[NEW MERCENARIES] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
Edaym, you messed up your quote bbcode. And there is hard data showing that W10 completely outperforms W7 when it comes to gaming. Tons of benchmarks have been performed from a wide variety of different sources that all show games run better on it.
What the duck? FPS has a lot to do with optimization, especially if the basic calculations are badly optimized. Since transformations are executed by the CPU then the results are sent to the GPU that does some built-in calculations to project the scene onto a 2D canvas, it's quite easy to screw up even the matrix calculations or create unoptimized formulas, especially when you need unique formulas. And it can happen even in a well-optimized game. In this case the main influential factor is how well the developers know the game engine.
But the main issue isn't that the game has a constant bad performance because luckily they optimized it quite well several years later. They changed the most of the very badly optimized part of the code but it still has fps drops that shouldn't exist even in an online game. Other Korean MMO's are badly optimized too, but at least in the most of them the fps doesn't drop that much when you are in the middle of the combat. Not to mention that this was one of the reasons they reduced the max. party member count at the most of the raids.
FPS games do more network stuff and other things than Vindi on a similar sized map with way more than 4 players and they still perform better. Wonder how do they do it? Maybe they don't leave unnecessary things on a map, or maybe they don't do expensive calculations for the UI so often, only when it's needed, or maybe their game protection mechanism doesn't monitor your system so heavily and so on. Since every game runs in a constant cycle that is even capped or not capped at a specific frequency, but Vindi is capped and it's hardcoded. It's configurable or not, if several cycles in a game take way more time to execute than the frequency sum the cycles run at, then why even try to uncap it? You will gain nothing with that.
No one's denying that the game needs a new engine. My claim was that they designed the engine to handle changes in hardware for years to come but didn't force players to deal with default high settings when they knew that atleast 50% of their target audience would be using outdated hardware even for that year. Most companies don't even make their own engines; DevCat does and their coding miracles in Mabi and Vindi are legendary. Heck, Peria Chronicles (not made by DevCat) is likely taking so long because Nexon will want a custom engine needing to be fine-tuned for all of the ridiculous hardware options PCs are rigged with these days, like Vulkan and VR. Other MMO companies roll their eyes at that and get cheap engines to work with.
Also it's hilarious that you're using FPS games as an example. FPS maps are simplistic, un-interactable, combat is really just lining up to a hitbox, and they're far easier to hack. That's nothing compared to Vindi's as-of-yet-unsurpassed hack-and-slash mechanics in large maps with interactable environments, extremely detailed animations, superior stat systems (weight, balance, weapon length - RIP two of those), and myriad other complex systems that FPS developers will never, ever, EVER include in their copy-paste low-content money trees with less and less campaign hours every year.
Also it's hilarious that you're using FPS games as an example. FPS maps are simplistic, un-interactable, combat is really just lining up to a hitbox, and they're far easier to hack. That's nothing compared to Vindi's as-of-yet-unsurpassed hack-and-slash mechanics in large maps with interactable environments, extremely detailed animations, superior stat systems (weight, balance, weapon length - RIP two of those), and myriad other complex systems that FPS developers will never, ever, EVER include in their copy-paste low-content money trees with less and less campaign hours every year.
I thought we were talking about more significant things that are relevant to the optimization not stuff like the "superior stat system". Multiplayer FPS games have interactable objects and physics too. But when do you interact with those objects? They have nothing to do with the FPS drops as long as you don't interact with them or they don't move, but it's not so common that it drops when you use a skill or when you shoot a bullet.
What is simplistic and what is not isn't determined by the looks of it. But as i noticed you just talk about these things without knowing them. Really look after how these stuffs work because i'm tired of explaining it to you. Go experiment with game engines and graphics programming then we can talk about it.
Multiplayer FPS games have interactable objects and physics too.
Breakable windows and grenades don't count. Swinging logs, collapsable lookout towers, jugs and tubs of water actually spilling out splashing water... THOSE are interactable objects. THOSE are physics. FPS games have nothing on that.
What is simplistic and what is not isn't determined by the looks of it.
YES, YES IT IS. IT LITERALLY IS.
What is wrong with gamers these days? They think a high texture on a wall and a color-coded hitbox is better programming than actual velocity and momentum effects and consistent open world... Have our standards really fallen this far? No one even appreciates the complexity of games like GTA5 and Talos Principle so long as they can get the next shiny Doom title....
Everything about the game is sub-par in terms of how well it runs. Even getting into the game after first opening the launcher is slow as molasses. There's nothing else that I've played that comes close to Vindi in terms of that. Getting the launcher up and getting into town is a matter of minutes, not seconds, and that's just sad. The game still trips over the smallest things that other games do with comparable ease. It's very clear that there's a lot of code that needs to be cleaned up and likely that there are many redundant processes going on at any given time.
Getting the launcher up and getting into town is a matter of minutes, not seconds, and that's just sad.
It's just preloading the rest of the game. Getting into Battles should take way longer, like with console games having those 10 minute loading screens to get into anything; Vindi battles only need maybe a 10 second load, because the initial loading screen loaded things that make it easier to transition later on. Games like TERA take 5 forevers to load into new areas or dungeons; for Vindi it's split-second.
Anyone have tryed steps in this video ?
At least for me after the first step game had increased fps 10/15
And I have most of the settings on highest.
It stays around 45-50fps which is at least for me enough, plus I'm hosting dungeons.
It is a laptop tho.
Specs:
i7-4720HQ 2.60Ghz(Max turbo 3.60Ghz)
GTX960M 4GB
16GB rams
Since I'm already at 60 FPS on the meter, I didn't see a change on it, but there is definitely a substantial visual difference. Excellent video!
And again, make sure you make the file read-only afterwards...just in case.
--
BTW Does anyone know how to get the resolution to higher than 1920 without the game turning windowed? Whenever I change it in config and launch the game, it won't go fullscreen...
Getting the launcher up and getting into town is a matter of minutes, not seconds, and that's just sad.
It's just preloading the rest of the game. Getting into Battles should take way longer, like with console games having those 10 minute loading screens to get into anything; Vindi battles only need maybe a 10 second load, because the initial loading screen loaded things that make it easier to transition later on. Games like TERA take 5 forevers to load into new areas or dungeons; for Vindi it's split-second.
Eh, it depends. Last I played Guild Wars 2 it was very quick getting into dungeons. Warframe tends to be as well, though peer connection can make a difference. TERA is pretty poorly optimized as well, so issues with it aren't too surprising.
idk about you guys but there's a lot to take into account for the game development. Most of the maps are Physics implemented. Players more than likely have a seperate physics implementation reference for the body to move the way it does. Same with bosses. This being because the game was made before VALVE really implemented such high level physics. DevCAT had to manually do all of that. For example when you have 7 dead players but one is soloing you get better frames than when they are all alive because there isn't much physics activity happening. Also the game is also sending data to the servers regardless of what you do. Movement, even pressing escape to show the mouse. Invoking the attack command. Animation activity. Player location using X, Y, and Z to determine if you hacked to float. The game literally sends EVERYTHING (that's besides the point on optimization). I'm honestly just throwing what knowledge I've learned via taking programming lessons in game development xD
This being because the game was made before VALVE really implemented such high level physics. DevCAT had to manually do all of that. For example when you have 7 dead players but one is soloing you get better frames than when they are all alive because there isn't much physics activity happening.
Also the game is also sending data to the servers regardless of what you do. Movement, even pressing escape to show the mouse. Invoking the attack command. Animation activity. Player location using X, Y, and Z to determine if you hacked to float. The game literally sends EVERYTHING (that's besides the point on optimization). I'm honestly just throwing what knowledge I've learned via taking programming lessons in game development xD
This. So much this.
And yet earlier in the thread people were suggesting that FPS does it better when the only thing CoD cares about is who shot first.
DevCat is was the greatest MMO developer of our time. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't played enough games to properly compare.
The engine was not properly utilized. That's been shown in detail by multiple people experienced in coding/development. The combat is amazing, and they've come up with some great rendering worth with outfitters, but the way the levels are put together as well as the UI still creates massive resource drain. To be fair I will say that I've yet to see anyone go in and pick apart all the revamped areas and performance seems smoother in at least some of them, but many are relatively untouched and it shows.
Greatest in what way? That's pretty subjective. They certainly don't listen to players better than others, and they're less successful for it. They don't make a game that has ever truly encouraged cooperation. The way the game is built prevents it from ever truly being Massive in any way. I can't agree that I'd ever tout them as the best MMO developer by any means. BnS, TERA, BDO and many others offer better MMO elements even if they're lacking in other ways, and lets not pretend that GW2 and WoW don't run all over this title in terms of actual depth when it comes to what's available in game.
Greatest MMO devs of all time is not a title I'd ever even entertain giving to DevCat because this has never been a true MMO for a number of reasons, and I'd never bestow greatest on a team that so thoroughly ignores detailed input given to them about how to clean up massive issues with level design.
Late to the party, but there is a ton of misinformation here that really needs correcting.
HUGE WALL OF TEXT AHEAD
"My FPS constantly goes haywire between 0 and 60, but I don't lag at all in-game."
How does this make sense? If the FPS fluctuates between 0 and 60, while the target is assumed to be 60 FPS, how can there be no lag? I'm not saying something like a constant 59 FPS is unplayable, but one cannot state that they "don't lag at all in-game", if the target is not reached, which in this case is 60 FPS.
"PS: Funny enough.. a water cooled p4 at 5+ GHZ would run vindi better than any modern cpu."
If a 4.4ghz 2013 CPU barely hits 60 FPS, a 5ghz 2006(?) CPU definitely isn't better.
"But I also have my Nvidia settings where PhysX by default uses my GPU, so that probably makes it better. If you haven't done that already, right-click your desktop, click Nvidia Control Panel, and turn PhysX from CPU to GPU. "
and
"That's likely because you didn't even set your computer to use your GPU during games. Right-click desktop, go to the PhysX or whatever drop-down menu, and select GPU. If you do that, the game won't gaf about your CPU."
PhysX is a Nvidia technology, the game must support it to use it. Here is a list straight from Nvidia that states all the PhysX enabled games:
Offloading the PhysX stuff to the GPU is great for Witcher 3 and Borderlands 2, but notice how Vindictus is not on the list. Therefore, setting PhysX to run on your GPU or CPU does nothing for Vindictus.
"I don't think you understand how the PC market works... New does not mean better, and sometimes means worse or more frustrating."
Every now and then we get lemons such as exploding phones, but in general newer does mean better when it comes to technology.
On the left we have idle usage and on the right we have Vindictus open. I'm not sure how useful this information is as this is what task manager looks like when a single core Cinebench R15 test is ran:
The cores are surprisingly equally loaded despite the fact the load is single threaded. It is fairly conclusive we cannot tell how many threads an application uses by measuring CPU usage thread percentage unless all of them get maxed.
"In-game, I also get a nearly constant 59 FPS on the meter but in dungeons that bounces from 0 to 60. That's because the game's FPS detection is off on a quad-core, and it has nothing to do with how much CPU/RAM is being used, or what the Internet speed is (which is excellent, might I add)."
The ingame FPS counter is quite inaccurate. I like to use Fraps and Rivatuner.
"GPUs are optional, but don't replace CPUs."
To display content on a screen, a GPU is necessary. Obviously, Vindictus can't run without a GPU.
"And even if someone runs an Intel CPU, it doesn't matter once they tell their games to run on their GPU. Since the OP uses an Nvidia GPU, what CPU they have doesn't matter (unless their CPU is just plain outdated; otherwise, the brand means nothing)."
Games need CPU power, so CPU choice matters. An i7 8700k pushes more FPS than an i7 7700k assuming the rest of the computer can keep up with the former.
Source: at about 6:15
"yet I never, ever, EVER get any FPS drops."
If this is with an i7-4720HQ, I find it very hard to believe. My friend has a very similar CPU, the i7-4700MQ. He gets a score of 133/608 in Cinebench R15, which is conveniently right in line with the i7 2600.
Here's a random sample from Pantheum:
Assuming 60 FPS is the target, dropping 50% frames is far from perfect.
"config_material.txt stuff"
I tried it and nothing changed, but that doesn't mean it's useless. I have a 240 Hz monitor and use displayport. Also, I'm not sure why only displayport is mentioned since DVI and HDMI are specced at 144 Hz and 120 Hz, respectively, well above the 60 FPS cap of Vindictus.
"CPU itself i outdated (like i3/i5 instead of i7)"
and
"You have i3, and the person in the video got 59/60 at i5, while I have an i7."
i3/i5/i7 is just branding from Intel. A newer i5 is more powerful than an older i7, and a desktop i7 is more powerful than a laptop i7.
"The main question in this thread is whether or not the game is optimized. It is - for Intel CPUs. FPS has nothing to do with optimization; if anything, the game's ability to reach 60 FPS at all with good hardware just shows that it was designed for the long-term, which is good."
Optimised and Vindictus don't go well together. Why can I get 200 FPS in a game such as Dota 2 while I can barely get 40 FPS in Vindictus? We shouldn't need top of the line 2017 CPUs to scrape past 55 FPS. If the game was designed for long-term, it should scale properly like Crysis 3:
Notice how the newer 12 threaded CPU pulls away from the older 4 threaded CPU.
Source: at about 5:54
We should remember this is Crysis 3. The Crysis 3 from the "Can it run Crysis?" meme.
It doesn't seem far-fetched Crysis 3 has a higher chance of running better than Vindictus on most of today's desktop gaming computers.
"Both the i3 and i7 use hyper-threading (which doesn't matter in this game afaik), but i7 has turbo boost whereas i3 does not (but i7's turbo frequency is equal to i3's base), and i7 has double the cache size. While you do have better base speed, my better cache means I'm stressing my system less when running the same programs, and it helps that most of my programs are cleanly divided into 8 threads while yours are cluttered together in 4 threads."
Like stated after, it's the result that matters. The 2.4ghz quad core Q6600 has a whopping 8MB L3 cache but the 2.8ghz dual core Celeron G3900 with 2MB L3 caches smashes it in pretty much everything, especially Vindictus. The i3 4160 is a desktop CPU, so it's not unusual for it to challenge laptop i5s and even ultra low power i7s in the same generation.
"Also it's hilarious that you're using FPS games as an example. FPS maps are simplistic, un-interactable, combat is really just lining up to a hitbox, and they're far easier to hack."
BF3, 2011 DX11 FPS. Destructible terrain, ground vehicles, planes/helicopters, jumping, 32v32 multiplayer, huge maps, similar graphics to Vindictus. Max settings at 1920x1080 with an i5 2400, 8GB RAM and HD 7970? 80+ FPS in Caspian Border 32v32 with towers collapsing, RPGs shooting, planes crashing and C4 blowing up. The same hardware with Vindictus? 30 FPS in a 4 man raid. In fact, with my current rig with a Ryzen 7 1700, 16GB RAM and a GTX 1070, I maintain the FPS cap of 200 while I get 40 FPS in Vindictus. Now obviously Devcat/Nexon does not have as large of a budget as Dice/EA, but if BF3 can pull it off, how did Vindictus end up in such a mess when so much less is required?
Maybe the combat, but I almost prefer Nier Automata's arguably inferior combat simply because I can maintain 60 FPS in that game.
Dang huge wall of text... But I'm just going to chime in that when terms like "supported" are used, it typically means "configured for" rather than "only works on" - so PhysX works for Vindictus, it just wasn't designed to.
well in general there are no PhysX files in the client. It's all physics manually programmed which would be good yes if pre-rendered properly. I don't think it's a pre-render thing however since it's the engine being as heavily modded as it is doing the physics for the developers. So it's more or less a heavily coded thing that doesn't even exist except back in Nexon locations where the client can be directly worked on.
So more or less PhysX does nothing for Vindictus or even talks to the game.
No, as far as Vindictus is concerned PhysX does not exist. If the technology was indeed implemented, there would be an option to toggle it. Furthermore, gamers that didn’t have a Nvidia GPU that tried to run the game with PhysX enabled would have 2 FPS.
Comments
I will switch to Win 10 whenever I build a new system,wont be based around Vindi either.
What the duck? FPS has a lot to do with optimization, especially if the basic calculations are badly optimized. Since transformations are executed by the CPU then the results are sent to the GPU that does some built-in calculations to project the scene onto a 2D canvas, it's quite easy to screw up even the matrix calculations or create unoptimized formulas, especially when you need unique formulas. And it can happen even in a well-optimized game. In this case the main influential factor is how well the developers know the game engine.
But the main issue isn't that the game has a constant bad performance because luckily they optimized it quite well several years later. They changed the most of the very badly optimized part of the code but it still has fps drops that shouldn't exist even in an online game. Other Korean MMO's are badly optimized too, but at least in the most of them the fps doesn't drop that much when you are in the middle of the combat. Not to mention that this was one of the reasons they reduced the max. party member count at the most of the raids.
FPS games do more network stuff and other things than Vindi on a similar sized map with way more than 4 players and they still perform better. Wonder how do they do it? Maybe they don't leave unnecessary things on a map, or maybe they don't do expensive calculations for the UI so often, only when it's needed, or maybe their game protection mechanism doesn't monitor your system so heavily and so on. Since every game runs in a constant cycle that is even capped or not capped at a specific frequency, but Vindi is capped and it's hardcoded. It's configurable or not, if several cycles in a game take way more time to execute than the frequency sum the cycles run at, then why even try to uncap it? You will gain nothing with that.
Also it's hilarious that you're using FPS games as an example. FPS maps are simplistic, un-interactable, combat is really just lining up to a hitbox, and they're far easier to hack. That's nothing compared to Vindi's as-of-yet-unsurpassed hack-and-slash mechanics in large maps with interactable environments, extremely detailed animations, superior stat systems (weight, balance, weapon length - RIP two of those), and myriad other complex systems that FPS developers will never, ever, EVER include in their copy-paste low-content money trees with less and less campaign hours every year.
I thought we were talking about more significant things that are relevant to the optimization not stuff like the "superior stat system". Multiplayer FPS games have interactable objects and physics too. But when do you interact with those objects? They have nothing to do with the FPS drops as long as you don't interact with them or they don't move, but it's not so common that it drops when you use a skill or when you shoot a bullet.
What is simplistic and what is not isn't determined by the looks of it. But as i noticed you just talk about these things without knowing them. Really look after how these stuffs work because i'm tired of explaining it to you. Go experiment with game engines and graphics programming then we can talk about it.
I'm off.
Breakable windows and grenades don't count. Swinging logs, collapsable lookout towers, jugs and tubs of water actually spilling out splashing water... THOSE are interactable objects. THOSE are physics. FPS games have nothing on that.
YES, YES IT IS. IT LITERALLY IS.
What is wrong with gamers these days? They think a high texture on a wall and a color-coded hitbox is better programming than actual velocity and momentum effects and consistent open world... Have our standards really fallen this far? No one even appreciates the complexity of games like GTA5 and Talos Principle so long as they can get the next shiny Doom title....
It's just preloading the rest of the game. Getting into Battles should take way longer, like with console games having those 10 minute loading screens to get into anything; Vindi battles only need maybe a 10 second load, because the initial loading screen loaded things that make it easier to transition later on. Games like TERA take 5 forevers to load into new areas or dungeons; for Vindi it's split-second.
At least for me after the first step game had increased fps 10/15
And I have most of the settings on highest.
It stays around 45-50fps which is at least for me enough, plus I'm hosting dungeons.
It is a laptop tho.
Specs:
i7-4720HQ 2.60Ghz(Max turbo 3.60Ghz)
GTX960M 4GB
16GB rams
And again, make sure you make the file read-only afterwards...just in case.
--
BTW Does anyone know how to get the resolution to higher than 1920 without the game turning windowed? Whenever I change it in config and launch the game, it won't go fullscreen...
Eh, it depends. Last I played Guild Wars 2 it was very quick getting into dungeons. Warframe tends to be as well, though peer connection can make a difference. TERA is pretty poorly optimized as well, so issues with it aren't too surprising.
This. So much this.
And yet earlier in the thread people were suggesting that FPS does it better when the only thing CoD cares about is who shot first.
DevCat
iswas the greatest MMO developer of our time. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't played enough games to properly compare.Greatest in what way? That's pretty subjective. They certainly don't listen to players better than others, and they're less successful for it. They don't make a game that has ever truly encouraged cooperation. The way the game is built prevents it from ever truly being Massive in any way. I can't agree that I'd ever tout them as the best MMO developer by any means. BnS, TERA, BDO and many others offer better MMO elements even if they're lacking in other ways, and lets not pretend that GW2 and WoW don't run all over this title in terms of actual depth when it comes to what's available in game.
Greatest MMO devs of all time is not a title I'd ever even entertain giving to DevCat because this has never been a true MMO for a number of reasons, and I'd never bestow greatest on a team that so thoroughly ignores detailed input given to them about how to clean up massive issues with level design.
HUGE WALL OF TEXT AHEAD
"My FPS constantly goes haywire between 0 and 60, but I don't lag at all in-game."
How does this make sense? If the FPS fluctuates between 0 and 60, while the target is assumed to be 60 FPS, how can there be no lag? I'm not saying something like a constant 59 FPS is unplayable, but one cannot state that they "don't lag at all in-game", if the target is not reached, which in this case is 60 FPS.
"PS: Funny enough.. a water cooled p4 at 5+ GHZ would run vindi better than any modern cpu."
If a 4.4ghz 2013 CPU barely hits 60 FPS, a 5ghz 2006(?) CPU definitely isn't better.
"But I also have my Nvidia settings where PhysX by default uses my GPU, so that probably makes it better. If you haven't done that already, right-click your desktop, click Nvidia Control Panel, and turn PhysX from CPU to GPU.
and
"That's likely because you didn't even set your computer to use your GPU during games. Right-click desktop, go to the PhysX or whatever drop-down menu, and select GPU. If you do that, the game won't gaf about your CPU."
PhysX is a Nvidia technology, the game must support it to use it. Here is a list straight from Nvidia that states all the PhysX enabled games:
https://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/physx/games
Offloading the PhysX stuff to the GPU is great for Witcher 3 and Borderlands 2, but notice how Vindictus is not on the list. Therefore, setting PhysX to run on your GPU or CPU does nothing for Vindictus.
"I don't think you understand how the PC market works... New does not mean better, and sometimes means worse or more frustrating."
Every now and then we get lemons such as exploding phones, but in general newer does mean better when it comes to technology.
On the left we have idle usage and on the right we have Vindictus open. I'm not sure how useful this information is as this is what task manager looks like when a single core Cinebench R15 test is ran:
The cores are surprisingly equally loaded despite the fact the load is single threaded. It is fairly conclusive we cannot tell how many threads an application uses by measuring CPU usage thread percentage unless all of them get maxed.
"In-game, I also get a nearly constant 59 FPS on the meter but in dungeons that bounces from 0 to 60. That's because the game's FPS detection is off on a quad-core, and it has nothing to do with how much CPU/RAM is being used, or what the Internet speed is (which is excellent, might I add)."
The ingame FPS counter is quite inaccurate. I like to use Fraps and Rivatuner.
"GPUs are optional, but don't replace CPUs."
To display content on a screen, a GPU is necessary. Obviously, Vindictus can't run without a GPU.
"And even if someone runs an Intel CPU, it doesn't matter once they tell their games to run on their GPU. Since the OP uses an Nvidia GPU, what CPU they have doesn't matter (unless their CPU is just plain outdated; otherwise, the brand means nothing)."
Games need CPU power, so CPU choice matters. An i7 8700k pushes more FPS than an i7 7700k assuming the rest of the computer can keep up with the former.
Source:
"yet I never, ever, EVER get any FPS drops."
If this is with an i7-4720HQ, I find it very hard to believe. My friend has a very similar CPU, the i7-4700MQ. He gets a score of 133/608 in Cinebench R15, which is conveniently right in line with the i7 2600.
Here's a random sample from Pantheum:
Assuming 60 FPS is the target, dropping 50% frames is far from perfect.
"config_material.txt stuff"
I tried it and nothing changed, but that doesn't mean it's useless. I have a 240 Hz monitor and use displayport. Also, I'm not sure why only displayport is mentioned since DVI and HDMI are specced at 144 Hz and 120 Hz, respectively, well above the 60 FPS cap of Vindictus.
"CPU itself i outdated (like i3/i5 instead of i7)"
and
"You have i3, and the person in the video got 59/60 at i5, while I have an i7."
i3/i5/i7 is just branding from Intel. A newer i5 is more powerful than an older i7, and a desktop i7 is more powerful than a laptop i7.
"The main question in this thread is whether or not the game is optimized. It is - for Intel CPUs. FPS has nothing to do with optimization; if anything, the game's ability to reach 60 FPS at all with good hardware just shows that it was designed for the long-term, which is good."
Optimised and Vindictus don't go well together. Why can I get 200 FPS in a game such as Dota 2 while I can barely get 40 FPS in Vindictus? We shouldn't need top of the line 2017 CPUs to scrape past 55 FPS. If the game was designed for long-term, it should scale properly like Crysis 3:
Notice how the newer 12 threaded CPU pulls away from the older 4 threaded CPU.
Source:
We should remember this is Crysis 3. The Crysis 3 from the "Can it run Crysis?" meme.
It doesn't seem far-fetched Crysis 3 has a higher chance of running better than Vindictus on most of today's desktop gaming computers.
"Both the i3 and i7 use hyper-threading (which doesn't matter in this game afaik), but i7 has turbo boost whereas i3 does not (but i7's turbo frequency is equal to i3's base), and i7 has double the cache size. While you do have better base speed, my better cache means I'm stressing my system less when running the same programs, and it helps that most of my programs are cleanly divided into 8 threads while yours are cluttered together in 4 threads."
Like stated after, it's the result that matters. The 2.4ghz quad core Q6600 has a whopping 8MB L3 cache but the 2.8ghz dual core Celeron G3900 with 2MB L3 caches smashes it in pretty much everything, especially Vindictus. The i3 4160 is a desktop CPU, so it's not unusual for it to challenge laptop i5s and even ultra low power i7s in the same generation.
"Also it's hilarious that you're using FPS games as an example. FPS maps are simplistic, un-interactable, combat is really just lining up to a hitbox, and they're far easier to hack."
BF3, 2011 DX11 FPS. Destructible terrain, ground vehicles, planes/helicopters, jumping, 32v32 multiplayer, huge maps, similar graphics to Vindictus. Max settings at 1920x1080 with an i5 2400, 8GB RAM and HD 7970? 80+ FPS in Caspian Border 32v32 with towers collapsing, RPGs shooting, planes crashing and C4 blowing up. The same hardware with Vindictus? 30 FPS in a 4 man raid. In fact, with my current rig with a Ryzen 7 1700, 16GB RAM and a GTX 1070, I maintain the FPS cap of 200 while I get 40 FPS in Vindictus. Now obviously Devcat/Nexon does not have as large of a budget as Dice/EA, but if BF3 can pull it off, how did Vindictus end up in such a mess when so much less is required?
Maybe the combat, but I almost prefer Nier Automata's arguably inferior combat simply because I can maintain 60 FPS in that game.
So more or less PhysX does nothing for Vindictus or even talks to the game.