Original Post — Direct link

Hello, all.

I wanted to see if anyone has any suggestions with this issue I was having:

Was on a fleet with ti-di, 1500 in local and a sh*t ton of drones/fighters on grid. I was getting about 10 frames per second during the whole fight but my GPU and CPU were hardly even used... so unused that the GPU fans weren't even spinning - https://imgur.com/a/FQgNHBw

I usually have the graphics settings at the highest but I lowered them all to medium for this fight. Is this just a thing that happens when there's a lot on grid? Or do you think there's something f*cky with my PC?

Specs: rtx 3070 | Ryzen 5600X | 32GB RAM 3600MHz | gen4 nvme SSD

PS: The GPU usage does ramp up with other games, and even when docked in Jita.

External link →
over 2 years ago - /u/ccp_habakuk - Direct link

Originally posted by Dravos_Mabebu

Indeed in heavy tidi fights the GPU barely needs to work. This is because the game gets highly CPU bound during such encounters. And the less frames your CPU can send out the less frames need to be rendered --> GPU usage drops to nearly nothing.

Most of EVE's application are single thread, so you should see a load of about 1/6 ~ 17% since you got a hexa core CPU. If the EVE process uses those 17% its most likely that one of your CPU cores is working at 100% capacity (this unfortunately is often not reflected in the task manager).

This explanation is pretty spot-on, at least as far as I understand things (and I have done quite a few measurements). Most of the game client logic is indeed single-threaded, with the exception of some parts of the engine.

As others here mentioned sound: On such a beefy machine sound should have quite little impact when running a single client. Nearly all of the audio load is actually in a separate thread, so it should be processed on a separate core and should normally not affect the fps of your client. This looks a bit different on old CPUs with less than 4 cores and when multi-boxing - then audio has much more of an impact on fps. But it is still a good idea to test it out yourself in your specific situation.

While brackets have been mentioned already, which have indeed a quite heavy impact, the overview can also slow down the client quite a bit, if it has many object listed. It can make sense to check this with a completely empty overview tab. I also recommend to close any other client windows, which you do not really need, especially things like assets and bookmarks - every bit can help here.

over 2 years ago - /u/ccp_habakuk - Direct link

Originally posted by Solstice_Projekt

Excuse me, but because I can ask you directly, I'm doing so. It's, I guess, tangentially related to the issue at hand.

I have 2000+ bookmarks in Hek. My fps is cut to a third, just because they exist. I don't even have to be on grid with them.

Turning them off and on depending on usage isn't an option, because it causes my client to freeze for longer than is acceptable. Jumping gates is especially painfull, but at least the invulnerability timer nowadays only starts when my pod's actually fully loaded.

Thank you for that, by the way.

I've discovered that the "mouse hover function", when hovering over space, causes the client's fps to go down. My fps go down over space, but they go up when I move the mouse over the overview or any other window. They don't go up to a value they should have, but not hovering space is beneficial for fps and reacting.

Can you please fix that? It's like the mouse-movement function checks every object for intersection, every frame. The more objects there are, the longer it takes.

It's really not how this should be written nowadays and I was flabbergasted when I discovered this.

Please note that I'm not complaining about the fps drop, because that's just a symptom anyway, but about the fact that it translates into increased latency, thus messing with ability to react as quickly as I could.

Thank you for reading.

PS: I can make you a video showing this, if you want to.

Hey,

Yeah, having 2000 bookmarks active in a single system is indeed a bit much and this is known to cause performance issues. I investigated this a bit when working on shared bookmarks, and I think we also managed to include some improvements, but unfortunately we could not address more. Unfortunately the sensor overlay is just not made to handle as many objects - and the same thing would happen with a high amount of anomalies.

I'll try to see next week if I might find anything, which we could improve easily, but from past experience I am afraid that this would all require extensive code changes.

For workarounds: Would it be doable for you to split the bookmarks into several subfolders and only enable those on the sensor overlay, which you are currently working with? Yes, the action of enabling a (sub-)folder takes some time, but it might still be better than keeping them all enabled all the time.

A video should not be necessary here - I know what you are dealing with. I might have tested it only with 1000 bookmarks (maybe more), but I was measuring this slow-down back then. Although - if you want to send a bug report and include a short video there, then this might give some extra leverage to get this looked into.

over 2 years ago - /u/ccp_habakuk - Direct link

Originally posted by ccp_habakuk

Hey,

Yeah, having 2000 bookmarks active in a single system is indeed a bit much and this is known to cause performance issues. I investigated this a bit when working on shared bookmarks, and I think we also managed to include some improvements, but unfortunately we could not address more. Unfortunately the sensor overlay is just not made to handle as many objects - and the same thing would happen with a high amount of anomalies.

I'll try to see next week if I might find anything, which we could improve easily, but from past experience I am afraid that this would all require extensive code changes.

For workarounds: Would it be doable for you to split the bookmarks into several subfolders and only enable those on the sensor overlay, which you are currently working with? Yes, the action of enabling a (sub-)folder takes some time, but it might still be better than keeping them all enabled all the time.

A video should not be necessary here - I know what you are dealing with. I might have tested it only with 1000 bookmarks (maybe more), but I was measuring this slow-down back then. Although - if you want to send a bug report and include a short video there, then this might give some extra leverage to get this looked into.

Strike the 1000 in the last paragraph - I did some tests with the max amount for a shared folder (3000), as I was concerned that it could be abused for hostile purposes (link to a very heavy bookmark folder in local and hope that the other side gets lagged out).