CPU Hyperthreading support?

Taldirokk · Oct 14, 2021

InDigital said:
I am plauing WatchDogs Legion at 40FPS at nearly 4K resolution (1800p) on ultra settings. How is that it is not suited for that?

Nice one, you're not getting 40fps avg at 1800p with an RX 570, especially the 4Gb model, that card can't even push 25fps average on Watchdogs legion with the Ultra preset at 1080p.

Globusdiablo · Oct 14, 2021

[MEOW] babelfisch said:
PS
By the way, even without the GPU as the bottleneck, gaming performance between i5 and i7 isn't that different IIRC.

I saw a tangible increase in the double digits on high settings when I switched from i5 6600k to i7 6700k back in the day. Horizons knows how to utilise cores and threads. Odyssey not so much...

babelfisch · Oct 14, 2021

Globusdiablo said:
I saw a tangible increase in the double digits on high settings when I switched from i5 6600k to i7 6700k back in the day. Horizons knows how to utilise cores and threads. Odyssey not so much...

As I said, many games didn't benefit much from it:

Benchmarks - Spiele-Benchmarks High-Res - Seite 11 - Hardwareluxx

Skylake ist da: Wir testen Intels Core i7-6700K und Core i5-6600K - im großen Vergleich mit den bisherigen Topmodellen

www.hardwareluxx.de

Not even 1 FPS in Tomb Raider and Metro...

PS
By the way, you can nicely see the GPU bottleneck in these benchmarks, if you switch to the 720p results the difference becomes much bigger.

Red Anders · Oct 14, 2021

Frop said:
Unless I'm mistaken, that CPU is 9 years old. Odyssey in its current form is going to cook it.

I'm playing on a system built with an i7 3770 and it's fine. Fine in this context being 60fps in concourses at 1080p, which is fine for me.

InDigital · Oct 15, 2021

Taldirokk said:
Nice one, you're not getting 40fps avg at 1800p with an RX 570, especially the 4Gb model, that card can't even push 25fps average on Watchdogs legion with the Ultra preset at 1080p.

Question is what is it for me if i will show you?

babelfisch · Oct 15, 2021

InDigital said:
Question is what is it for me if i will show you?

A miracle?

InDigital · Oct 15, 2021

I am interested myself i will try 1080p on WatchDogs Legion when i will be at home. Because i never play games lower than 1440p on my RX570. never!
1080p on my 55inch 4K display looks terrible. i would never buy card for 1080p gaming on that display.

But let's do not forget topic.
I am interested why CPU uses only 20% on settlements while 100% GPU looking to ground.
Well GPU is always at 100% except when looking to sky/stars. But it is defenitely not a bottleneck to VGA card.
So i don't understand why there is minimum and recommended CPUs for Odyssey.
This game just does not use CPU at all. As we know if CPU is not enough for the game it is always at 100% usage on any VGA card.
Also graphics is so outdated and there are tiny count of polygons for VGA card to process.
What takes so much video resources in this game?

Actually i know the answer myself already. There is something wrong with shadows happening.
I tested all kinds of options and there are dramatic FPS changes. We just can't disable shadow processing completely.
But if we could... i am 100% sure without shadows this game will run perfectly even on patato.

Something is wrong with shadow calculations... overlaping.. distances.. sizes... idk.

Sighman · Oct 15, 2021

Take a look at the Shadows_Low section in GraphicsConfiguration.xml (Odyssey game folder).

You can't edit this file (it's protected by the game) but you can edit GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml in C:\Users\YOUR NAME\AppData\Local\Frontier Developments\Elite Dangerous\Options\Graphics

As an example, the former file contains this section for Low directional shadows:

<Shadows_Low>
<Profile_General>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>2</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<Fade>0.01</Fade>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>200.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0002</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0002</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>2.5</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<EndDistance>2100.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_General>
<Profile_PlanetApproach>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>2</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<CrossFadeCascades>true</CrossFadeCascades>
<LastCrossFadeCascadesDistance>300.0</LastCrossFadeCascadesDistance>
<NearClipBias>1.0</NearClipBias>
<AltitudeAdaptation>
<MinElevation>85.0</MinElevation>
<MaxElevation>600.0</MaxElevation>
<Scale>10.0</Scale>
<FirstCascadeScalingAmount>0.125</FirstCascadeScalingAmount>
</AltitudeAdaptation>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>50.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0002</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0002</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<EndDistance>85.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_PlanetApproach>
<Profile_PlanetSurface>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>2</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<NearClipBias>1.0</NearClipBias>
<FrustumZeroCanBeOverridden>0</FrustumZeroCanBeOverridden>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>75.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0002</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0002</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<EndDistance>535.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_PlanetSurface>
<Profile_StationInterior>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>1</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<Fade>0.01</Fade>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>1470.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
</Profile_StationInterior>
<Profile_AsteroidField>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>2</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>150.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0002</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0002</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<EndDistance>510.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_AsteroidField>
</Shadows_Low>

So what happens if someone takes these values, reduces many of them, and pastes the result into the overrides file? All you'd have to do is compare Low - Med - High and Ultra, and work out which direction the values go to increase fidelity, and which lower it and thus increase frame rates.

It's not just shadows, there are many other defaults which only have low to high or ultra, where Low could potentially be edited to speed things up a bit.

InDigital · Oct 15, 2021

Sighman said:
Take a look at the Shadows_Low section in GraphicsConfiguration.xml (Odyssey game folder).

You can't edit this file (it's protected by the game) but you can edit GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml in C:\Users\YOUR NAME\AppData\Local\Frontier Developments\Elite Dangerous\Options\Graphics

As an example, the former file contains this section for Low directional shadows:

<Shadows_Low>
<Profile_General>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>2</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<Fade>0.01</Fade>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>200.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0002</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0002</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>2.5</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<EndDistance>2100.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_General>
<Profile_PlanetApproach>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>2</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<CrossFadeCascades>true</CrossFadeCascades>
<LastCrossFadeCascadesDistance>300.0</LastCrossFadeCascadesDistance>
<NearClipBias>1.0</NearClipBias>
<AltitudeAdaptation>
<MinElevation>85.0</MinElevation>
<MaxElevation>600.0</MaxElevation>
<Scale>10.0</Scale>
<FirstCascadeScalingAmount>0.125</FirstCascadeScalingAmount>
</AltitudeAdaptation>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>50.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0002</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0002</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<EndDistance>85.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_PlanetApproach>
<Profile_PlanetSurface>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>2</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<NearClipBias>1.0</NearClipBias>
<FrustumZeroCanBeOverridden>0</FrustumZeroCanBeOverridden>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>75.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0002</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0002</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<EndDistance>535.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_PlanetSurface>
<Profile_StationInterior>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>1</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<Fade>0.01</Fade>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>1470.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
</Profile_StationInterior>
<Profile_AsteroidField>
<SliceSize>1024</SliceSize>
<NumFrustums>2</NumFrustums>
<FilterQuality>3</FilterQuality>
<AdaptiveCascades>false</AdaptiveCascades>
<FrustumCockpit>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
</FrustumCockpit>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>150.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0002</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0002</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<EndDistance>510.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum1>
</Profile_AsteroidField>
</Shadows_Low>

So what happens if someone takes these values, reduces many of them, and pastes the result into the overrides file? All you'd have to do is compare Low - Med - High and Ultra, and work out which direction the values go to increase fidelity, and which lower it and thus increase frame rates.

It's not just shadows, there are many other defaults which only have low to high or ultra, where Low could potentially be edited to speed things up a bit.

I know about this file it does nothing. Shadows are processed somehow behind this.
Maybe you are right there is something else but that file does not help in any way.

Sighman · Oct 15, 2021

InDigital said:
I know about this file it does nothing. Shadows are processed somehow behind this.
Maybe you are right there is something else but that file does not help in any way.

About to do some testing. There's a section for station interiors, so I'll do some edits on that bit.

Sighman · Oct 15, 2021

Just examining the shadows section for station interiors (only) and the four items in grey are the only difference between Low and Ultra shadows.

In fact, Slicesize is the only value that changes by much, so I'll give slicesize 512 or 256 a shot.

Sighman · Oct 15, 2021

Okay, I tried slicesize 256 first. Before and after shots in the same concourse below.

The frame rate may have improved because I restarted the game, but it's a substantial jump.

Edit - I removed the graphics overrides and restarted, and the frame rate dropped back to 42-44.

InDigital · Oct 15, 2021

There is something wrong with code what processes these options itself. maybe it goes in to loops or maybe it includes something else inside that is causing problems.
It is necessary to remove shadows completely from the source to understand . And we can't do this. It is possible only by devs.
You can set everything to zero or very low and you will still see shadows and same performance.
There are maybe even more shadow types than we see in this config file and graphics options.
Also we dont know how lighting is set up. Maybe it is even lighting not shadows but shadows seems to have dramatic performance impact.

Sighman · Oct 15, 2021

Made a few more tweaks and got the frame rate to 55 now

Sighman · Oct 15, 2021

This is the GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml file I'm using right now. Each time I made a change I exited to desktop, reloaded the game, switched Directional Shadows to Medium, applied, then switched Directional Shadows to Low, applied, and only then started the game.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<GraphicsConfig>
<ParticleEffects>
<Low>
<LightAtlasResolution>256</LightAtlasResolution>
</Low>
</ParticleEffects>
<Volumetrics>
<Low>
<StepsPerPixel>128</StepsPerPixel>
<BlurSamples>2</BlurSamples>
<TwoPassBlur>true</TwoPassBlur>
</Low>
<Volumetrics>
<SpotShadows_Low>
<NumCacheShadows>1</NumCacheShadows>
<NumSpotShadows>0</NumSpotShadows>
<CacheShadowAtlasSize>3072</CacheShadowAtlasSize>
<CacheShadowSize>256</CacheShadowSize>
<SpotFilterQuality>1</SpotFilterQuality>
</SpotShadows_Low>
<Shadows_Low>
<Profile_General>
<SliceSize>256</SliceSize>
<FilterQuality>2</FilterQuality>
</Profile_General>
<Profile_PlanetSurface>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>75.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0002</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0002</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.0001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
<Frustum1>
<EndDistance>535.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0003</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0003</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.0003</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum1>
<SliceSize>256</SliceSize>
<FilterQuality>2</FilterQuality>
<CrossFadeCascades>false</CrossFadeCascades>
</Profile_PlanetSurface>
<Profile_StationInterior>
<SliceSize>256</SliceSize>
<FilterQuality>2</FilterQuality>
<CrossFadeCascades>false</CrossFadeCascades>
<Frustum0>
<EndDistance>1470.000000</EndDistance>
<ShaderBias>0.0004</ShaderBias>
<ShaderSlopeBias>0.0004</ShaderSlopeBias>
<DepthBias>0.001</DepthBias>
<DepthSlopeBias>1.5</DepthSlopeBias>
<FilterKernelSize>1.000000</FilterKernelSize>
</Frustum0>
</Profile_StationInterior>
</Shadows_Low>
</GraphicsConfig>

Ryox · Oct 15, 2021

I just replaced my i5-7600k (4 cores / 4 threads / 3.8 - 4.2 ghz) by an i7-7700k (4 cores / 8 threads / 4.2 - 4.5 ghz).
I have a 1080ti GPU.

After that I obtained 20% extra FPS in Odyssey on-foot on average. My game runs now at ~50FPS in 1080p / high quality. Before it was only ~40FPS ...

I found out that before my CPU was 100% load VS GPU only 60%. So the CPU was the bottleneck.
Now I got CPU ~70% load VS GPU ~100%, which is great.

Note : I couldn't get better than the 7700k because it's the fastest CPU compatible with my old motherboard LGA1151 (Kaby Lake)

i5-7600k

Intel® Core™ i5-7600K Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.20 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i5-7600K Processor (6M Cache, up to 4.20 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

ark.intel.com

i7-7700k

Intel® Core™ i7-7700K Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.50 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i7-7700K Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.50 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

ark.intel.com

Condor · Oct 15, 2021

InDigital said:
Is Odyssey supporting Hyperthreading technology in CPU?
Well i have i5-3470 and i am going to change CPU to i7-3770.
Will i benefit from that?

I replaced my i5-3350P with Xeon E3 1240 (i7 2600, 4 cores/8 threads, 3.3-3.7 GHz). The FPS did not increase by much (I'm talking about worst-case scenario, ground settlements where you get around 20 FPS), but the CPU load dropped in these scenes from 80-90% to ~60%. So, there is some reserve for CPU utilization. However, I still get not 100% of GPU usage on my RX 570, so the game optimization is still not good. When I asked the support of that, they gave me a formal answer - your PC does not meet minimum requirements. Let's hope future updates will help.

[DOOK] Droogie · Oct 15, 2021

Morbad said:
UEFI in and of itself didn't do anything to improve OCing and early UEFI implementations weren't very pleasant to work with, in my experience.

The era of jumper OCs was probably the easiest, mostly by virtue of having the fewest meaningful options to tune and test. Before that OCing involved swapping out oscillators with a soldering iron, and after that the number of settings to configure ballooned.

I know.

If the OP doesn't have a the replacement CPU yet, they should shoot for a 3770K, if practical, even if they aren't OCing. It's clocked significantly higher out of the box and has the potential to be OCed appreciably if the OP decides to dabble in that.

Comet Lake is not remotely comparable to Ivy Bridge in terms of overclocking potential.

Intel's fabrication issues and resurgent competition from AMD for the several years has caused them to bin and clock their parts much more aggressively than in the past. The 10900K is the fastest part of it's architectural generation and the highest clocked part ever made on Intel's 14nm+++ process. It has almost no headroom, as that MSI article shows.

The 3770K, while occupying a similar segment, was many generations earlier, during a period where there was almost no competition from AMD. A typical 3770K sample is good for ~15% more performance from OCing, without needing much in the way of fancy support hardware.

Some other parts can OC much more. For example, in semi-recent memory, I had more than one Pentium E2140 that took 100%+ OCs, with a corresponding increase in CPU performance, on $70 motherboards, completely stable on surplus Intel boxed coolers for a slightly higher-end Core 2 parts. All of my Xeon X33xx, i7-920, 970s, X56xx, 2600K, 3930K, 4930K, 5820K, and 6800K samples all took 20% or greater (often much greater) OCs, as did most of my later A64s, Opterons, and mid-range FX parts.

Even for newer parts with negligible core clock headroom, there are often gains to be had from overclocking uncore, memory controllers, various interconnects, and system memory. My modern (AM4) systems, with generally marginal room for manual CPU OCing, are still noticeably slower if you pop into the firmware setup and load 'optimized defaults', or tell them to just use XMP settings for the memory.

Even the non-K parts can have their top turbo multiplier applied to all cores on many boards. Of course, this is not going to help apps bottlenecked by only one or two intensive threads.

I'm just saying that overcocking became easier with the more user friendly UEFI.

Morbad · Oct 15, 2021

Condor said:
I replaced my i5-3350P with Xeon E3 1240 (i7 2600, 4 cores/8 threads, 3.3-3.7 GHz). The FPS did not increase by much (I'm talking about worst-case scenario, ground settlements where you get around 20 FPS), but the CPU load dropped in these scenes from 80-90% to ~60%. So, there is some reserve for CPU utilization. However, I still get not 100% of GPU usage on my RX 570, so the game optimization is still not good. When I asked the support of that, they gave me a formal answer - your PC does not meet minimum requirements. Let's hope future updates will help.

Those two CPUs have almost identical lightly threaded performance and EDO is primary limited by one or two threads at a time.

[DOOK] Droogie said:
I'm just saying that overcocking became easier with the more user friendly UEFI.

Fair enough, though there are enough excepts to the user-friendliness of modern UEFIs (Gigabyte is pretty bad, currently) that I sometimes long for an old blue Award BIOS setup screen.

Condor · Oct 15, 2021

Morbad said:
Those two CPUs have almost identical lightly threaded performance and EDO is primary limited by one or two threads at a time.

Do you mean single-core performance? Because in multi-threaded performance there is a 50% boost of 4c/8t CPU. And ED:O does use more threads - I can see it in my task manager