I found lowering my OCs netted more framerate.
Basically this is the sort of game that uses the parts very heavily.
When parts are at there utmost used, their power draw/requirements go up.
Sometimes the OC that '‘works’ isnt really performing true to the numbers displayed…
I have had factory overclocked parts that are conservatively set, that actually wont work on certain titles (that really push).
I have then had to remove their Overclocks to use specific software…
As an example my AMD Fury (factory overclocked) runs at 1010mhz by design. Non overclocked model is 1000mhz (yes a 1% increase- pretty lame).
I can significantly undervolt this card and have it punch out 1050mhz… which works in every title. … (1035mhz for KCD)
Whilst Forza horizon 3 (a great example of a PC game gimped to make a console look good) will run at 1150mhz… it doesnt yield better frames than 1125mhz.
Arguably later updates to forza (finally allowing several cpu cores to deliver better framerate) setting around 1100mhz is the top speed.
Most every other game tops out at 1080mhz (and requires extra voltage)
Battlefield? 1075mhz or I get a game crash over four-six hours (I like to know my limits)
So I run battlefield at 1060mhz (no extra voltage needed)
When we change OC speeds we need to test if they actually make a difference. Know your beast and be familiar with software to check for results.
(General advice: not just for the OP who I can only assume knows what they are doing)
KCD I have to run at 1035-1050mhz (this game pushes my PC harder than Battlefield?! Yes!)
I can run KCD north of these numbers, but that is the only time I have had game crash.
1060mhz is doable but requires extra voltage to net a better framerate.
I like ‘free overclocks’, where we dont have to add (much/any) juice.
Extra voltage becomes heat and electronics last longer when kept cool. More so due to properties of pushing electrons through chips, extra heat really works against finding out chip limits.
So whilst some games allow CPUs to be pushed a few hundred megahertz more… if the extra speed doesny deliver extra frames- it isnt a useful overclock.
With overclocks at their extreme limits, backing off a bit on the numbers sometimes yields HIGHER performance.
Generally via Overclocking Id expect around 10% extra speed.
Seems to be the headroom built into most parts to ensure all units sold can deliver.
End of part A.
Part B:
Yes dammit its been six months. Looking forward to some of the basic stuff that should have been done by now to be fixed.
I personally believe this game has taken longer than usual to stabilise for a few reasons.
A) sold before was completed
B) made multiplatform with a unified release
C) had a tonne of unfortunate niggles that tied up an exhausted team just to make it work
Unfortunately it is C that hurts the game going forward worse even that multiplatforming.
The amount of times it is evident that someone has just said “$#@f it!”, and gimped the shit out of a feature to stop complaints.
I believe that changes done in this fashion should generally be for medium settings presets (used by majority/consoles), and maybe High presets (for eye candy players with ninja rigs).
Ultra should be for future hardware and screen shots (or those with more money than sense).
For so long the epic difference in performance between console and PC has simply allowed PC gamers to set everything to Ultra and STILL NET north of 100 frames per second.
That is for consoles targeted games.
KCD targeted high end PCs and aims to deliver something special.
Then devs decide at thirteeth hour that console performance demands that PC Ultra be higjly gimped.
I find it frustrating as at retail release the game delivered better. I am glad it is starting to perform reliably on consoles (out of compassion), though of course I’d prefer if the devs getting a handle on their game didnt require destroying the higher quality I had seen or grown accustomed to.
Whats worse is that the tweaks so far havent done much for the high end PC space.
Maybe with 1.2 patch that made better use of multicore processor loading (and I loved the later introduced cloth physics), otherwise it has mostly been little backwards steps.
Eg fix the damn broken building model that bombs performance on top end cards. That should have been done many patches ago.
It is obvious, stands out like a sore thumb, and gives creedance to users complaining that their $1200 video cards cannot make this game smooth. (They can on a well matched system, in EVERY OTHER PART OF THE GAME).
FIX THE MODEL ALREADY!!!
OP: whilst the devs will handle their side of the coin, your setup in part may be responsible…
intel may have duped consumers a little (okay a lot) with present part sales.
4core/8 threads will run 98% of PC games very well.
A few games want more. KCD is very noticably ‘one of them’.
When I saw intels latest chip lineup it was obvious they were creating an artificial market with all the right pricepoints to drive consumers ever upwards in $$$
They know what they are doing, and know that gamers are where the money is at. Not your fault for doing as all the zealots tell ye to do. As stated - is fine for most games out there.
I replaced an i7 3770k (4c8t) that could clock up to 5ghz easily.
My lowly 3.3ghz 6c/12t replacement had every game ‘needing the speed’ give noticably less framerate.
Except KCD. KCD really wants the extra cores and will use them.
It has been designed for the eight core consoles.
So many benchmarks and investigations show that the hyperthreading gets some of the way towards that goal (in KCD). So a four core/eight thread intel is near equivalent to a six core (for this title).
Makes for some interesting times…
Going forward six+ cores (either eight cores or six cores with hyperthreading) may be the norm for high end console multiplats (that really push systems).
Not all mhz are created equally.
KCD is a game that bucks all established trends.
This is truly an odd title, that may show a market direction for hardware requirements going forward.
Microshaft are using playground games to deliver the new forza horizon. No doubt microsoft are using all their standard tricks to make consoles look better than PCs (eg 5Gb texture pools and using a core more than typical PCs will have…).
I wouldnt safely recommend a gaming build (going forward) that didnt factor in market anticompetitive behaviours.
Get the 6+ core rig and get the 8gb ram video card. (Not what I would have EVER ADVOCATED for gaming rigs previously)
