Is it me or does this game eat up a lot of RAM

[bobrpggamer]

I got a new PC with 32GB of DDR4 and a i7 9700K and while I was playing A18 I was getting a solid 60FPS on high (not ultra) at 1080p. So I started the game today and I had Winamp and a few system utilities like HWMonitor x64 going, so I went in and got a 34FPS average at nighttime, with 32GB ram.

 

So I rebooted, cleared some TSRs and got my 60FPS back. 6 Cores @4.6Ghz, Winamp and a hardware monitor should not matter on an 8 core CPU, the main player in the performance lag had to be the memory, right?

 

This is by all means not a complaining thread, I just wonder if the RAM was the problem with the FPS lag.

[SylenThunder]

It's a voxel game. By its very nature it will be heavy on both CPU and RAM usage. That said though, your hardware should be more than decent enough.

 

For a comparison, here's my specs.

Win 10i7-3930k 3.2GHz overclocked to 4.2GHz
32GB RAM @1866Mhz
2x GTX1060 6GB with Stock OC
OS on SSD, game client on another SSD, world and save data on a pair of SSHD's in RAID 0

Now if I benchmark my system, it clocks pretty close to the same as a 17-7700 with DDR4 RAM. I average 80-95FPS roaming around, with some dips into the 60's during BM's. This is on 1080p with settings mostly on ultra.

 

And while I'm getting this, I'm also running about 20 tabs in chrome. I have At least one Putty window open, WinSCP, A remote desktop session to one of my servers, Notepad++ with 4 or 5 documents, Steam, Epic, GOG, Bethesda, and UPlay launchers are running somewhere. That's not even counting BitDefender and Malwarebytes doing their things.

If I load up a 16k map, the client will use about 19GB RAM.

 

If I add Netflix to the list and watch something, my FPS will drop to an average of 60.

 

 

Based on this information and comparing your hardware to it, either you have a GTX1080 (Which Unity doesn't seem to like for some reason), or you've got something else like a graphical overlay or secondary system eating up the resources.

[bobrpggamer]

Yes I have a GTX 1080 EVGA vanilla stock clocked, I had no Idea Unity has problems with this GPU. I have no where near the amount of apps running as you, so I guess maybe it is the GPU and Memory, I think we could both agree the CPU is not the resource hog.

 

I have new drivers from about 2 weeks ago and it has been out for 3 or so years so the drivers should not be an issue, the reboot to clear the RAM and definitely helped.

 

Thank you for your reply green dragon.

[Fox]

This game eats up a lot of everything... it's just the kind of game that it is.

[bobrpggamer]

Maybe it could be related to starting at night and the zombies were set to jog, so more resources in that area. Still though I cannot understand the difference in FPS before reboot and after, I mean I know a reboot is the best way to clear RAM, but 32Gb in Windows 10 x64 seems enough no matter how long my PC has been running.

 

Again 30 FPS average before reboot and 60 FPS average after reboot, at first I thought it may have been an update perhaps Windows update or 7 Days to Die update, all in all I am glad the reboot worked.

[Scyris]

I got a new PC with 32GB of DDR4 and a i7 9700K and while I was playing A18 I was getting a solid 60FPS on high (not ultra) at 1080p. So I started the game today and I had Winamp and a few system utilities like HWMonitor x64 going, so I went in and got a 34FPS average at nighttime, with 32GB ram.

 

So I rebooted, cleared some TSRs and got my 60FPS back. 6 Cores @4.6Ghz, Winamp and a hardware monitor should not matter on an 8 core CPU, the main player in the performance lag had to be the memory, right?

 

This is by all means not a complaining thread, I just wonder if the RAM was the problem with the FPS lag.

 

Wow someone else who also uses winamp still? I just haven't found another music player thats as good or as lightweight as it is. Whats your videocard though? I do think there is something else going on there though, as I have 24 gb of ram and I get a solid 60 fps no matter what, mind you I shut some stuff off like bloom, etc as I dislike the effects.

 

Also by any chance were you in the snow or desert biomes or near a body of water when the fps hit happened? if so, thats the microsplat map to blame, it causes massive fps drops for virtually anyone in the snow, desert biomes or near bodies of water in rwg. It seems to really hit you if your looking at a mountain in the snow/desert biomes, if its flatland the fps hit doesn't really happen. I go from soild 60 to around 30-34 when I look at the problem spots, till I look away again then its instantly back up to 60.

 

Modders call it the microcrap map, as all it does is cause massive performance issues.

[bobrpggamer]

Wow someone else who also uses winamp still? I just haven't found another music player thats as good or as lightweight as it is. Whats your videocard though? I do think there is something else going on there though, as I have 24 gb of ram and I get a solid 60 fps no matter what, mind you I shut some stuff off like bloom, etc as I dislike the effects.

 

Also by any chance were you in the snow or desert biomes or near a body of water when the fps hit happened? if so, thats the microsplat map to blame, it causes massive fps drops for virtually anyone in the snow, desert biomes or near bodies of water in rwg. It seems to really hit you if your looking at a mountain in the snow/desert biomes, if its flatland the fps hit doesn't really happen. I go from soild 60 to around 30-34 when I look at the problem spots, till I look away again then its instantly back up to 60.

 

Modders call it the microcrap map, as all it does is cause massive performance issues.

I have a GTX 1080. I was in a fairly flat area on top of a mobile home in the green area (forest) with some water around but small bodies of water, there was a desert to my right and I was not near a city or town. When I spawned I had a Spider guy and a tourist guy hanging around that I failed to see and died twice. I was trying to get a Gigabyte Motherboard app to display a OSD with temps and FPS in the game and had no luck getting it too work so that was the reason I was killed twice. It was night as well and not much lighting around.

 

Yeah I have been using winamp since 1999, It is very lightweight and I pretty much know my way around it over the last 20 years. A lot of media players have too much screen space as well as have too many options to worry about, I just set it to shuffle and that's it.

[Scyris]

I have a GTX 1080. I was in a fairly flat area on top of a mobile home in the green area (forest) with some water around but small bodies of water, there was a desert to my right and I was not near a city or town. When I spawned I had a Spider guy and a tourist guy hanging around that I failed to see and died twice. I was trying to get a Gigabyte Motherboard app to display a OSD with temps and FPS in the game and had no luck getting it too work so that was the reason I was killed twice. It was night as well and not much lighting around.

 

Yeah I have been using winamp since 1999, It is very lightweight and I pretty much know my way around it over the last 20 years. A lot of media players have too much screen space as well as have too many options to worry about, I just set it to shuffle and that's it.

 

It was probally the water, even a tiny pond can cause the massive fps drops, has something to do with the textures used around the water than the water itself, cuz looking at water in a poi doesn't cause it.

[Ghostlight]

I think this game will use as much RAM as it can get? Not sure.

 

What I do know is that the biggest impact on performance you will get will likely be from getting a FASTER SSD more than anything else. I moved to a nVME SSD (about 5 times faster than the typical SSD I had before) and the difference it made to the game performance was simply massive. A friend at the same time moved from a GTX780 to a GTX1080 and he only saw a tiny improvement.

[bobrpggamer]

I have a Samsung 970 EVO, so I know the difference, even though the game still takes a while to load which is strange.

[Hellsmoke]

Tested this game on my friends computer and was surprised at what I learned, might be of interest to people looking to run this game.

 

He has..

 

Windows 10

I3-8350k Running @ 4x 4.00 Ghz

Rog Strix 1070ti 8gb

16 gb Corsair dual channel (2x16gb) Not sure which ones exactly.

Motherboard z390 Tomahawk

Corsair Hydro H115i

M2 Not sure which one.

 

The game ran on ultra with literally EVERYTHING on other than v-sync at 60-70 fps. Turning down some of the things known to cause issues would probably take us up to about 80-90 fps with a bit of tweaking. Take into account that this is without overclocking anything.

 

The interesting part for me was the 4 core I3 didn't seem to have much trouble getting the job done.

 

Edit: I just realised none of this info says anything without mentioning that this was all on running at 1080p lol.

[Fox]

I have a Samsung 970 EVO, so I know the difference, even though the game still takes a while to load which is strange.

I thought the same thing. Maybe the game only uses 1 or 2 cores for game loading and takes a while to process?

[bobrpggamer]

I thought the same thing. Maybe the game only uses 1 or 2 cores for game loading and takes a while to process?

Well Windows loads fast that's for sure. I have heard about this lower than expected performance on games mentioned before and I could not understand how. When the Sata SSD 2.5 drives came out, the game loading levels or continuing a new game was much faster than a mechanical HDD. So the nVME 4X PCI Express being four times faster than a 2.5 Sata SSD, games like 7 Days to Die is not utilizing the the incredible transfer rates of the nVME SSDs while loading the map, and continuing or starting a new game.

 

However the in-game data rate may be much faster and I may not be noticing the difference - such as loading assets like POI asset data into the game in the 7 Days to Die folder in Steam Apps/common, and as such being a smother transition from some areas on the map to next - or something like that, I am not too familiar with unity, so I really do not know how assets are spawned in-game. Maybe I just need to keep an eye on my hard drive light to see if there is a lot of activity while playing.

 

This reminds me of playing the original Half Life and loading a new part of the map was in seconds, which was really cool to keep you immersed in the game

 

If the Samsung EVO 970 was not so cheap at this point for 500Gb, I might have sent it back, but Its about $90 and does not need a Sata cable or a drive bay which is major plus for me.

 

I am really confused about Optane from Intel, I have no clue what it is. Is it a cache for standard Sata SSDs, or a stand alone drive, I have no idea.

[Fox]

I am really confused about Optane from Intel, I have no clue what it is. Is it a cache for standard Sata SSDs, or a stand alone drive, I have no idea.

It's just cache so it loads something faster the 2nd time you load it. In my opinion... a waste of money because it's only marginally faster if caching SSD stuff, though much faster if caching HDD stuff which is what it was mainly intended for.

[-Holo-]

Wow someone else who also uses winamp still? I just haven't found another music player thats as good or as lightweight as it is. Whats your videocard though? I do think there is something else going on there though, as I have 24 gb of ram and I get a solid 60 fps no matter what, mind you I shut some stuff off like bloom, etc as I dislike the effects.

 

Also by any chance were you in the snow or desert biomes or near a body of water when the fps hit happened? if so, thats the microsplat map to blame, it causes massive fps drops for virtually anyone in the snow, desert biomes or near bodies of water in rwg. It seems to really hit you if your looking at a mountain in the snow/desert biomes, if its flatland the fps hit doesn't really happen. I go from soild 60 to around 30-34 when I look at the problem spots, till I look away again then its instantly back up to 60.

 

Modders call it the microcrap map, as all it does is cause massive performance issues.

 

Winamp users? There's Dozens of us, DOZENS!

(or atleast a bunch)

 

...Oh crap. We built our base right next to the edgesea, between snowy mountains and desert biome x.x

[erlgrey]

It's just cache so it loads something faster the 2nd time you load it. In my opinion... a waste of money because it's only marginally faster if caching SSD stuff, though much faster if caching HDD stuff which is what it was mainly intended for.

 

 

no, optane is not only a cache, it depends on the model.

 

optane 900p, 905p, the enterprise ssds, and so on, are regular ssds with 3d-xpoint chips and you use them as regular ssd.

the small m.2 and dimms are persistent cache drives.

 

 

but they are not useful on regular Client PCs though.

 

pro optane: high random r/w performance, bit lower latency, high iops, very low performance drop when "full".

con: price, price, price.

[-Holo-]

no, optane is not only a cache, it depends on the model.

 

optane 900p, 905p, the enterprise ssds, and so on, are regular ssds with 3d-xpoint chips and you use them as regular ssd.

the small m.2 and dimms are persistent cache drives.

 

 

but they are not useful on regular Client PCs though.

 

pro optane: high random r/w performance, bit lower latency, high iops, very low performance drop when "full".

con: price, price, price.

 

This is a bit offtopic, but I havent been able to find good answers about the optane tech,and you sound insightful Don't they have a much higher amount of writecycles before they go bad? Been thinking on using one as a replacement for my Ramdisk, but can't find good info about it from the real world.

[bobrpggamer]

The only Optane SSD I have seen for sale is the Optane AIC:

 

The other versions are cache/ram

 

The transfer rates on the Optane AIC are lower than the Samsung 970 EVO M.2 and the 970 EVO M.2 does not take a PCI Express slot, which does not really matter other than blocking a small amount of airflow in a fan based PC, or you have triple or quad SLI taking all the slots.

 

I do not think the Samsung 970 EVO can be beat in price/performance and having such low profile in your case, the space taken on the motherboard for each M.2. slot with a heatsink is much smaller than most southbridge heatsinks.

[Fox]

no, optane is not only a cache, it depends on the model.

 

optane 900p, 905p, the enterprise ssds, and so on, are regular ssds with 3d-xpoint chips and you use them as regular ssd.

the small m.2 and dimms are persistent cache drives.

 

 

but they are not useful on regular Client PCs though.

 

pro optane: high random r/w performance, bit lower latency, high iops, very low performance drop when "full".

con: price, price, price.

Ok, my knowledge may have been outdated. Sorry for the misinformation. Though in my defense, it was stupid for Intel to confuse the product line like that. To merge SSD with Optane without giving it a new name is just dumb.

 

This is a bit offtopic, but I havent been able to find good answers about the optane tech,and you sound insightful Don't they have a much higher amount of writecycles before they go bad? Been thinking on using one as a replacement for my Ramdisk, but can't find good info about it from the real world.

If you really need more performance than what SSD can offer, then just use one of the RAID options.

[-Holo-]

Ok, my knowledge may have been outdated. Sorry for the misinformation. Though in my defense, it was stupid for Intel to confuse the product line like that. To merge SSD with Optane without giving it a new name is just dumb.

 

 

If you really need more performance than what SSD can offer, then just use one of the RAID options.

 

It's not really the performance I'm after mainly. It's something I experienced when running a minecraft server that there were so many read/writes that wore out two mechanical disks for me, so after that I tend to use Ramdrives to store worlds for voxel games

but it has its drawback with the volatile nature and larger mapsizes used now.