Cryostasis uses only one CPU core [Archive] - Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

View Full Version : Cryostasis uses only one CPU core

john2

02-22-2009, 01:28 PM

This explains the performance issues most gamers are having. Cryostasis (as you can see here) uses only one CPU core. I'm sure the devs already know that (and if they don't... well... now they do know ;) ) so hopefully they will fix it :)

http://www.imageshack.gr/files/4l7fgmxbg7vwfwbvmqni.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/view.php?file=4l7fgmxbg7vwfwbvmqni.jpg)

thales100

02-23-2009, 10:37 AM

Thats true, ive also noticed it. :)

EvilInside

02-23-2009, 09:24 PM

Use "CPU Control"
A simple tool allow you full control over your cpu cores usages.
http://www.overclockers.ru/softnews/27878.shtml

0 - not used core for that application
1 - used core for that application

example:
1111 - this application use 4 cores
0011 - this application use 2 out of 4 cores
and so on...

enjoy :)

john2

02-23-2009, 10:02 PM

The game doesn't support multicores so you don't get any performance boost at all by enabling 2 or 4 CPUs (you are just wasting one CPU which isn't doing anything as it doesn't have any data to process). Already tried that after all and still the CPU usage is around 30-50% with my Core2Duo. It needs to be patched to take advantage of the multicores ;)

EvilInside

02-23-2009, 11:08 PM

Yes... i did mention this too with my core2quad. :(
It seams its engine issue which can't take advantage of the multiple core systems.
WE NEED PATCH!

BAXTER STOCKMAN

02-24-2009, 07:36 AM

Yes... i did mention this too with my core2quad. :(
It seams its engine issue which can't take advantage of the multiple core systems.
WE NEED PATCH!

Υeah i have atlon x2 4400 and it doesnt use more than 50%!! Now i understanf why it is so slow!!:):):) Please someone fix it!

malautomedonte

02-24-2009, 10:08 AM

Cryostasis: The Sleep of Cores.

Anyway, really please fix this game! I have a q9450@3.6, 4gb of RAM and a overclocked gtx260. The game sometimes runs really slow, when there are a lot of dynamic shadows and intensive particle effects.

It's really annoying because the story is great!

Didn't you say that with the european-american version a patch would be published?

Everytime a only PC game goes out it's always heavy and unbearable for most configurations (like Crysis)...

thales100

02-25-2009, 06:50 PM

It needs to be patched to take advantage of the multicores ;)

Im afraid no patch will be able to make it "multi core optimized", Cryostasis is very similar to STALKER Clear Sky in this aspect, just a new engine could make this happen. :(

zwiebl

02-25-2009, 07:36 PM

u guys really have performance problems?
i use e6600 overclocked to 3ghz with an 8800gts 640 mb and i can play it with everything max @ 1152 * 864 with ~26 fps.
i'm quite happy it runs that well.

thales100

02-25-2009, 09:01 PM

Well at this low res 1152 x 864 it shouldnt be a problem, but 1680 x 1050+ yes, a multi core optimization wouldnt hurt.

john2

02-25-2009, 09:33 PM

u guys really have performance problems?
i use e6600 overclocked to 3ghz with an 8800gts 640 mb and i can play it with everything max @ 1152 * 864 with ~26 fps.
i'm quite happy it runs that well.

I don't consider 26fps playable to be honest. It's really... shocking to see PhysX support and SLI support but not multi-cores CPU utilization.

@thales100: Actually a patch can save the day. Quake4 took advantage of multicores with a patch after all ;)

ZIGS

02-26-2009, 12:12 PM

What are you talking about, I have a Q6600 and the game uses all 4 cores:

http://i41.tinypic.com/kor39.png

Granted, it's not the best multicore optimization I've seen (Unreal Tournament 3, Burnout Paradise, etc) but it DOES uses all 4 cores

john2

02-26-2009, 01:14 PM

You're using the DX10 Benchmark tool. Instead of that, run the actual game (both Russian and European versions) to see what we're talking about ;)

ZIGS

02-26-2009, 01:32 PM

lol, I don't even have Vista, how could I use the DX10 benchmark tool? Those results are from running the game (European version)

thales100

02-26-2009, 05:45 PM

@thales100: Actually a patch can save the day. Quake4 took advantage of multicores with a patch after all ;)

Really ? Well lets give hope a chance. :grin:

lol, I don't even have Vista, how could I use the DX10 benchmark tool? Those results are from running the game (European version)

ZIGS c é brasileiro ? I use my G15 + Everest Ultimate to check the CPU usage of my quad, only one core working during gameplay of russian version ( 0 - 1% for 3 cores, 98 - 100% one core) - pretty exactly the same i check when i play STALKER Clear Sky.
GTA 4, on the other hand, has a great multi core optimization.

http://www.ghostaholic.com/datas/users/1948-getattachment.jpg

Nightmare Hobo

02-26-2009, 07:32 PM

This is ridiculous. The framerate is lower than Crysis at max settings, and it barely has to render a tenth of the content. The performance really has to be optimized, this is absolutely unacceptable.

ZIGS

02-26-2009, 07:42 PM

thales100, sou Português :)

when I played the russian version, I'm pretty sure it only used one core too, so the EU version at least has that improvement (though I didn't notice any performance increase in the game itself... go figure).

john2

02-26-2009, 07:53 PM

Here are my results with Cryostasis. It seems that by showing one graph for the CPUs usage in Task Manager mislead me. HOWEVER both cores are running at BELOW 50% (in fact, a lot of times you can see that the game is using only the 30-35% of them). It is a seriously bugged CPU utilization after all

http://www.imageshack.gr/files/3cfyss00tu4ydkphf7y0.jpg (http://www.imageshack.gr/view.php?file=3cfyss00tu4ydkphf7y0.jpg)

thales100

02-27-2009, 11:29 AM

thales100, sou Português :)

Beleza, cool :-P

zwiebl

02-27-2009, 12:37 PM

I don't consider 26fps playable to be honest.

your eyes and your brain work with 24 fps. u can't see more than 24 fps.
so it doesnt matter if u got 24 fps or 500. it will look the same for every human in the world.
so why it is not playable with 26 fps for u?

BelligerentBill

02-27-2009, 06:47 PM

your eyes and your brain work with 24 fps. u can't see more than 24 fps.
so it doesnt matter if u got 24 fps or 500. it will look the same for every human in the world.
so why it is not playable with 26 fps for u?

I had to register just so I could call you an idiot.

Humans can't see more than 24 fps eh? Do you know that to be absolute fact or are you just spouting something you've heard in the past from someone else who heard it from someone else. Yes, that's it exactly. The human eye is FAR more capable than YOU could possibly ever understand. This argument has gone around the Internet for far too long and is utter bullshit. If you could only process 24 fps then you, sir, would have been dead a long time ago due to an inability to think, see and react fast enough to prevent a multitude of hazards that humans encounter on a daily basis.

To fix your ignorance, click here to educate yourself (http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm).

thales100

02-27-2009, 06:49 PM

Thats not true zwiebl, if you said over 60 or 500 i would agree, but 26 FPS is noticeable.
Btw Guru3D.com uses these limits for their GPU tests:

A word about "FPS"

What are we looking for in gaming performance wise? First off, obviously Guru3D tends to think that all games should be played at the best image quality (IQ) possible. There's a dilemma though, IQ often interferes with the performance of a graphics card. We measure this in FPS, the number of frames a graphics card can render per second, the higher it is the more fluently your game will display itself.

A game's frames per second (FPS) is a measured average of a series of tests. That test often is a time demo, a recorded part of the game which is a 1:1 representation of the actual game and its gameplay experience. After forcing the same image quality settings; this time-demo is then used for all graphics cards so that the actual measuring is as objective as can be.

Frames per second
Gameplay

<30 FPS
very limited gameplay

30-40 FPS
average yet very playable

40-60 FPS
good gameplay

>60 FPS
best possible gameplay

So if a graphics card barely manages less than 30 FPS, then the game is not very playable, we want to avoid that at all cost.
With 30 FPS up-to roughly 40 FPS you'll be very able to play the game with perhaps a tiny stutter at certain graphically intensive parts. Overall a very enjoyable experience. Match the best possible resolution to this result and you'll have the best possible rendering quality versus resolution, hey you want both of them to be as high as possible.
When a graphics card is doing 60 FPS on average or higher then you can rest assured that the game will likely play extremely smoothly at every point in the game, turn on every possible in-game IQ setting.
Over 100 FPS? You have either a MONSTER graphics card or a very old game.

ZIGS

02-27-2009, 09:05 PM

Are you kidding me, anything below 30 FPS is noticeable

SwedKnoT

03-01-2009, 02:56 PM

I think 30 is the limit in most games, if they haven´t got motion blur. Cryostasis has motion blur so I think it´s really playable in 15 fps.

thales100

03-01-2009, 03:09 PM

15 is too low imo. I think 25-30 in Crysis.

EvilInside

03-02-2009, 01:56 PM

30~50 in crysis warhead and 20~30 in cryostasis.
And here the multiple cpu core support start to talk and scream ;)

ztorm

03-05-2009, 02:30 PM

Please don't feed the trolls :rolleyes:

This issue is really interesting. Cryostasis supports SM 4.0, hardware PhysX, SLI, X-Fi sound and... not CPU multi-threading ?! :shock:
On the other hand, there's not a lot of AI to take care of, so would multi-threading have made a big difference ? I wonder. Performance issues are more likely to be caused by improper PhysX support or resolution and graphical options set a bit too high... This game is as graphics-intensive as it gets, I'm not sure it relies a lot on CPU performance. To look their best and run smoothly, modern games demand an ok CPU and a killer GPU, not the contrary. I'll keep an eye on my task manager though ;)

john2

03-05-2009, 04:17 PM

Let's see then. Here are some results in a place that i am currently:

1024x768 + Max Settings: 34fps
1920x1440 + Max Settings (without Hardware Physics and Anti-Aliasing): 32fps
1920x1440 + Max Settings: (with Hardware Physics and Anti-Aliasing): 32fps

This clearly shows a CPU limitation, as the results are the same in high and low settings!

ztorm

03-05-2009, 08:09 PM

Good point, but I don't know what your config is ;)
I'm not sure I can really test this myself, as I'm using Vista64 and nvidia drivers are said to be efficiently multi-threaded in a 64-bit environment... Furthermore, 30% on each core compared to 60% on a single core IS effective multi-threading... I don't know what to think. Maybe I just need some sleep (of Reason).

Browser

04-05-2009, 11:10 PM

http://pic.leech.it/t/62fec/f7421b77cryostasis.jpg (http://pic.leech.it/pic.php?id=f7421b77cryostasis.jpg)

Lower settings lowered the framerate lol

JuggernautOfWar

04-19-2009, 02:49 PM

If the PhysX patch coming out soon doesn't fix the performance issues I'm done with the game. Who in their right mind makes an extremely intense game and doesn't support modern CPUs? I'm sorry to say, but that is, to use the word literally, RETARDED.

Oh and do the developers even read this? I mean c'mon! This is the official forums and I've never once seen a developer post.

I'm starting to like EA more, and that's sad. Freaking game says a lot of bad things for small-time developers such as 1C Company.

Sorry, but getting bad performance for no reason when I just spent a butt-load of money on building a good computer pisses me off.

eliteops1

04-20-2009, 03:43 PM

WhatsOneMore

04-30-2009, 01:57 PM

My performance with Cryostasis isn't that awful, it's about 30-40 in crowded areas with lots of lights, etc and usually 45-60 in other areas.
This is on all maximum settings, 1440x900.
Of course, since the game only uses one core, this isn't as bad for me as it is for some users, as I have a Q6600 overclocked to 3.6g/hz so it's using a single 3.6g/hz core.
Some of you guys should really try overclocking your CPUs, it helps a lot for this game.

My PC specs:
Q6600 @ 3.6g/hz
GTX 295
4gb RAM
Vista32bit
Edit/Delete Message

Now I am a bit miffed here, some say it only uses one core and others have said it uses 2 and 4 cores.

But what really gets me is that I have only a

P4 3.4
2 gig mem
Radeon 3850 agp 512 mb, running shader 3.0 at 1360x768
all graphics ingame set to medium except for shadows set to low
on WinXP Pro SP3, all updates as of today.

And I get 50 to 65 fps in open areas and 40 to 55 fps in crowded ones and I only see slow down and no stutters. But it does stutter upon loading a new area for a second.

Now what gives here, is it because I don't have to use the PhysX stuff because of my agp card ???

Interesting Huh ?

JuggernautOfWar

05-01-2009, 03:02 AM

Okay so the game uses all cores on your CPU, but the catch is the game doesn't use each core to it's max. Example: Dual-core CPUs will have each core running ~50%-55% while quad-core CPUs will run each core at ~25%-30%. It should be where quad-core and dual-core both run the game at 90%-100% each designated core.

JuggernautOfWar

05-01-2009, 03:04 AM

Now I am a bit miffed here, some say it only uses one core and others have said it uses 2 and 4 cores.

But what really gets me is that I have only a

P4 3.4
2 gig mem
Radeon 3850 agp 512 mb, running shader 3.0 at 1360x768
all graphics ingame set to medium except for shadows set to low
on WinXP Pro SP3, all updates as of today.

And I get 50 to 65 fps in open areas and 40 to 55 fps in crowded ones and I only see slow down and no stutters. But it does stutter upon loading a new area for a second.

Now what gives here, is it because I don't have to use the PhysX stuff because of my agp card ???

Interesting Huh ?

No, it's not interesting. Your game settings are set extremely low. If I ran at those settings I'd probably get 60 frames per second with Vsync on (maximum). Although at that resolution the game would be blurry and stretched for me making the game unplayable.

EDIT: I don't mean to sound rude or anything, I am merely telling you why your computer performs so well at those settings.

minitt

05-01-2009, 09:38 PM

" And I get 50 to 65 fps in open areas and 40 to 55 fps in crowded ones and I only see slow down and no stutters. I dont know whether u r lying or not....

but i have a tad better setup then urs yet with similar generation cpu nd i dont get

anything above 31 FPS (when snowing is off). flashlight on=14fps + when snowing

flashlight off= 17 FPS ( even on all low settings)

But there r few places where i see a massive jump on FPS. Tried HD audio to off but i have another options which is "opengl" and "no driver"

& where on earth u saw crowd on this game.????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

P4 hyper threading 3.0 to 3.6ghz

HD 4850 ( yah i know im gona throw my cpu asap)

1.5gb ddr1 @480 2 4 4 8

FSB-961mhz

XP sp3

ramsecoline

02-25-2012, 03:58 PM