Arch Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 So I upgraded from an Asus GTX1650 LP OC GDDR5 to a Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX6700. Performance increase has been monumental in just about every title, except SB, where I'm fairly sure average FPS dropped from mid-high 30s to mid-20s. Performance is visibly worse in my benchmark scenario, it just looks and feels off. System configuration has not changed otherwise. I don't have any upscaling or anything weird on. SB settings, res etc. are the same. Any ideas? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted April 29 Members Share Posted April 29 Not immediately, no. But I'll alert one of the programmers, maybe he can find out more. Can you please contact me by email? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted April 29 Author Share Posted April 29 2 hours ago, Ssnake said: Not immediately, no. But I'll alert one of the programmers, maybe he can find out more. Can you please contact me by email? Sure, expect one shortly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted June 13 Author Share Posted June 13 (edited) So I found something funny. GPU use does seem normal. CPU use seems awfully low for such a presumably CPU-heavy game. I will install newest chipset drivers etc. and see. When SB gets paused it will run at 50-60FPS as per screeenshot, but as soon as it gets unpaused it dips to the 30s. Edited June 13 by Arch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 13 Members Share Posted June 13 Steel Beasts is CPU heavy only if a lot is going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted June 14 Author Share Posted June 14 14 hours ago, Ssnake said: Steel Beasts is CPU heavy only if a lot is going on. Got it. So I suppose it's maybe a GPU driver issue of some kind; AMD drivers reverting to generic ones for a niche program like SB or something. Highest FPS I ever see is perhaps 45 in thermals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 14 Members Share Posted June 14 There may not be heavy optimizations in place but still I'd expect it to perform better than that. Do you have VSync enabled, and what's your monitor's refresh rate? Can you, in a typical 3D scene, hit Alt+D and Alt+G and put the two dialog boxes next to each other so we can see your graphics and detail settings in SB Pro? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted June 14 Author Share Posted June 14 45 minutes ago, Ssnake said: There may not be heavy optimizations in place but still I'd expect it to perform better than that. Do you have VSync enabled, and what's your monitor's refresh rate? Can you, in a typical 3D scene, hit Alt+D and Alt+G and put the two dialog boxes next to each other so we can see your graphics and detail settings in SB Pro? V-sync is off, alongside any other possible -syncs. 1080 @ 75 is native but I'm running a HDMI to DP adapter that limits it to 60 for reasons. I used it on the 1650 too without issue. This is unpaused via a print-screen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 14 Members Share Posted June 14 Restore the defaults, then dial down the high detail tracks to where you can just see the difference on your wingman if you care. Yes, I noticed that you have disabled them right now. Personally, I keep ground cover lower than default, at around 15% - doesn't cost much performance-wise and looks nicer - and I keep the "Ground" detail higher than default, at about 80%, to avoid hill popping. That should give you, overall, a good balance between performance and image quality. FYI, we have ordered such a Radeon card to see if we have a similar performance on our end (but I haven't yet heard the results from these tests). The performance is, in descending order of likelihood, either the result of a problematic driver setting, a serious issue with our own performance optimizations that might work well with NVidia cards but not (certain) Radeon models, or there's some problem with the driver itself, or finally a faulty hardware (very, very unlikely, since the card seems to work well with other games, which is pretty much killing the argument). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted June 15 Author Share Posted June 15 If it helps at all, dialing the visuals down makes FPS go higher, with highest FPS at lowest visuals. It's not like it's stuck at 30 or something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 15 Members Share Posted June 15 Still, you simply shouldn't be stuck with the lowest possible detail settings and just get mediocre frame rates in return. Something is very wrong here, and that deserves some investigation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted June 15 Author Share Posted June 15 Like I said the GPU crushes most modern games pretty finely. RE4 Remake is pretty much maxed at 1080p 60, pretty much close to the same in Cyberpunk 2077. Other simulators are in the hundreds of FPS typically at lower settings. Doesn't seem to be an issue with my GPU specifically. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 15 Members Share Posted June 15 No, I don't think your graphics card or CPU as such are the problem. eSim Games won't ignore your case. The "solution" can't be to just dial down all the settings that make Steel Beasts at least a little pretty. It may be necessary for the moment, but we need to get to the bottom of this matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted June 15 Author Share Posted June 15 Thanks. I can manage with it for now (Don't care about eyecandy but I do want some frames) but I suspect many users will be switching to AMD in the future, so it would pay to be prepared. A mid-grade 1440p card from the early 20's should not be utterly crushed by a low-grade 1080p card from the late 10's, and performance in other titles seems to agree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 https://www.pcmag.com/news/play-older-pc-games-think-twice-about-amds-rdna-2-cards Because of another game I play now and then on my brother's PC, I had done a little research last year. The game is a DX9 game and I noted poor graphics performance on a 6800. I had a 1080 laptop GPU at the time. The laptop was outperforming his desktop. I never checked Steel Beasts on it, but might. This might not be the issue you are seeing. I have no way to definitively say its my issue, but it sounds similar. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted June 15 Author Share Posted June 15 18 minutes ago, thewood said: https://www.pcmag.com/news/play-older-pc-games-think-twice-about-amds-rdna-2-cards Because of another game I play now and then on my brother's PC, I had done a little research last year. The game is a DX9 game and I noted poor graphics performance on a 6800. I had a 1080 laptop GPU at the time. The laptop was outperforming his desktop. I never checked Steel Beasts on it, but might. This might not be the issue you are seeing. I have no way to definitively say its my issue, but it sounds similar. Could very well be credible. I've mostly tried DX12 and 11 apps. Might be time to fire up STALKER again and see if it tanks on the 6700. That's a pretty heavy game that can also be ran in DX9. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Arch Posted June 20 Author Solution Share Posted June 20 Alright, I solved it. Like I thought it is an overly conservative Radeon driver, although I'm surprised it is fixable on the user-end. What is happening is that the frequency and voltage is being throttled for whatever reason. This seems to affect many DX8/9/10 programs, not just SB. A fix, albeit not ideal but functional, is to raise the minimum frequency inside of AMD's Adrenaline to a value reasonably close to the maximum. This is with -100mhz from maximum. It jumps around 60 to 64FPS. Quite a bit better than 25 to 30FPS. Perhaps there is something eSim could do on their end to encourage higher clocks on newer Radeon cards? Apart from just switching to a new rendering engine whenever that one comes out. 😅 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 20 Members Share Posted June 20 Well, that's a great finding there! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSe419E Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 7 hours ago, Arch said: A fix, albeit not ideal but functional, is to raise the minimum frequency inside of AMD's Adrenaline to a value reasonably close to the maximum. This is with -100mhz from maximum. Minimum frequency of what? Could you describe the location of this setting, please? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Posted June 21 Author Share Posted June 21 14 hours ago, TSe419E said: Minimum frequency of what? Could you describe the location of this setting, please? AMD Adrenaline, Performance, Tuning, GPU, Tuning Control, Manual Tuning, Advanced Control to "Enabled", Min Frequency (MHz). It sets a rough guideline for what is the minimum frequency the GPU should boost to. It's not a true hard limit as it does clock down in idle, such as in the map screen. You can make a profile for SB specifically and leave it on Default. Beware that technically manual tuning will void warranty if you overclock or overvolt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSe419E Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Thank you! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.