some software that can log frametimes into file and then make a graph in Excel. Then you will see how bad this stutters actually are, framerate counter doesn't mean much, it cannot keep up with what is going on and only counts how many frames are displayed per second. Frametime graph is showing everything with similar precision to how you perceive it with your eyes, it shows the time from each frame to another, which means that it is showing all the stutters perfectly. Thats how you check performance. Everything is explained in this thread by the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    My stuttering actually disappears entirely if I am on lowest settings and can manage at average framerate of 130fps in Bree. At least when I tested (only in Bree). It just requires no shadows of any kind and horrible draw distance, so clearly not worth it since the stuttering isn't that bad most of the time. I'll live with it, even though it's super disappointing with the best high end hardware. Ugh! Then again... once I bought my 1080ti I pretty much played exclusively 2D indie games and pixel art games for years... So there's that, heh. I love having the high end GPU for when I am actually playing a real 3D game that isn't CPU bound (pretty much just Witcher 3, lmao) but overall I probably don't actually need it given my love for indie 2D games and often cpu-bound MMORPG's.
    Yes, unless you play demanding 3D games the GPU will remain heavily unutilized. Though it is still great to have one in case you want to play such games. For me they take a big majority of what I play and even some smaller indie games usually require a lot of GPU power, especially at my 3840x1600 resolution, so I am keeping my GPU up to date and sometimes even using two GPUs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    I was actually thinking of trying to overclock my CPU, especially since I've read there's some good single thread performance improvements doing so, but between my new child, my job, and my limited freetime, I think those days are behind me. I'll just live - plus you're right, nothing seems to fix the stutter. Bleh.
    Maybe just apply some generic OC for this CPU, like 4.5 GHz at 1.35V, also enable memory XMP if you have one available, without any additional fine tuning. Then put it through some real world stability test, like RealBench and gaming, and if it is stable then leave it this way. It is worth doing, just look at graphs in the main post, on my old X79 setup I got over 40% performance improvement from overclocking CPU and RAM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    Yea there's no way the game is running out of RAM or Video Memory, especially on my system.
    The issue here is that LOTRO uses 32-bit architecture, and theoretically cannot use more than 2 GB of RAM (or 3.5 GB if it is programmed for it, this is max for 32-bit), so it is possible that it just doesn't have enough memory available and is choking because of that. This would also explain why switching to SSD gives such a drastic improvement. If Page File usage is 0% always for LOTRO then maybe it is not even using this feature and takes things from storage by default because they knew they won't have enough memory available. I think that SSD vs HDD results are the mosts important out of all, because hopeless CPU bound single threaded games are many and it is nothing unusual, but none stutter so bad and none show such drastic differences between SSD and HDD, so this suggests some memory issue for LOTRO and this may indeed have something to do with 32-bit architecture and there is some hope for 64-bit client to actually help. I don't really know how it all works and I only judge what I see as a gamer, I don't have any knowledge about programming. I am only interested in results, how things are made is not for me to bother with, if you sell a product then you are supposed to deliver it according to certain quality standards and I am only interested in that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivanta View Post
    Since it's an open world game, I imagine they never took enough advantage of preloading assets into Ram/VideoMemory or didn't program the streaming efficiently enough. So we have all this RAM or Video Memory available, but the game never asks to load any files on the HDD/SDD until they're in immediate demand, so it doesn't really matter how much we have. There might not even be any preloading. It might all just be as-needed, which would be horrible for performance. A really great programmer would be able to build some prediction into what assets may be needed in the future and take advantage of any extra/free memory (RAM or Video) to preload things or preload slowly.

    MMO's are notorious for their bad programming. Sometimes it's just because the engine they use isn't proper, sometimes the game programmers didn't do a good job, and sometimes management didn't allow the game programmers to do a good job. I'm not sure if the technical knowledge wasn't normalized back when LOTRO was developed, they just didn't care (sometimes devs just dont care if a game performs well so they dont even try), or what. Then again, isn't LOTRO based off of DDO's engine? That may be an issue too if the technical know-how to preload in open world games wasnt normalized back then. They're also such different games, since DDO is so heavily instanced. LOTRO being built on top of a different engine with different concerns... that might be the cause.

    Either way, I am very curious if the problem would be removed entirely if the game was placed on RAM, M2, or Octane instead of SSD. The difference between HDD/SSD is so enormous, I bet that would solve the stutter issues. (I remember a few years back reading about how HDD's would become obsolete as they invented basically TB's of RAM, combining the speed of RAM with the space of HDD's, but that tech never seemed to come into existence unless it was renamed. I havent looked into M2 or Octane, but the tech I read about was going to require new mobo's and change everything. Game Programming would change entirely since all assets would always be 100% fully loaded into memory at all times, requiring no caching or preloading at all.)
    I don't think that there are any fundamental differences between M.2 and SATA III aside from write/read speeds, and all tests in games are not showing any additional benefit from M.2 over regular SSD. I think only RAM Disk would provide big enough decrease to latency make a difference. I'd gladly build a system where I could run all games from RAM Disk, but memory is far too expensive today, and more and more games don't fit inside 100 GB anymore, so having 128 GB of RAM wouldn't always be enough. And for 128 GB the price is so high that I can just as well have a second 2080 Ti instead.
    Last edited by Unthariel; Feb 21 2019 at 11:08 AM.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Unthariel View Post

    I don't think that there are any fundamental differences between M.2 and SATA III aside from write/read speeds, and all tests in games are not showing any additional benefit from M.2 over regular SSD. I think only RAM Disk would provide big enough increase to latency and speed to make a difference. I'd gladly build a system where I could run all games from RAM Disk, but memory is far too expensive today, and more and more games don't fit inside 100 GB anymore, so having 128 GB of RAM wouldn't always be enough. And for 128 GB the price is so high that I can just as well have a second 2080 Ti instead.
    Dont forget there is M2 (SATA), and M2 NVME; it is the NVME that is faster, a LOT faster if you have a good enough mobo.

    I just fitted a NVME PCIE adapter and drive to my old AM3+ board, I am getting nearly 1600MB/s read and 1100MB/s write speeds, possibly held back from the potential 3400MB/s read speed by the PCIE spec v2 board and the slowish DDR3 RAM.

    Either way, it is a HUGE speed boost over SATA III.

    Of real interest, the write speeds I achieved are higher than the manufacturers quoted speeds by nearly 50MB/s.


    The differences seem pretty big to me (quoted Intel figures)

    NVMe AHCI
    Latency 2.8 µs 6.0 µs
    Maximum Queue Depth Up to 64K queues with
    64K commands each
    Up to 1 queue with
    32 commands each
    Multicore Support Yes Limited
    4KB Efficiency One 64B fetch Two serialized host
    DRAM fetches required

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload