What's the solution for the performance of modern games?

[Gat Pelsinger]

If you weren't living under a rock, you would have noticed how bad modern games are optimized. Stuttering is a feature nowadays... Even on a 4090, a $1600 GPU, you can barely play some modern titles at 4k max 60 fps, but with a lot of stuttering. I found out that it has to do with real-time shader compilation management. So, I have a few questions.

 

1) If shader compilation is a thing, then how can I play a lot of games that do not compile the shaders at runtime, or when installing? For example, Asphalt does not need to compile shaders, but FUEL (old game with a BIG map) compiles shader at startup.

 

2) Why not save the compiled shaders instead of re-compiling them every time?

 

3) If games need to compile shaders every time for whatever reason, then why don't all of them compile everything at startup? I know, it will take a long time, Last of Us Part 1 is an example, but that game still stutters even after fully compiling the shaders (although patches are making it stable), and we should have an option to either compile the shaders first, or enjoy the stuttering with real-time compilation. But better, why not just follow point no. 2?

 

4) What's the solution?

[Agall]

2 minutes ago, Hensen Juang said:

If you weren't living under a rock, you would have noticed how bad modern games are optimized. Stuttering is a feature nowadays... Even on a 4090, a $1600 GPU, you can barely play some modern titles at 4k max 60 fps, but with a lot of stuttering. I found out that it has to do with real-time shader compilation management. So, I have a few questions.

 

1) If shader compilation is a thing, then how can I play a lot of games that do not compile the shaders at runtime, or when installing? For example, Asphalt does not need to compile shaders, but FUEL (old game with a BIG map) compiles shader at startup.

 

2) Why not save the compiled shaders instead of re-compiling them every time?

 

3) If games need to compile shaders every time for whatever reason, then why don't all of them compile everything at startup? I know, it will take a long time, Last of Us Part 1 is an example, but that game still stutters even after fully compiling the shaders (although patches are making it stable), and we should have an option to either compile the shaders first, or enjoy the stuttering with real-time compilation. But better, why not just follow point no. 2?

 

4) What's the solution?

 

Just overclock the RTX 4090. It can handle 4K high refresh rate max settings perfectly fine. The outliers aren't the standard. I ran Last of Us 4K ultra with no DLSS at a solid +60 fps, closer to 100 fps, as an example. Very enjoyable experience for the couple of hours I played around in the game.

[Gat Pelsinger]

@Agall But that's also a 4090 we are talking about. A FORTY FREAKING NINETY. Overclocking is not the solution. We are talking about game optimization.

[Agall]

1 minute ago, Hensen Juang said:

@Agall But that's also a 4090 we are talking about. A FORTY FREAKING NINETY. Overclocking is not the solution. We are talking about game optimization.

"Even on a 4090, a $1600 GPU, you can barely play some modern titles at 4k max 60 fps, but with a lot of stuttering" -Your OP.

[Gat Pelsinger]

@Agall I was not dis naming the 4090. It has insane amounts of computational speed. I was dis naming the game optimization. How intensive they are even on a card like the precious Nvidia GeForce Ray Tracing texel eXtreme 4090 Titanium.

 

ok, not TI. I did it for that long name.

[Agall]

1 minute ago, Hensen Juang said:

@Agall I was not dis naming the 4090. It has insane amounts of computational speed. I was dis naming the game optimization. How intensive they are even on a card like the precious Nvidia GeForce Ray Tracing texel eXtreme 4090 Titanium.

 

ok, not TI. I did it for that long name.

Some games do still have problems, yes, something that the RTX 4090 is sometimes immune to. Diablo 4 as an example has VRAM limitations, where low settings even at 1080p requires at least 8GB of VRAM, medium being in the same boat. Diablo 4 maxed out at 4K will at least allocate the whole VRAM buffer on a 4090, but is playable at 4K low-med on even an RX 6600 at 60-90 fps.

 

Some people just have to lower their expectations or learn to dial in game settings instead of brutely dialing to presets either in game or from some application like Geforce Experience. I had to learn to do this back when I was running a GTX 1080 at 1440p ultrawide way back in 2016. I don't have to do that now on my main system, but its a skill everyone should learn to get the best experience possible with their hardware.

[Levent]

What is the solution? Dont buy games or refund them if you dont like its performance. End user cant do anything but overclock or upgrade their components.

[Gat Pelsinger]

@Agall

 

I don't know you, but I can definitely tell you are one of the "pro ass gamer dudes" who have infinite budget, get the maxed config PC, and get confused of why people are having problems on their PCs. I see you have a deep knowledge in hardware, especially overlocking, but a computer is never functional without software. If Windows or programs are running slow for a person, then you all will just leave him saying that upgrade your potato PC or get a new one. A 7200 RPM hard drive spins 120 times a second. Only a software optimization expert or a guy with experience with operating systems and all will definitely say that 120 times a second is not too bad for installing an OS on it. And if that OS has memory caching, which it definitely does, and you have some good amount of memory, performance will be like butter. But notice I am not replacing "OS" with Windows. Windows is not particularly "unoptimized" in any way, but it's lack of "not touching with critical stuff" by devs which makes it very heavy and intensive. If a PC is slow, then not only you can upgrade your hardware, but you can make the software more optimized, efficient, and lightweight to increase performance. But that's really hard to do. I dropped with memory usage in my Windows install from over 2.6 gigs to under 1.2 gigs with more than half the processes running.

 

Same goes with games. If your games are chucking a little a bit, then just get a new graphics card! Problem solved. Except, not everybody can get pull out a new GPU from their pocket. If you would have realized, games like Tomb Raider, Forza, GTA, CS, etc., have really good graphics to performance ratio, and that's because they are developed using custom games engines, unlike games developed by Unreal Engine which have been intensive all along. This doesn't mean UE is unoptimized, it's just too heavy with all the features it has. Sadly, not everyone can do this level of optimizations. Making a game engine from scratch takes a lot of investment and programming knowledge, that small companies can't afford to. And other times, people just want to get programs working properly, rather than hindering with technical code and breaking the program.

 

I just want people like you to be aware that how much optimization matters, and how much "just upgrade da gpu dawg" is not the only solution. Although in this post, I am not even talking about the general optimizations of games, I am talking about a segment in optimization, which is the shader compilation, which I do not fully know about and asking the community.

[porina]

46 minutes ago, Hensen Juang said:

1) If shader compilation is a thing, then how can I play a lot of games that do not compile the shaders at runtime, or when installing? For example, Asphalt does not need to compile shaders, but FUEL (old game with a BIG map) compiles shader at startup.

Not sure. Maybe they're lightweight enough not to be noticed. You could also compile just what is needed to start, and do a limited background compilation for later parts of the game.

 

46 minutes ago, Hensen Juang said:

2) Why not save the compiled shaders instead of re-compiling them every time?

This is what they do. Re-compilation should only be needed if there is a change to the graphics system, for example, GPU driver update.

 

46 minutes ago, Hensen Juang said:

4) What's the solution?

Better software. Both game devs and engine providers are working towards this. One method I heard being used is simply not to block the game display code when a shader is being compiled on demand. Instead, there's a small delay before it pops in. Not a perfect solution either, but sounds preferably to the game pausing totally.

 

44 minutes ago, Agall said:

Just overclock the RTX 4090.

You can't hardware your way out of what is fundamentally a software problem. Well, maybe if you made hardware 1000x faster than it is now, you could.

 

[Gat Pelsinger]

13 minutes ago, Levent said:

What is the solution? Dont buy games or refund them if you dont like its performance. End user cant do anything but overclock or upgrade their components.

I am talking about the solution from the game devs, not from the und user my 200 IQ guy .

[Levent]

1 minute ago, Hensen Juang said:

I am talking about the solution from the game devs, not from the und user my 200 IQ guy .

Surely its just as simple as a stackoverflow question away.

[Gat Pelsinger]

1 minute ago, Levent said:

Surely its just as simple as a stackoverflow question away.

People there are too toxic. They banned my account because I was too noob to exist in programming.

[Agall]

31 minutes ago, Hensen Juang said:

@Agall

 

I don't know you, but I can definitely tell you are one of the "pro ass gamer dudes" who have infinite budget, get the maxed config PC, and get confused of why people are having problems on their PCs. I see you have a deep knowledge in hardware, especially overlocking, but a computer is never functional without software. If Windows or programs are running slow for a person, then you all will just leave him saying that upgrade your potato PC or get a new one. A 7200 RPM hard drive spins 120 times a second. Only a software optimization expert or a guy with experience with operating systems and all will definitely say that 120 times a second is not too bad for installing an OS on it. And if that OS has memory caching, which it definitely does, and you have some good amount of memory, performance will be like butter. But notice I am not replacing "OS" with Windows. Windows is not particularly "unoptimized" in any way, but it's lack of "not touching with critical stuff" by devs which makes it very heavy and intensive. If a PC is slow, then not only you can upgrade your hardware, but you can make the software more optimized, efficient, and lightweight to increase performance. But that's really hard to do. I dropped with memory usage in my Windows install from over 2.6 gigs to under 1.2 gigs with more than half the processes running.

 

Same goes with games. If your games are chucking a little a bit, then just get a new graphics card! Problem solved. Except, not everybody can get pull out a new GPU from their pocket. If you would have realized, games like Tomb Raider, Forza, GTA, CS, etc., have really good graphics to performance ratio, and that's because they are developed using custom games engines, unlike games developed by Unreal Engine which have been intensive all along. This doesn't mean UE is unoptimized, it's just too heavy with all the features it has. Sadly, not everyone can do this level of optimizations. Making a game engine from scratch takes a lot of investment and programming knowledge, that small companies can't afford to. And other times, people just want to get programs working properly, rather than hindering with technical code and breaking the program.

 

I just want people like you to be aware that how much optimization matters, and how much "just upgrade da gpu dawg" is not the only solution. Although in this post, I am not even talking about the general optimizations of games, I am talking about a segment in optimization, which is the shader compilation, which I do not fully know about and asking the community.

I literally have an i3 12100f RX 6600 build I use specifically to level my expectations, even an Intel Arc A380 that I test. I've had various degrees of hardware throughout the years, where I haven't always been a halo product customer, even periods between that based on the various living situations I've had because of my previous career. I still enjoy gaming while using those setups, but it is a lesser experience obviously. Still better than nothing. I also don't like selling old hardware so I maintain it and occasionally test various configurations.

 

Outside of competitive gaming, I will usually enjoy tweaking/testing hardware more than I enjoy gaming. 

 

My budget isn't infinite, I just choose to allocate my expendable income after saving, investments, etc on computer hardware sometimes. Sometimes its other hobbies. I also look at computer hardware as an educational investment, since I wouldn't be at the knowledge/career I am now if I haven't spent ridiculous money on hardware over the last +decade. 

[Stahlmann]

The solution to modern gaming is to not play on Ultra.

The point of Ultra is literally unoptimized and focused on maximum visual fidelity. At this point you're actively deciding against optimized settings.

 

If you can't get over your ego after buying a 4090 and cannot get yourself to play on the optimized High settings, then you're the problem.

I hate that the standard nowadays is to crank all the settings, get low performance and then blame the devs for releasing unoptimized games.

 

Some recent examples are RDR2 and Cyberpunk 2022. Both of these games look pretty much identical on High and Ultra if you're just playing the game, but you get 30-50% more performance out of High. Only when you stand still and do side-by-side comparisons you can see the difference, at which point you're not playing the game anymore.

[Gat Pelsinger]

@Stahlmann I understand, from a non-technical perspective, no matter which year or game it is, even though games have gotten to deliver more than we expect, our terms still make them us expect the same. I mean, 60 fps has been the least smooth fps territory from very early and hasn't changed its position yet. 1080p max settings is still the same term today, but of course, the max settings being like 20 times more intensive than max settings of games from 10 years ago. And not only that, but slowly and slowly, we are also increasing our expectations from newer GPUs. 1080p was the norm back then but 4K gaming is a must with high end graphics cards today, even if they can't handle it.

 

BUT what I am saying above is purely a software problem. With heavier calculations, the fps should drop, but the stability should be acceptable at least, not a stutter mess. This stuttering only mostly happens in Unreal games, rather than other games which use a custom engine but still support ray tracing and all. Even Unreal Engine made a video on stuttering and shader compilation, I think. And remember, we are talking about a 4090 here. Sure, a 4090 is basically a 1080 from over 8 years ago (I know, it's difference of 90 and 80, but basically, they are the flagship models of that gen.), so our expectations should be the same, meaning if it was 1080p max settings in those days, with "inflation" (games getting intensive), it should be 1080p max settings today as well. But no, the 4090 is not just linearly faster than 1080, it's leaps and bounds faster than a 1080. Props to Nvidia.

[ewitte]

It isn't very common for a 4090 to have issues outside of the initial release of products.   The huge issue is cards that have less than 12-16GB of VRAM (depending on the game).  There are some minor issues but unfortunately this stems from UE4 being pushed beyond its limits.