I recently upgraded my computer from a 3570K @ 4.5 GHz and a GTX 970 to a 7600K @ 4.9 GHz and a 1070 also overclocked. The problem before was that my FPS was dropping as low as 30 FPS at 1440p because my CPU was completely maxed out. The GPU was barely even 50% loaded, but the CPU was pegged. So I figured, well the 7600k at @4.9 GHZ is faster than any processor that existed at the time PS2 was made, so it should be solid for any resolution at any framerate right? noooooo! While it is much faster and I can maintain 75 FPS (cap of my monitor), I still drop as low as 50 FPS during intense shootouts. I find this pretty ridiculous because I am using technology that dident even exist when this game was made and my current computer would dominate anything made at the time PS2 came out, yet it still cant maintain an even 60 FPS at times. I looked at the resource monitor, and yet again my CPU is totally maxed out, all four cores, even overclocked just shy of 5 GHZ! That's insane, PS2 really needs to optimize the way it uses CPU resources and it makes me wonder how ANY CPU was good enough at the time this game came out. Even now, the only CPU that "might" be able to give you a solid FPS would be a 7700k extremely overclocked on LN2 or water, and even then you wouldent be able to hit 144 FPS to keep up with modern monitors.
PS1 had the same problems when it first came out. Most people didnt have computers good enough to run it with top quality fps. I suspect that insane requirements is a core flaw in the mmofps genre as a whole. And is probably why its not more popular. Perhaps if there was some healthy competition between mmofps games, one of them would eventually find a way to solve the ridiculous performance requirements, but it seems like Planetside 2 has monopoly on everything for now.
You have to take a step back and realise exactly what the PS2 client has to do. It does the final screen drawing piece that any other game does but to get to that point it has to calculate and coordinate exactly what's happening to the (potentially) hundreds of other players around you, many of whom will not have your specs so it has to make approximations, physics, shells, camo, decals, chat, terrain on a massive map - the list goes on and on. There is a good reason why games like Planetside 2 aren't common and FPS with hard player limits (like 64) are far more so - it's darned difficult to pull it off...
Yea, except you also have to consider how powerful modern CPUs are. My processor can complete 100 billion math equations a second. That's more math than 1000 mathematicians will complete in their entire collective lifetimes. I find it hard to believe anything in any game is that complex--rather it's more likely a poor allocation of resources and lots of circular processing with the same instructions getting executed over and over..
Dude, you got ******* 20FPS extra from upgrading to a four years younger Intel CPU from the CPU generation where Moore's Law doesn't exist anymore. (The jump to Skylake actually reduced performance by 1% or so) If anything, that's ******* impressive. Supreme Commander players have the exact same ******* issue. Crysis is trivial to run by now, but SupCom and PS2 are both games that got ****** over by CPU developments of the current decade. I will be so ******* happy if Intel finally gets off their *****, now that AMD is actually good again.
I was talking about my minimum FPS, not my average. Also, upgraded from a 970 to a 1070 which helped quite a bit although the game is still CPU bottlenecked big time. Even though the game is CPU bottlenecked, upgrading the GPU still helped some for whatever reason. Also, AMD is not good again. The Ryzen CPU cant even compete with the 7600k let alone the 770k. The Ryzen is almost double the cost of the 7600k but it's slightly slower and the 7700k is far faster and still less expensive. Intel still has the monopoly and they know it.
Reason AMD is bad on PS2 isn't AMD's fault. PS2 is running on old DX, old engine, and still runs on a CPU bottleneck (in 2017 for gods sake). The game has been poorly optimized forever, but even worse now because of construction and all the model texture packs you can get for infantry and vehicles. There's also some weird coding faults with settings that KILL your fps that they broke and never fixed after the PS4 crossover. I suggest looking up Visigodo's ini, Potato.ini, or on reddit for the most optimized settings. Shadows and fog while running on high or ultra literally kill 30+ frames, even with a top tier rig.
Why kind of monitor are you using? I'm running with the following and I usually get around 120fps with the client graphics maxed out with the exception of shadows. Intel i7-7700k @ 4.2Ghz 16 GB ram SSD drive NVIDIA GTX 1070 Acer 27" GN276HL 144Hz 1MS
I figured out the issue. Shadows takes up a metric crap ton of CPU resources. When I have it on ultra, the CPU cores are maxed all day. When I drop it to high or medium, FPS increases by 20% and the CPU usage drops down to about 75%. GPU usage goes up as well which is good. For whatever reason the ultra shadows is poorly programed. Anyway, I am running an HP Omen 32" QHD 75Hz.
AMD R7 1800x here. Even in 96+ vs 96+ battles, no CPU cores are ever maxed out. Unfortunately (and rather surprisingly), my GPU (GTX 1080) cannot maintain more than 50-ish FPS on Low settings in those size fights. On Ultra, FPS crawls to <30 in huge battles. Still though, CPU seems rather unfazed. This tells me that there is also some graphics/rendering issue with PS2 when lots of players are in one area, not just a netcode/game logic one.
