Sasu Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 I recently brought parts and assembled my gaming rig. I can run Battlefield 4 on ultra at stable 60 fps most of the times. However, I discovered that MTA only uses 1 Core and is just not feasible making the game run at slower Frames when cores are hitting ~95%, considering that we are on 2014 and most CPUs are multicore. Even Minecraft uses at least 2-3 cores, not sure of that but runs really good with SEUS Shaders arround 70 FPS on quite big servers Here is the proof: I own a FX-8350 overclocked at 4.8 GHz with 8 GB of RAM at 1600 MHz. Pics: Running with almost no mods, just some particles and effects, arround 20~ players near. http://i.imgur.com/M0JJPa5.jpg Running with some mods nothing really big for my system, arround 17~ players near. http://i.imgur.com/0TuPPrG.jpg I think MTA Devs should try to at least try to make MTA to use 2-3 cores by most. If this has been discused before I would like to know since I didn't found nothing that has to do with this. Link to comment
Jusonex Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Multi-Threading isn't something you can integrate in a few lines of code. Instead, the entire game design and concept must be multi-threaded and GTA was never intended to be multi-threaded (most processors were singlecores when GTA had been released). Thus, patching GTA to use multi-threading effeciently would take years (we do not have GTA's sourcecode!). So I can say for sure that this will never happen. Link to comment
Sasu Posted October 5, 2014 Author Share Posted October 5, 2014 Ok, but MTA could be optimized to use client scripts on another core, sync on other core. And Let a entire code for GTA don't you think? Link to comment
ixjf Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 MTA already uses multiple threads for core logic, network and (on the server) database. Link to comment
Feche1320 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 AMD cpus are sh*t becouse of low IPC, get a Core i5, end. Link to comment
Blast3r Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Errr is the server FPS limited at ~50 by any chance? Cause I got A LOT lower specs yet get more FPS than you... @Poster above - AMD is a lot cheaper, therefore he might've gone for it due to budget, just like I'm going with the FX X8-8350 for my new rig. Link to comment
Sasu Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 Server is limited to 60 FPS. Link to comment
Woovie Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I'm going to blame inefficient use of dxDraw/onClientRender here, based on screenshots. But more cores ~= better performance. My 3770k would do circles around your CPU. Link to comment
myonlake Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I have a Intel i5 Core at 3.3 Ghz and a NVIDIA GeForce 770 with 4 GB video memory, and 12 GB of RAM. I have never had low FPS ever since my new setup. My server has its FPS limit at the maximum capacity, allowing a maximum of 100 FPS if I remember correctly. I have never had any performance or FPS drops (only during non-balanced processes, meaning loading a bunch of stuff from the database and/or processing something on poor back-end code). Such has only occurred when you let an unexperienced UI designer take control over UI elements and spam too many things on the screen. Or simply bad code. If you have bad and inefficient code, then I would not bother looking any further than that - fix your code. Link to comment
Recommended Posts