Game not optimized for AMD FX processors?

Hay Seilore

I have been following your post on this topic.  Interesting articalss. 

I am about to buy a new gaming machine and was strongly leaning to an AMD processor (strictly cost driven), now not so sure.  If you were buying a new machine tomorrow would you go Inter or AMD?

thanks

I have an FX 8370 and have not experienced any problems like this. Game runs pretty smooth. Then again, maybe if I run an insane map instead of an immense I might notice something. 

I've always been a fan of AMD and outside of the heat that the FX processor puts out I've been satisfied.  As for the problems I'm having with the game (if it's processor related) I'm sure they will get resolved.  As far as your concerns being cost driven, those were my concerns as well. 

With this being said I've told my wife several times that if I could go back I would have gone Intel and the main reason is the heat/energy usage not the performance.

Jarac how many AI's are you playing with?  That seems to be where the hold up for me is...  If you're willing to test it and need more races see this post.

Custom Race Faction Folder (Share your custom races people)

I would say that I think the issues are more to do with your expectations for the game than the processor.  I have 8 AI and max universe size.  Wasn't the best choice (i didnt know you could have more AIs) but im still feeling out the game and wanted a huge scope.  Many of the issues you are describing I have also observed in my game, although its not taking minutes, the turns are definitely ramping up in wait times as the civilizations expand.  I also have gotten a lot of hangs zooming in and out and such. Even sometimes the game will pop up the windows 'this application has stopped responding' although that righted itself and I was back in.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you're doing something similar with 30 AI races?  I have an intel sandy bridge running 4.5ghz.. With my game the processor usage is never at 100% on all four cores, which makes me think there are some coding bottlenecks that need to be worked out.   I think the scope of the game is meant to allow for people to go back and play 5 years from now and really peg their systems. I think you're just biting off more than even an 8 core processor can chew, possibly a bit from poor AI optimization, but I think you need to tone it down a bit, and I don't think your processor being AMD is the biggest issue, although pegging it at 100% should be your hint that your game scope is just more than whats possible with the game in its current state.

I have run into issues with AMD processors not being as well optimized in the past (mostly games that are not taking advantage of more than 2 cores), and that could be part of it, but you will just have to set your sights a little lower i think, or wait until some patches reduce some of the excesses of the AI interactions.

I hope this helps,

-Miles

I am an AMD fan, personally.  And I'd still say AMD processors (FX series) are better than equivalently priced Intel CPUs for just about anything.  Except gaming.  So, sadly, I went with an Intel i5 for my home gaming machine last year.  It's great in games.  Highest resolution, here we go!!  No problem at all, unlike with my previous AMD FX.  However, everything else is slow and painful.  Don't try copying files while playing.  On AMD you don't suffer a penalty hit, but on Intel, it hurts.  Badly.  Unless you have the high end i7.  But you pay 500$ for middle of the range i7, near or above 1000$ for the newest high-end generation. 

But since most games aren't optimized for AMD processors, so I went the Intel way.  You pay an arm for their darn processors.  But gaming is fast.
Maybe once AMD Mantle is widely adopted you'll see better performance with AMD cpus.  Maybe DX12 and Windows 10 will change that too, I don't really know.  If I absolutely had to buy right now, I'd buy Intel.  Maybe in a year or two AMD processors, all generations, will offer better gaming performance.

Cheers!

-Jeff26jeff

Make sure you get the opt-in build as it does improve performance.

Sorry didn't see any difference You guys rock though

Thx.  feel free to send me a save gane where you're running into this. We're partners w AMD so maybe they can help.

Thanks, first here is the saved game, this was created in version 1.0 (if you need me to start over in 1.01 it's going to be several days of playing to get to this point to reproduce).

http://wikisend.com/download/452946/1.0#1B.GC3Sav

Second these are the things that I'm seeing that others aren't (with exception from a few people with FX processors in my post about long 1st turns).

• Starting any game with many AI game goes to 100% CPU usage for several minutes (directly related to number of AI's 40 is around 5 minutes, 80 is around 15 minutes).  Noticed this specifically on larger maps though as that's where I normally play that many AI's.  
• This happens on start-up.  Tested creating new game with v. 1.01 still the same with about 80 factions.
• Increasingly long turn times as game goes on.  This seems to be related to number of exploration treaties I have, however, I am seeing this go way up near turn 200 on insane maps.  This is the main headache and is what the save game is showing.  Right now the turn times are ranging from 3 minutes to 3 1/2 minutes.  Also seeing 100% CPU usage for about 20-30 seconds after the turn ends (shows auto-save then high cpu).
• Map Insane Size
• Abundant Stars/Planets/Habitable/Extreme/Resources/Anomalies/Relics/ and Minor Races
• Frequent UP resolutions.
• Very Slow Game Pace and Tech rate.
• Occational Everything else
• Gifted AI.
• Around 50 Factions in current game.
• Choppy or jumpy ship movement.  I start to see this around turn 100 getting worse as game progresses. 

Thats really really odd.  I've got an FX 8320 and I've been playing around with performance tonight, haha, no intent on playing these massive games with current micro hell, but to each his own.

I just loaded 54 races on insane, and I have no problem with the first turn.  The game does AI work during your turn (non-interactive calculations), therefore as soon as the game was ready, I launched soak.  It took maybe 40s on the first turn, and subsequent turns are about 20s each.  For whatever reasons (actually, Windows scheduling issues), GC3 is using only 6 of my 8 cores.  If I read forums, or multitask during the soak, cores 7/8 are used, and the game doesnt slow down.  As well, during my first turn, none of my cores have gone over 50%.  This pisses me off, but I suppose this is due to optimization GC3 has done for Intel and not AMD, plus AMD is indeed less efficient per core than an Intel, even though AMD general has fast clocking speeds (wont go into that debate rathole).

The FX 9370, I just read the specs and some reviews.  Wow, its supposed to be NUCLEAR  However, everyone warned of temp issues.  Do you have water cooling?  Are you sure your cpu is operating at max frequency?  The 8320 is rated for 3.25GHz, but I've got it overclocked and stable at 3.92GHz.  Windows task manager is falsely stating I am at 3.5GHz however.  Several other 3rd party cpu monitors all tell me 3.92GHz as well, so I have faith my OC is working fine.  When playing world of tanks, I could never OC my memory (actually, it would only work when lower freq than rated compatibility with motherboard), however on non-multicore games like WOT, a single core was always maxed at 99%.  perhaps the memory OC didnt work well at high cpu-util.  anways, I have my memory running at 1800MHz now.  I'm running win8.1.  apparently Win8 has a lot of multithread improvements over Win7.

If performance tweaking isnt the issue, then I just think there is some AMD/Windows defect causing this.  I'm not sure how much mult-threading takes place during that initial turn 1 setup phase.  Best bet would be to find someone playing GC3 with a 9370 and compare.

Good luck