Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Radeon R9 290x and Rome 2

cgriffith90cgriffith90 Junior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 20
I just upgraded my video card to this awesome Radeon 290x and I am getting worse FPS than I did with my gtx 660 ti I had. I am not sure if this was because of the new patch between the time I waited to play the game with the new card or not. However, It could be PATCH 5 is just a very laggy issue. My screen name is Geezus on steam, and I posted this. I brought every DLC and the blood patch, and I attempt to run the game on high and I get serious lag when zoomed into battle.

My RIG setup

Video card = Radeon r9 290x, 4gig 512bit.
Processor = Int I5-3570k CPU CLocked at 4.2 HZ
RAM = 16 gig
Motherboard = Assrock z77.

Not sure what I am doing wrong here, but I am getting some really bad lag and when I switch between graphics I get serious black squares on the map. I reformatted my computer, updated the AMD driver as the forum topics "PLEASE READ" says to do and the problem still exist.

Perhaps this has to do with EYEfinity? I have three screens and I run it at max resolution and even with settings set to high, and I have of course the armies set to max, I engage in 40x40 battles and my computer becomes a slideshow. I can run ANY ANY other games MAXED, full screen, no problem. Is this a game issue? Be great if I could get some feedback.

I truly love CA, and the wonderful games they offer and deliver. I am truly excited to get this game running and be able to play. I actually preorder the game before it even came out. Some feedback and help would be truly helpful. However, if this is the case for many players, I might just have to steer cleared of this game for a long time. I am one of those guys that like to EXPERIENCE the game that DEV meant the GAME to be experienced like.
Post edited by cgriffith90 on
«13

Comments

  • HuntingDogHuntingDog Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,470
    edited November 2013
    Here are your answers:
    1) patch 5/6 ****** up performance for my 7970. Patch 4 has about 20% better performance and much less stutter. Might be the same for other AMD cards.
    2) game is heavily CPU limited in many situations even with a 5Ghz i7 CPU
    3) there is no MSAA which could make good use of higher-end GPUs

    Wait for patch 7 and see whether they at least revert to patch 4 performance for AMD cards. And your 290x is wasted on Rome 2 due to the lack of MSAA and the CPU bottleneck since it will only be used by about 50%.
  • kingy10kingykingy10kingy Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 163
    edited November 2013
    if you want to play Rome 2 I advise you firstly to NOT upgrade at all and secondly pull your 6 year old laptop out of the attic it will play Rome 2 just fine with a higher fps than a 4770k and a Titan.
    3900x

    64gb DDR4 3200Mhz

    2080ti
  • alQamaralQamar Banned Banned Users Posts: 1,904
    edited November 2013
  • cgriffith90cgriffith90 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 20
    edited November 2013
    HuntingDog wrote: »
    Here are your answers:
    1) patch 5/6 ****** up performance for my 7970. Patch 4 has about 20% better performance and much less stutter. Might be the same for other AMD cards.
    2) game is heavily CPU limited in many situations even with a 5Ghz i7 CPU
    3) there is no MSAA which could make good use of higher-end GPUs

    Wait for patch 7 and see whether they at least revert to patch 4 performance for AMD cards. And your 290x is wasted on Rome 2 due to the lack of MSAA and the CPU bottleneck since it will only be used by about 50%.

    Well thanks guys for the feedback, guess I'll have to shelve this game for a while. I am surpised it got the rating it did, and lastly, I think this will be the last CA game I am going to buy then in a very, very, very long time. I am disappointed I spent my saved money on the new R9 290x, mainly to play this game. Oh well, bad business for CA. Regardless, I still have faith in them because they make wonderful games, but I guess greed by SEGA probably did this. Guess I'll open this game back up in about decade and maybe technology will have advance more enough. :P.

    My guess was this game was like Dragon Age 2. When you make so much money off a very successful game, and then you make another one to create more revenue. Rome 2 had to be rushed or something. From what I am reading, this game is actually still not even optimized? That's like buying a car, with the seller saying it drives just great and yet, it is missing an engine. My question is, did CA do false advertising to a certain sense? Like if you have well over the recommended specs, that the game doesn't play good or evenly as advertised on like high settings then that is an issue. Guess I learned my lesson. Fool me once, shame on you, CA. Fool me twice, then shame on me. I won't be returning.

    Thanks guy for the posts and help.
  • FynnasFynnas Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 9
    edited November 2013
    FWIW Patch 5 hosed the frame rates for my old school 4870 x2 as well. I went from about 50 fps using a custom graphics setting to about 19 fps in the in game bench mark. So, its not just high end equipment that got borked.

    The fact they pushed this patch live with no beta and now I am stuck with it because Steam is a steaming pile of poo with respect to rolling back patches has been very annoying.
  • crash2kcrash2k Banned Banned Users Posts: 483
    edited November 2013
    Fynnas wrote: »
    FWIW Patch 5 hosed the frame rates for my old school 4870 x2 as well. I went from about 50 fps using a custom graphics setting to about 19 fps in the in game bench mark. So, its not just high end equipment that got borked.

    The fact they pushed this patch live with no beta and now I am stuck with it because Steam is a steaming pile of poo with respect to rolling back patches has been very annoying.

    a 4870 x2 may be quite old, but its still a pretty powerful card.

    the fact that a card on par with a freaking titan (290x) cant run with a decent fps is ridiculous.
  • DramaBelliDramaBelli Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 223
    edited November 2013
    Welcome sir, good rig you've built, we've ot the same cpu (mine is OC to 4.4, Al Qamar knows it since he helped me a lot :)) and I was curious to see how was running this game on the new entry of AMD.

    Sad response. As said, don't blame you rig. It's excellent and will run tons of other games.

    With this game and this series we enter another world. I was going crazy about how to build the best pc for this series during this summer. I've read tons of posts on twc, infos from threads of Al Qamar and Splenyi.

    Tons of useful infos but at last we were all silenced by the impact of Rome II on our rigs.

    Give CA time to release patch 7 hoping in a good effort under performance perspective.
    by their own, AMD guys are giving the best I suppose..I don't remember a time like this one where I've upgraded so many times my drivers (are you running the official ones or the beta ones? ..a new driver release should be live in these days for your gpu).

    Hold fast and good luck
  • evotucevotuc Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 983
    edited November 2013
    Steam Rome Page.jpg

    What do you say about a situation like this?

    Edit: The pic came out much smaller. Go to Rome II Steam page and read the last bullet.

    "Extremely scalable experience, with gameplay and graphics performance optimised to match low and high-end hardware alike."
    2% Club
    FX 8350
    Sabertooth 990FX
    8GB 1600 RAM
    AMD 7950
    How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it?
  • cgriffith90cgriffith90 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 20
    edited November 2013
    evotuc wrote: »
    Steam Rome Page.jpg

    What do you say about a situation like this?

    Edit: The pic came out much smaller. Go to Rome II Steam page and read the last bullet.

    "Extremely scalable experience, with gameplay and graphics performance optimised to match low and high-end hardware alike."

    So does this further the point of false advertising? I am not sure, neither do I care. Kind of fed up with all this, I just realized by the way guys, my setting says my video card has 3072 mb of VRAM. I know this is not correct because my graphic card is 4gig of VRAM.
  • AlJabberwockAlJabberwock Moderator USARegistered Users Posts: 7,728
    edited November 2013
    So does this further the point of false advertising? I am not sure, neither do I care. Kind of fed up with all this, I just realized by the way guys, my setting says my video card has 3072 mb of VRAM. I know this is not correct because my graphic card is 4gig of VRAM.

    Typically the engine will top out at about 3gb of 'video budget' because it never can really use more than 2.6-2.8 in special circumstances, and usually far less, usually in the neighborhood of ~2g . The entire application is only allowed a maximum of ~4g in video and system ram use combined, due to 32-bit limited application user memory address space, so of course it could never USE 4g of video memory even if it needed to (which it doesn't with anything in the non-super-resolution range of monitors).

    We get quite reasonable results from Intel CPUs and 5xx and 6xx gamer level cards. I have tested a 760 in the last week as well and found it quite reasonable. The issue is usually far more likley to be CPU or profile issues that are not specific to JUST components. The question is whether you find 30 frames or better is acceptable for a title that does things no other can accomplish at this point, or you are willing to compromise on some of your settings. If you think that previous titles allowed for high frame rate and settings with the hardware available then, it is certainly not always the case, simply and historically stated. You can see my posts back then in the way-back machine. Evo already has some anecdotal results from some old, average, to slightly above average machines in our stable, and can draw his own conclusions.

    @The OP multiple screens and super-resolution are NOT supported by the game code. Black squares are not unlikely and aritifacts and odd behavior like lag should be expected. ~Al
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Every so often things happen that can’t be rationalized in a conventional way. People wanna know their government has a response. I am that response.”
    ― Kent Mansley (in "Iron Giant")

    For most general problems, for which you have no idea of the culprit, your first port of call should be:
    https://support.sega.co.uk/hc/en-us/categories/200307381-Total-War-Support

    If you are aware of a bug or a specific issue for which you know the cause, post in the support section for the specific title on our forums. ~Al

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
  • evotucevotuc Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 983
    edited November 2013
    Evo already has some anecdotal results from some old, average, to slightly above average machines in our stable, and can draw his own conclusions.

    I don't even know what you are referring to. But, if you want my conclusion, this game runs like garbage. Absolute garbage.

    8FPS.jpg
    ^^That's me, getting 8 frames per second. The GPU was running at 35% at this time.
    2% Club
    FX 8350
    Sabertooth 990FX
    8GB 1600 RAM
    AMD 7950
    How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it?
  • HuntingDogHuntingDog Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,470
    edited November 2013
    due to 32-bit limited application user memory address space, so of course it could never USE 4g of video memory even if it needed to

    Sure it can. Games don't address VRAM directly like RAM. That's completely up to the drivers. Internally, the game can use as many 64 bit counters to manage their textures as it likes even if it's a 32 bit application.

    In that sense, the VRAM is more like a file on the disk to which even a 32bit application can write as much data as it wants to. Actually, if the VRAM on the GPU can't hold all the data the driver creates a swap file to which currently unused GPU data/textures are written and re-loadedwhen required.

    Also, if game allows 8xMSAA or 16xMSAA on a higher resolution then u can quickly exceed 4GB. And how much VRAM is required for those modes is only determined by the driver.

    That said, Rome 2 does not use that much VRAM by far. That's primarily because there is no MSAA which is usually the single most VRAM eating setting. Texture resolution comes after this.

    And even if an application like Afterburner displays that a game is using 3GB or 4GB or even more VRAM, that doesn't automatically mean that there will be a performance problem. Only when the game needs more VRAM than the GPU has during the current scene/setting there will a performance hit from texture swapping (which can be pretty bad).

    Otherwise, the game might decide that it keeps all textures allocated and let's the driver handle the swapping/loading when it switches the scene. For example Rome 2 might have all the campaign map textures and the battle textures allocated. When it switches between campaign map and battle map, it 'tells the GPU' to swap in the needed set of textures.
  • AlJabberwockAlJabberwock Moderator USARegistered Users Posts: 7,728
    edited November 2013
    Based on a mapping of user address space useage in Proc explorer, nearly all of the video ram used is in the application's userva. "Swapping out" as you suggest in any large degree is likley to result in the poor performance reported by those with the box checked under the proper conditions.

    Over-population of the user address space by unreleased video reservations (doesn't even have to be used) can also result in potential 'crowding out' of the system ram needed by the CPU and thus lowering the 'CPU bottleneck'. This is one of the reasons why the use of the graphic memory delimiting box can be a less than helpful option, and not just because of the potential for 'swapping out video memory use'. This allows just the case where the useage of both the application's user space AND any other additional areas outside that space as you suggest can cause slow down, stutter and freeze or crash various system profiles, either seperately or because of both conditions.

    By far the safer and wiser course is NOT to use the mem box to delimit the video driver's potentially avaricious behavior, and instead keep the box unchecked, run the game a few times at the settings you wish and see which if any downgrades are recorded in the gfxlog txt files and experiment with adjusting the card's memory as reflected in the pref txt files appropriately.

    The ultimate solution to this is not swapping out, or writing artifical limits, but of course releasing the Genie from the bottle and eliminating the 32 bit user address space by going to a 64 bit native code. Maybe next time.

    @Evo, you have my frame rates and settings with various household machines with profiles inferior to yours. You've SEEN those machines - how can you explain then that these get 3 to 5 times or more the frame rate? You are welcome to come and see them any time. Call up Vini and ask HIM ~Al
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Every so often things happen that can’t be rationalized in a conventional way. People wanna know their government has a response. I am that response.”
    ― Kent Mansley (in "Iron Giant")

    For most general problems, for which you have no idea of the culprit, your first port of call should be:
    https://support.sega.co.uk/hc/en-us/categories/200307381-Total-War-Support

    If you are aware of a bug or a specific issue for which you know the cause, post in the support section for the specific title on our forums. ~Al

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
  • HuntingDogHuntingDog Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,470
    edited November 2013
    Some more info about that:
    By using the Direct3D resource manager, applications can greatly simplify the handling of lost-device situations and can rely on the system to handle a reasonable amount of over-commitment of video memory resources.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ee418784(v=vs.85).aspx
  • evotucevotuc Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 983
    edited November 2013
    @Evo, you have my frame rates and settings with various household machines with profiles inferior to yours. You've SEEN those machines - how can you explain then that these get 3 to 5 times or more the frame rate? You are welcome to come and see them any time. Call up Vini and ask HIM ~Al

    Exactly. My computer has more capability than the profiles you shared with me, yet my fps is far lower. How do we explain that? That is the topic on the forums ever since the game came out, isn't it? And you know, Al, that I know how to take care of a computer, how to search the forums, and how to implement possible fixes. NOTHING. Nothing on the forums has fixed this game. Why? Because the problem is in the game itself, that's how I explain it.
    2% Club
    FX 8350
    Sabertooth 990FX
    8GB 1600 RAM
    AMD 7950
    How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it?
  • alQamaralQamar Banned Banned Users Posts: 1,904
    edited November 2013
    evotuc wrote: »
    Exactly. My computer has more capability than the profiles you shared with me, yet my fps is far lower. How do we explain that? That is the topic on the forums ever since the game came out, isn't it? And you know, Al, that I know how to take care of a computer, how to search the forums, and how to implement possible fixes. NOTHING. Nothing on the forums has fixed this game. Why? Because the problem is in the game itself, that's how I explain it.


    Those are my results on the forest benchmark with manually maxed out settings. Non downgraded. To prevent issues I never use the unlimited VRAM button. I do not see a clear benefit using it except you have a graphics card that already uses your system RAM (Intel IGPU / AMD aGPU) and does not have dedicated VRAM. And so I also can confirm things said by al Jabberwock in case of using / not using the RAM limiters.

    Of course we have a limit of 4 GB for RAM AND VRAM HuntingDog but this memory limit is only applicable to the used textures by the game while we can exceed the 4GB border using driver controlled stuff (like MSAA etc.)

    mswb.png


    gwyw.png

    and this is the value having when using the "exteme" preset, which is laughable compared to Shogun 2 as it does not even use FXAA / MLAA by default.

    Shogun delivered me a performance of 77 fps on the same machine with maxed out settings.

    I really would love to see how your superiour rigs perform al Jabberwock. If we could even call this "performance".


    That all are reasons why I put up a plea for a next gen engine, instead having a next TW with an "improved" warscape engine again. The current engine already fails to fit running properly on modern, not only high end hardware.
  • XerumXerum Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 21
    edited November 2013
    I have a 290x too, with win8.1 and latest amd driver 13.11 beta 8. When i zoom in my frames drop under 15. My gpu is clocking between 300-900 MHz fast changing. To solve this issue, i run gpu render test in background. It utilzes my gpu to 99% and it clocks full speed at 1000 MHz, so that i can play large battles with zooming in. It is not as good as with my GTX680, but playable.
  • HuntingDogHuntingDog Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,470
    edited November 2013
    Xerum wrote: »
    When i zoom in my frames drop under 15.

    That's because of the CPU, not the 290x. You would get the same framerate with a 7870.
  • cgriffith90cgriffith90 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 20
    edited November 2013
    Xerum wrote: »
    I have a 290x too, with win8.1 and latest amd driver 13.11 beta 8. When i zoom in my frames drop under 15. My gpu is clocking between 300-900 MHz fast changing. To solve this issue, i run gpu render test in background. It utilzes my gpu to 99% and it clocks full speed at 1000 MHz, so that i can play large battles with zooming in. It is not as good as with my GTX680, but playable.

    What GPU render test is this? I would love to be able to play large battles in zoomed mode.
  • cgriffith90cgriffith90 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 20
    edited November 2013
    And I wish we could get a CA person to comment on this, because from this page, http://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/14
  • koh0314koh0314 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 17
    edited November 2013
    Eyefinity looks good?? I find your name on steam but there are many same names

    I just want to look pictures
  • XerumXerum Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 21
    edited November 2013
    HuntingDog wrote: »
    That's because of the CPU, not the 290x. You would get the same framerate with a 7870.

    Not at all. I agree with you about the cpu is a big bottleneck, but in case of the 290x there is a bigger bottleneck. When i play a battle with 20 vs 20 units my gpu is clocking at 300-400 MHz with around 4-8 fps. After forcing it to clock at max speed (1000 MHz) i get around 24 fps.
    Maybe your 7970 has a high enough base clock to let the cpu be the bottleneck, but the one of the 290X is to low. You can test this by dumping the core clock of your gpu by gpuz to file and play a battle.
    What GPU render test is this? I would love to be able to play large battles in zoomed mode.
    GPU Z Download Link
    Click on the question mark to get the render test window.

    Here 2 screenshots of a fight with render test on and without. Settings are on extreme, aa on, 16x af, shadows mid... CPU is i7 3770k.
  • Maeda_ToshiieMaeda_Toshiie Senior Member SingaporeRegistered Users Posts: 3,601
    edited November 2013
    http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/11/06/amd-denies-cherry-picking/1

    I'm surprised that your R9 290X was running at 400MHz.
    Total War Forums, the official forums of the Total War series:

    Forum terms and conditions
    Technology Discussion Section
    How not to assemble a PC

    Google-fu, the best skill in solving technical issues.

    Faibo waipa!
  • XerumXerum Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 21
    edited November 2013
    http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/11/06/amd-denies-cherry-picking/1

    I'm surprised that your R9 290X was running at 400MHz.

    The 400 MHz has nothing to do with the articel you posted. 290X core gpu clock is based on the workload of the GPU. In windows it is 300 MHz, in BF4 1000 MHz and in Rome 2 it depends. On campaign map utilization is 99% - 1000 MHz and in battles 20-50% - 300-700 MHz.
  • HuntingDogHuntingDog Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,470
    edited November 2013
    Strange problem with the 290X. The BitTechNet article said that AMD is working on a driver update to improve performance variations. Maybe that will fix your problem.

    My 7970 downclocks only in 2D. For 3D it's always at the same speed. Maybe u could try MSI-Afterburner to lock the speed for 3D.

    Also, judging by your screenshots I think u are using DOF high. I would recommend using DOF low since it looks and performs much better imho.
    What GPU render test is this? I would love to be able to play large battles in zoomed mode.
    Sorry, there is no magic zoomed in performance fix. This solution only applies to OP who has problems with his 290X downclocking during Rome 2. In normal conditions this will only reduce your performance since the render test application is running in parallel.
  • XerumXerum Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 21
    edited November 2013
    The problem with the good and bad coolers can be neglected. I use the 290X in uber mode, which forces 1000 MHz core clock but uses 55% fan speed, which is loud like hell but with a good headset no problem at all. In BF4 my gpu runs for hours at 1000 MHz without any problem.

    There are only 2 ways to fix this problem:
    1. AMD releases a driver where the user can force something like a 3d mode to lock gpu clock at max speed.
    2. CA can manage it to get a good gpu utilization so that the 290X or any other graphic card can notice it and clock up.

    Tried msi afterburner by overclocking my gpu by 1 MHz but it did not work. The only way i found is with gpuz or any other game/programm which utilizes the gpu.

    I added two more screenshots where you can see the game, gpu usage, clock and fan speed.
    Render Test on
    Render Test off
  • HuntingDogHuntingDog Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,470
    edited November 2013
    Sorry but it's kinda funny that the AMD drivers don't recognize Rome 2 as a proper 3D game ;)
  • XerumXerum Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 21
    edited November 2013
    I think the AMD driver does everything correct. If the GPU is not used, why should it clock up.
    The really really big problem is the cpu bottleneck. In some way the engine can not use the gpu, when many unit actions happen.
    I see this at the begining of a battle where everything is perfect. GPU usage at 70-90%, AMD driver clocks gpu at 1000 MHz, frames are high. But when i zoom in or start fighting, gpu usage went down to 10-20% and AMD driver clocks down.
    ok.jpg 100.2K
  • cgriffith90cgriffith90 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 20
    edited November 2013
    How do you set it to UBER Mode btw? I like to know for future reference, and also. Yes, I noticed AMD programs didn't even recognize ROme 2 as a game. Strange... Very curious, most curious indeed that the GPU drops when you zoom into battle.

    Now I am really terrified, should I have my card returned back to New EGG? Because of this article ? http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/11/06/amd-denies-cherry-picking/1 .

    Thanks for the help guys, this information has tremendously helped me out a lot. I still cannot play the game what so ever without lag. I set the game to LOW setting, MAX LOW settings with just MAX army units, I get LOW FPS when I still zoom in. I am not sure what is going on.
  • cgriffith90cgriffith90 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 20
    edited November 2013
    How do you do UBR mode?
Sign In or Register to comment.