I have a 5800X3D and 4080 and will still get an FPS range of 45 - 90 in the busy area of Dornogal. Same story back in Valdrakken.
Also Raids and busy open world content too. Really any time more than ~18 people are around.
I’ve followed many FPS improvement guides which have certainly helped but just feels like WoW has bad optimization. Apparently I’m only using 35% too… like please use more CPU power lol wth
Would be nice if Blizz could add Frame Gen to WoW.
There is no system that can run at 100fps constantly. Even the highest tier of current hardware (5090 + 9800X3D) will drop under 30fps in intense battlegrounds and raid encounters. The limitation of Blizzard’s aging engine is CPU bound and it is unable to cope with many npcs and players on the screen at once, especially when in combat.
My advice to you is to use Lossless Scaling (available from Steam). It only costs around $7USD and allows you to enable frame generation on any game that doesn’t support it. Frame gen isn’t perfect as it can introduce some visual artifacts and additional latency but in my experience it is a MUCH superior experience to going from 150+ fps to under 50fps and gets around Blizzard’s game engine limitations.
well with the 5090 i highly doubt it, i get over 300fps with the 4070ti, depending on load but i been over 100 fps in raid with the rtx 4070ti and a 9800x3d
The point is that this game is heavily CPU bound and the single threaded performance difference between something like a 14900($600+) and a 14100($100+) is only ~25-30%. So if the cheap one got 50fps, in a bogged down single-threaded situation, the expensive one would only get roughly 65fps. The GPU can’t render a frame until the CPU tells it to and the CPU can’t prepare a frame until it performs all the necessary work needed, before moving on to preparing the draw calls.
Though one huge factor in why raid performance can be affected so strongly versus other types of content: Addons. They all run on the main game thread and bog it down into the void. So when you’ve got a million weakauras, DBM, rotation helpers, etc etc, it’s a lot of extra math and it adds up.
A system can never be faster than the slowest link.
And yet it does…
youtu.be/Nk8mz9nvoAo?si=uBYWcGXt3R9xva_4&t=67
Go into bios > turn off SMT - you will gain a lot of performance.
are your settings all on very low or something in raid?
lol it doesnt though, that Ashran footage shows the FPS min lows dropping to the 20s bro
My system spec:
i7-12700k
64gb RAM
RTX4060 Ti
I run raids at 1080p with everything low or off but have spell effects on Essential and Particle effects at Ultra, Textures at Ultra, Sharpening at .4 (but to taste) and a bunch of usless eye candy system drain stuff turned off or low that serve no purpose to raid mechanics while making important things easy to see and im getting 70-100fps based on what happening.
I followed Quazii’s video settings guide and it was really helpful: https://youtu.be/-vR6nJLLoe4?si=BSw0CzZWeM696NrS
This is an updated video settings video Quazii put out 2 days ago based on updates and changes which i havent checked out yet but there are apparently some settings that changed: https://youtu.be/OFpHIAe_MS4?si=63VzWD6hfy5fkIdy
The game looks amazing and the FPS are great. Strong recommend you check it out
no, like ultra xD
my specs are
AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
64GB DDR5 CL 30 6000MT/S Ram
RTX 4070 TI
MSI x670E Gaming
WD black SN770 2TB 5150/4900 MB/S
While that’s a great CPU, again, see what I said earlier:
this game is heavily CPU bound and the single threaded performance difference between something like a 14900($600+) and a 14100($100+) is only ~25-30%. So if the cheap one got 50fps, in a bogged down single-threaded situation, the expensive one would only get roughly 65fps.
Frame gen can only ever be useful if you’re already getting at least 60fps and want to run a high refresh monitor. It can help in that case. If you’re well under 60fps, frame gen is not going to help you. It might give the illusion of a little more smoothness, but latency and response time will be off the charts. Generated frames are fake, and they are basically “guesses”. You get all kinds of ugly visual artifacting because perfect guesses are impossible. I classify frame gen as mostly a worthless gimmick, although it does have a sort of niche use if you already have high framerates, to make them higher for a high refresh display.
but you do realize the X3D cpus, 5700X3D 5800X3D, 7800X3D 7900X3D 7950X3D 9800X3D 9900X3D and the 9950X3D all have lots of cache right as in 100MB+ of cache while the intel cpus you mentioned have around 17-36MB total… big disadvantage, and run extremely hot compared to the X3D cpus
intel cpus run hot and most likely thermal throttle down, i did a test with a game, my 9800x3d never went past 51c on HWinfo, and it was on for 16 hrs that day, with a game running and doing some 3d work while sitting at its peak of 5.2ghz
Doesn’t matter, even the top of the line model of a generation of CPU is only ever around 25-35% faster than the cheapest model in single threaded performance. It applies to both AMD and Intel. The gimmick is to push more cores for gaming, but 99% of games out there run into a diminishing returns wall around 4-8 threads tops. As for temps, as long as they are under 85C(avoiding thermal throttling range that is usually in the 85-95C range), the heat doesn’t matter. They are engineered to easily operate at max temp “indefinitely.” Assuming you periodically reapply your thermal paste, CPUs can be ran at 85C for years straight(the crypto boom that used GPUs proved this, where mining operations would keep the GPUs redlined for YEARS straight with like 99.999% uptime. fans burnt out before the cards did)
you so missed the point…
X3D cpus have 100MB+ of cache, which games love… while intels top of the line has 40 at the most, so that extra cache helps a lot which intel do not have, might wanna compare noted on their total cache for amd vs intel…
No, I didn’t miss the point. Single threaded benchmarks are still single threaded benchmarks and the cache size doesn’t help as much as you’d think. This is similar to the same trap people fall into when comparing the bus width on GPUs. You can do things faster with smaller chunks or do things slower with large chunks, and still yield the same throughput. Think of it like in physics where a 1kg ball moving at 10m/s will impact with the same amount of energy as a 10kg ball moving at 1m/s (not factoring in other forces, just giving a simple physics example).
Geekbench is one of the better benchmarks out there(it throws a pretty wide range of tasks at the CPU that can be easier or harder on a CPU based on their architecture, so things like cache size differences can potentially have their time to shine on some of the benchmark passes). So for example, your 7800x3d is within 2-3% of my 13600kf in both single and multithreaded testing.
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i5-13600kf
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.