Huh? All I've been asking is for you to provide proof that anything less than a reported 100% usage is not full GPU utilization in multi-GPU, which you effectively dodged since I posed the question.
Are you going to post a video actually disproving the menu issue or not? Make sure you use ALL stock settings if you do. And make sure you dont start it in the terminal memu like the last one. Or does it prove that the 2D menus do load the GPU in an atypical way?
You mean this one where you have your fan manually set and the GPU keeps bouncing off of 100% power? Perfectly demonstrating the problem? http://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=X31vm3iVVrE
Actually, it proves that there is no problem What you see in that video is normal behavior for a video game. Care to counter my post with evidence?
Well in a nutshell, the problem can be shortened Down to this : Planetside 2 uses alot more watt per gpu load %, than other games / applications does, which is perfectly demonstrated in that video, and in alooot of screenshots in this thread. So lets assume that just like in battlefield 3 (a game that ironically uses about the same gpu load % as planetside 2), the gpu load % hovers around 50-60%, but while the power usage is 60% in bf3, the power usage is as high as 100% in planetside 2 - this will reflect in ALOT higher temperatures. Now if people are actually gpu bound in this game, instead of cpu bound as the majority, then thats where they could really run into issues, unless they have very good cooling. And Lavans, no, that is not normal behavior. The load / power % should be on a 1 to 1 ratio... not 1 to 1.5 ratio, as it is in your planetside 2 video, where the power % is much higher than the load %.
Source? Do you have any official statements or white sheets that state this? Because I'm not seeing any. And last I checked, you did not develop Kepler, or any GPU architecture for that matter.
Try reading the 13 pages of this thread and all the other "ps2 is overheating my pc" threads. We already established it with plenty of evidence. Thanks for adding yours. And no, a map screen thats about as complex as a flash webpage shouldnt use 33% of a 3.2 TFLOPS GPU like yours. No a menu shouldnt cause the GPU power consumption to spike as your video shows. No this is not how moat games behave: 2D menus are more GPU intensive than the actual game. Thats a bug and has been causing peoblems for plenty of people since launch. Ever notice how the people who got the black screen kernel mode driver crash seemed to get it in terminals or the map? You even said in a different thread that the ui has problems yesterday. So does it or not? You refuse to post a video showing you open a menu since you know that causes the power consumption to spike. Weve established that it does for over a year now.
Oh hey, another wall of text of baseless "facts" You complain about "maps requiring too much to render", yet you never stopped to think that the game could still be rendering in the background, did you? I see a lot of "should" and "should nots" coming from you, but you do nothing to back it up. You rant your mouth like you're the most educated technical engineer in the world. So, I will echo what someone said elsewhere I'm glad you're still around, and I can't wait for SoE to hire you
Yeah i already posted the links to the OFFICIAL NVIDIA DOCUMENTS that explain how GPU boost works. The way GPU boost works makes actually proves you to be incorrect. The whole point is to get MORE utilization out of it, because you have EXTRA POWER HEADROOM. Thats how GPU boost works. When your GPU is being highly utilized but not at its power limit it lets you increase voltage and clocks! YOU posted that the voltage was LOWER in PS2 and repeatedly asserted that this was evidence that the menus arent a problem. Except thats an indication that they ARE! Theres actually an explanation of how a power virus will cause the self protection to prevent damage in the case of a power virus load resulting in lower Voltage. Thats what you see here: low utilization but 100% power. A normal game shows higher utilization than power, which allows boost to work correctly. You need to do some research into how transistor switching works and then youll understand how different code loads a CPU or GPU in different ways. Rapidly toggling transistors on and off and doing no work can cause a situation like this as the NVIDIA OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS STATE. P.S. you are the one who stated that the map uses less power than the terminals because the game DOESNT render behind the map but does behind the store/terminals etc. https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...scaleform-ui-menus.186679/page-2#post-2705147 "You do realize the game continues to render behind the store, but not the map, right? That would be a clear indication as to why the store is drawing more power where the map is drawing less power. Derp." I guess you forgot that you said that and now you "dont know" if they do or not? Lol
The main map is opaque and is fine. It's the transparent fullscreen menus that are the big problem. If I ever get into a clusterf*ck and get CPU bottlenecked like crazy and <50% GPU utilization, all I have to do is press ESC and I'm back to 90+% GPU usage and GPU-bound again. Guess Lavans can't help but contradict himself and straw man at every turn.
Yes he pretty much proved without a doubt that he has the issue(like everyone with GPUs that boost) while attempting to disprove it. It would be nice if they fixed this and made the textures higher resolution than ancient games like TF2(which also uses real antialiasing).
The problem with this is that the game already suffers from a lot of memory-related problems as it is. If SOE were to introduce higher-quality assets without optimizing them well (which they just don't have the resources to do), the performance issues, hitching, and RAM & VRAM usage would all go up. Coupled with DX9, which really can't handle streaming and resource management very well at all, especially for a game of this scope, and you get a very unfortunate situation. MaceMadunusus' series of Reddit posts proved that there is a lot of textures optimization that can be done which would save quite a bit of memory and improve performance. SOE's response to this was that while it would be beneficial, it fails cost-benefit analysis from a development standpoint. Basically, they would rather spend their resources making new content than optimizing what they already have. So don't hold your breath for graphical improvements. The current mish-mash of low-res and high-res textures is just gonna be the way it is for the foreseeable future. Just hope they don't downgrade the visuals even further than they already have in the name of "optimization." That's not optimization, it's laziness and incompetence. Traditional MSAA isn't really possible because of deferred shading, at least not without breaking other stuff in the render pipeline and incurring a massive performance penalty. The irony is that lighting in this game is still pretty basic, and a lot of simultaneous lights in a scene can slow everything down to a crawl.
Octiceps : I just dont get, how they dont have the resources to let 1 guy continue to Work on improving textures, and other graphical features... such as including smaa (which Works with deferred lightning, as its post processing, just like the current crap edge detection AA, but much MUCH better). I know there are lots of people (me included) who has spent hundreds (some even thousands) of bucks on this game... so the income pr player would be much greater than the average game... so i dont get how they dont have the resources for stuff.
How can overheating be a problem of the developers. If your card runs 100%, it won't go 110% because of poor optimization, it's not possible. Your card *should* be cool enough to handle endless 100% load on factory settings. If it doesn't, optimize your case air flow or contact customer support of your GPU supplier.(For me because i knew it wasn't on my end, they tested my card and agreed on abnormal temperatures even in test labs, they replaced my heatsink with a different one) Yes if your GPU overheats and you send it back and it (in test lab) still shows abnormal temperatures, the GPU is most of the times covered by warranty depending on country of course
BrianJ2 : You clearly havent read the thread... Do yourself a favor, and read the thread, before making yourself seem very ignorant.
