View Full Version : Another CPU-heavy Console-to-PC-port?

11-26-2015, 09:54 PM
This will be more of a "rant" than a real complaint, so don't take it as such too much...

The last "R6"-game I've played was "Vegas" (the first one), and while that game was fun and all, it was NOT the easiest game to run on a technical level.
We were right in the crossover between the Pentium 4 to Core 2 generations, so only just getting into more efficient processors, and to make things worse, "Vegas" was a notorious CPU-hog. I had a Pentium 4 that was heavily overclocked (I don't even remember the numbers, that long ago), but well-cooled, and the chip would just burn up as I played "Vegas". But I just let it slide as that computer was on its way out anyway. I think it finally did stop working from pure wear.

Fast forward almost a decade (between releases) later, videogames have become way more GPU-reliant, CPUs are more efficient but tend to get less load, yet "Siege"... Well, I just ran a quick test with the Open Beta just to see what it would ask from my system, and once again it just seems to send pretty much all the load to the CPU. It's just making the entire game stutter, even (somewhat) on the "Low" graphics-profile.
And yes, although my system today is yet again becoming dated, according to meters it's not even putting load onto the GPU (as it's only being used to about 50% of its capacity), while the CPU is just getting bombarded with tasks like it's 2005.
So this means the CPU is NOT bottlenecking the GPU, because the GPU is not even being used properly.

What's stranger, even in menus outside of 3D-rendering it's just sucking on the CPU like it's afraid to run out of power. Like right now I'm running the game idling in the menu (without the actual 3D-engine running) in the background and it's just hanging steadily around 27% CPU-usage working all cores. What is it even doing? It doesn't even have to do much in the menu, unless the 3D-engine is already pre-loaded in the background or some such thing (I don't know).

Now, I will say that there are a few things going on here:

- First of all, my GPU (and the driver I use) is both outdated and unsupported. And although I will definitely replace it really soon (like within 2 weeks), I'm not sure if it's possible to push more load onto the GPU and off of the CPU. But this might be rectified with a different GPU with new drivers.
- On top of that, I do realize this is a Beta-version of the game and it might not perform exactly the same as the final version. Although, the engine is the engine, so I'm not sure how much difference it would make.

So, would either the final version or a change to a "supported" GPU (and driver) change the way the game distributes loads? Or is this game once again just a CPU-hog like most "console-port-era" titles?

I'm just wondering, although I doubt I'd get a definitive answer from developers or anything. In any case, CPU-hogs are not appreciated as it's inefficient, and people don't buy good GPUs for nothing. It has always been a problem until GPUs started getting more priority, giving CPUs a break. But if this game doesn't make use of that principle, I guess there won't be a point in me buying this game once again.
Optimization is key, and the general trend of poor optimization and support for whatever reason needs to stop. I'm only saying...

If you need to know, I run an i5 760 @ 3.4GHz (which WON'T be replaced for a while) and an overclocked GTS450 (which WILL really be replaced soon).
For now, I guess I could attempt to play the game with it during the Open Beta, but I won't be able to get a new GPU before Dec. 1st (to test during the Open Beta), or more likely not play at all because the game refuses to make use of the GPU (which is not even THAT old or at least incapable) and just hogs the CPU at the same time.

On a side-note; Will the Beta stay up as a "demo" for people to try? - I know that servers would need to be used for it, but it would be good and handy as not having demos to test with is a bad trend as well.

Thanks for reading.