24 FPS on a high end machine? Possible tweaks?

[Tzeki]

Okay, so I'm unsure if this is normal. I'm currently usign Firestorm's latest installation on a machine using

•Windows 7 64-bit

•GTX 670 4GB Vram

•16GB ddr3 ram

•i5-4570k CPU

But I get 20-22 FPS on Ultra settings, click on the link bellow to see what these are.

Settings #1

Settings #2

Settings #3

 So I guess I'm asking: Is there any possible tweak I can do to increase my FPS besides lowering my graphic quality?

[Ron Khondji]

One thing I noticed: there's a 'Limit framerate' under 'Rendering' which you have selected.
You could start with un-selecting that.

[Tzeki]

Yeah, even without it does nothing for my FPS. It was originally unselected, I selected it just before taking the screenshots just so see if it had any impact on my FPS — again, it didn't. 

[Dora Gustafson]

The frame rate all depends on the scene. Lots of objects, textures and people will slow you down
Try to decrease your drawing distance to say 100 meters and see what effect that has
You can also see a big difference when you are on the ground in a busy place and when you fly up high where there is not much to render

Your equipment looks OK to me. If 24 fps isn't alright with you then 'Ultra' is too high

:smileysurprised::smileyvery-happy:

[Qie Niangao]

---

Dora Gustafson wrote:

The frame rate all depends on the scene. 

---

Yep. With that card, even with those settings, a framerate well over 60 should be standard in skybox conditions. No amount of tweaking is going to give such a high FPS in an avatar-crowded ground-level build full of intricate geometry and heavy textures.

That said, I'm curious: Are those settings really what Firestorm thinks correspond to "Ultra" for that card? Because, I mean, there are some extreme numbers there. I'm not sure what impact they'd have on framerate, but they're settings I'd never consider except maybe for photographic effects. (Just for example: 16x anti-aliasing? and yet anisotropic filtering is turned off. Well, at least the distortions won't have jaggies.)

Also, as suggested in the other thread, if you're really trying to maximize framerate for a specific hardware rig, you'd really be better off with a different viewer. Right at the moment, you'll probably do best with one of the Linden viewers, but perhaps some TPVs may have picked up the interest-list tweaks now, and not all will have loaded down performance with other features that need finding and turning off.

[Tzeki]

No, it's not the recomended, but I simply can't imagine SL without sun/moon & projector shadows, that's insane. It also doesn't enable Ambient occlusion, which, by the way, if ANYONE is having a simillar 'issue' as I am then

◙Dissabling Ambient Occlusion gives a 10-20 FPS boost, while hardly impacting the visual aspect of the game.

[Nalates Urriah]

There are some settings that could be tweaked differently. The viewer's AA at x16 is way too much. x2 and x4 are usually more than enough. I doubt you can see any visual difference between x4 and x16.

The max number of Impostor Avatars is way too high. 12 is a good max. Avatars are currently the big drag on systems now. I suspect that is mostly from the increased update data load rather than render expense. But, reducing the setting should reduce the data and render loads.

LoD of 1 or 2 will reduce render load. Designers that don't know how to design for 3D games recommend high LoD values to cover up their poor quality work. High values force the system to do full renders of objects far away that only cover a few pixels on your screen. Dumb.

A couple of years back I wrote an article on tweaking SL for performance. It is out of date now but it does explain the viewer settings and which ones to tweak for performance. http://blog.nalates.net/2010/12/17/graphics-tweaking-for-second-life/

The basic take-away from the article is to test the settings one by one to get the quality and performance you want. There are no 'standard' settings that work across all machines. So, you have to find the best settings for your machine and personal preferences. I suggest starting at the MEDIUM setting or HIGH which ever gives you good FPS. Then manually turning up the settings one by one until they impact FPS. I expect you'll find a balance that works with you prefence for speed and quality.

Also, the value of getting your video card settings setup at system level can make a big difference.

Things like anisotropic filtering are not the performance hit the viewer seems to indicate. Enabling it improves the visual quality at very little performance cost.

To give you an idea of performance range, my Core2 Quad 2.6, GTX560, Win7 64 gets 10 to 70 FPS depending on where I am. The more avatars there are, the lower FPS goes. In areas with lots of LARGE textures my FPS gets pulled down. But I run Shadow/Projectors and Ambient. 

Lastly... when cmparing SL to other games, remember that other games are filled with content made by proferssionals and optimized for the game. SL content is made by hobbyists and novices few of which know anything about optimzing for game use. That makes it really really hard to render scenes in SL. So, we don't get those spectatular frames rates.

Unless you are playing a sport or combat game within SL a frame rate of 20+ is adiquite. I've made do at events with 8-10. SL is always getting faster, but it will never match games with professional content. 

[Coby Foden]

You can find my reply on the other forum where asked exactly the same question:

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Low-FPS-normal-on-this-much-processing-power/m-p/2748934#M184195

Hint: No need to post about the same matter on multiple SL forum areas. :smileywink: :matte-motes-big-grin:

[Perrie Juran]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

You can find my reply on the other forum where asked exactly the same question:

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Low-FPS-normal-on-this-much-processing-power/m-p/2748934#M184195

 

Hint: No need to post about the same matter on multiple SL forum areas.

 :smileywink: :matte-motes-big-grin:

---

<threadjack>

Maybe we should start asking the Mods to move tech questions to the tech section. It really is where they belong and a 'cross link' gets created when they do.

</threadjack>

[Linda Brynner]

Hi there

Even the highest graphics cards today just still can't handle shadows of SL all that great, even on an GTX 880 today. SL does load all via internet and this is different than many other MMO's. I am to buy a notebook with an 880 and i've seen it.

So all shadows on simply is the main killer. It's that simpel.

Some stuff with (although less) impact:

Avatar impostors at 12 is enough indeed. Full rendererd avis does 'kill' FPS.

Check your bandwidth settings in the viewer's prefences. SL simply hardly delivers above 1500.Usually it's somewhere between 1000 - 1200. So set it there.

AA at 4 is enough.these days and i would turn on Anisotropic on.

HTTP on doesn't do well for many or some either. I'd experiment with that on/off as well. When stuff is loading, FPS will be pushed down. In my case HTTP on does result in a longer load, but it depends per hardware, internet and so on.

 

 

[mareeywana]

this game is 32 bit based. Thats why. Its using 1 cpu at most. Just like arma 3, impressive game, but its 32 bit based, thus it wont use more than 4 gigs of ram and more than 1 cpu.

 

try overclocking cpu. also most stuff you see is being downloaded. So increase cache a few gigs.