CoH2 GPU/CPU usage

So yesterday I got an idea to check how much CoH2 uses my GPU, CPU etc..
So the thing I noticed is that CoH2 uses around 30% of my GPU and around 40% of my CPU, this while I'm getting 40 fps 20 minutes in to the game...

If the game used something like 80%(?) it would run smooth

So if some of you people could check if you're seeing similar things or different numbers and could post them

Edit: Other games can use up to 80% so nothing is wrong with my system

30% of your gpu? holy moly, thats bad. which program did you use?
i would like to try on my setup

Pretty much the same results for me.

Apparently, the games doesn't use more than 3 or 4 logical processors.

I'd think it has to do with the game's optimization, which is most likely close to nonexistent. Back in 2013-2014 they did a performance optimization patch but after WFA the performance has gone down a fair bit pretty much negating the optimization patch.

This game doesn't run well even on high end machines, at least not as well as it should from what I've heard of. For example, with my setup (not necessarily a high end one but proves the point):

i5 3570k OCed to 4,4 GHz
GTX 680 2GB of VRAM (OCed, core +145 MHz, memory +415 MHz)
8 GB DDR3 @ 1600 MHz

BF4 @ Ultra settings using 1080p resolution (but AA toned down to 2x and AA post @ medium) mostly at 60-100 FPS - nowadays BF4 is optimized pretty well I believe.

Anno 2205 at 1080p (high settings with AA off, still an being an unoptimized game but 3 years newer than CoH 2) at 40-60 FPS. However suffers from a memory leak and the performance goes down after 1-3 hours to an unplayable level.

I don't remember the exact CPU or GPU usage numbers of CoH 2 but I believe it doesn't use more than ~1/4 of my RAM. The game starts very smooth (without Vsync 80-100 FPS) but over time the performance drops drastically and in long games where the terrain is full of craters and stuff the FPS can drop as low as 20-40 even when there's no action at all. And CoH 2 doesn't even raise my CPU or GPU temps above 60 so it's not even near full load for either one. Sounds like a bad optimization and / or a memory leak to me. I don't expect my rig to run it at 60-100 FPS all the time but the performance is way worse than it should be.

Would be interesting to hear other players' rigs and performances for comparison

30% of your gpu? holy moly, thats bad. which program did you use?
i would like to try on my setup

I used the MSI gaming APP to see it while playing

The game starts very smooth (without Vsync 80-100 FPS) but over time the performance drops drastically and in long games where the terrain is full of craters and stuff the FPS can drop as low as 20-40 even when there's no action at all. And CoH 2 doesn't even raise my CPU or GPU temps above 60 so it's not even near full load for either one. Sounds like a bad optimization and / or a memory leak to me. I don't expect my rig to run it at 60-100 FPS all the time but the performance is way worse than it should be.

Would be interesting to hear other players' rigs and performances for comparison

Well, I have the exact same thing, game starts -> 90-120 fps -> stuff happends and the 40 fps hits the field

For me CoH2 eats RAM slowly more and more, I've used up to 12GBs out of my 16 while streaming the game for 5-6 hours straight

As for your comparison games you mentioned, I'll give a few of my own: Fallout 4, ALL maxed, even AA 60+ fps all the time, BF4 Maxed with AA low, 60+ fps most of the time, if shit hits the fan with 6 tanks and Jets fighting then fps might drop to 40

Back in 2013-2014 they did a performance optimization patch but after WFA the performance has gone down a fair bit pretty much negating the optimization patch.
THIS. finally someone who shares that "Opinion"

but company of optimization is stronk anyways. lelic is telling me that ultra settings with low AA are too high for my 970 gtx.. seems legit..

I upgraded my system just a few days ago...

From amd phenom2 1055t , 8gb, asus m4a77t board , gtx 560 1gb -

Coh2 never had stable fps-rates on this, going up and down from 70+ to 25, depending on what was going on (fire, smoke, etc...) and the map, everything set to medium and low

To I5 6600, 32gb on an asus z170a board - gpu ist still the gtx 560 1gb
60fps, vsync enabled. all settings maxed. cpu at 37°C
According to the taskmanager:
40% cpu and about 8gb ram is used by coh2.
both on win7pro 64bit
I cant tell how much gpu is used and I couldnt test it for hours so far.
Gpu-power doesn´t seem to do much, but ram and cpu on the other hand

To I5 6600, 32gb on an asus z170a board - gpu ist still the gtx 560 1gb
60fps, vsync enabled. all settings maxed. cpu at 37°C
According to the taskmanager:
40% cpu and about 8gb ram is used by coh2.
both on win7pro 64bit
I cant tell how much gpu is used and I couldnt test it for hours so far.
Gpu-power doesn´t seem to do much, but ram and cpu on the other hand

I'm currently running AMD FX 9370 and 16gbs of ram so those shouldn't be the issue

I'm currently running AMD FX 9370 and 16gbs of ram so those shouldn't be the issue

Did you check your bios-settings? maybe something like underclocking to prevent heat-buildup or something like this is turned on... Just guessing

Have you tried un-parking your cores? By default cpu's have 'parking' enabled, which prevent's them from working too hard so they don't overheat. If you have adequate cooling try to unpark them. (google for a DIY)

I had a relatively similar issue for the GPU and I fixed it using Display Driver Uninstaller to remove everything, and then reinstalling the latest driver. It's now always around 100%.

GPU-Z can show those numbers and more (clock, VRAM use, fan, temp, ...)

The CPU will never be maxed because it's impossible for the game engine to use all cores, too much sequential work has to be done. I don't remember the exact number but it should use around 1 and half core max (35% at best on a quad core).

Did you check your bios-settings? maybe something like underclocking to prevent heat-buildup or something like this is turned on... Just guessing

Currently everything overclocked just slightly to get that sweet performance boost without overheating, everything is also set to max out at 70C and i've never seen CPU or GPU go to over 65

I had a relatively similar issue for the GPU and I fixed it using Display Driver Uninstaller to remove everything, and then reinstalling the latest driver. It's now always around 100%...

100% clock, or 100% load? Would you mind testing, and sharing a screenshot of the GPU-Z sensor tab?

I barely ever see decent GPU load as well - COH2 is the only game in this regard (atm.)

@Plaguer if you remember my tests from that thread about -USEALLAVAILABLECORES then you'll know that you may not find a difference even if you use more CPU. Hard to tell though.

@Plaguer if you remember my tests from that thread about -USEALLAVAILABLECORES then you'll know that you may not find a difference even if you use more CPU. Hard to tell though.

Using that actually dropped cores 4 and 6 completely

Using that actually dropped cores 4 and 6 completely

Yeah... slightly dodgy.

GPU

100% clock, or 100% load? Would you mind testing, and sharing a screenshot of the GPU-Z sensor tab?

I barely ever see decent GPU load as well - COH2 is the only game in this regard (atm.)

Well nevermind. I just tested again, it's more around 60% with a peak occasionally. The clock stays at 100% though. The issue I had before the driver clean install would be that the clock was stuck in low frequency.

Settings: 1080p everything max (including nvidia AA)



It thinks it's fullscreen but it's actually borderless because I run with:

-window -fullwindow -nomovies -forceactive -lockMouse

GPU-Z with those settings (watching Langres live-game):



The screen is taken after the game (back to low frequency and load), but you can see the (only) average 60% load at the graph.


This conclusion was strange, so I did another one in fullscreen:



Here the sceen is taken during the game, you can see max clock (I have a GTX 970 slightly factory O/C), but what's more interesting is that it actually started and stayed at 100% as I expected (and probably what I saw in previous tests), but it only lasted a minute before going down to around 70% again. Also FPS is indeed better in fullscreen but this is well known and expected.

CPU

The only reason the CPU load appears even across all cores is because Windows thread scheduling makes it look like so.

You will never see each of them at 100% though. The sum of all of them is what you would get if it used 1 and half (or at best 2 cores) if they were used exclusively.

You can force it by defining a processor affinity to the game in the task manager, you will see only those selected used at 100% like you would expect, and the others empty or used for other apps, but this is probably not useful.

No matter what you do from my experience you get averaging a 25% load on a quad core.

The reason being that this game (or any game in general) has a lot of sequential work to do. It's much better for gaming to get a better single core than any number of multiple cores. This is also why for gaming it's usually advised to get an i5 (compared to i7) in regard to the FPS/price ratio.

There's always more work the game developer could do to multi-thread more stuff (I strongly believe Relic hasn't done enough in COH, partially because the game engine is too old), but it has a limit for any game with a clear timeline, because you have a time-frame for each event (1/8 of a second for CoH if I remember correctly) and (obviously) cannot calculate events in the future with the spare CPU cores, and (obviously) doing it in the past would be useless (as opposed to compiling, video encoding, or other work that can be split in blocs independent of each other).

So I did another GPU test at 3840x2160 "4k" using nvidia DSR. First of all I must that looked pretty damn good. Second that killed my fps. 23 was the max (min 18) but it was overall very stable around 20. Which is actually pretty good when you consider it's 4x 1080p to render.

And I can confirm without a doubt that my GPU load was 100% constant in this test.


Now that's some heavy work.

My conclusion from this is and the fact that my load was not at 100% in the 1080p test, is that my GTX 970 is not the limiting factor in 1080p (in regard to highest possible FPS, and compared to the rest of my current build, because everything is relative). This also explains why in 1080p I would get the same fps if I set the game settings to everything max or everything low... (or even play in 1280*1024 which somehow gives me even less fps than 1080p)

I can then assume the limiting factor for me is the performance of my CPU (now rather old i7 3770k even with a 130% OC), and more precisely its limit on a single core (because the game is not well enough multi-thread optimized).


Here are some screenshots at 3840x2160 (7MB each), and yes, you can/should zoom in on them unless you have 4k monitor. (not the greatest shots though)

Show Spoiler

Show Spoiler

Show Spoiler

PS: (nothing new) for anyone planning to play on 4k, the minimum is 980 Ti, and you probably need SLI of them for good fps...



TL;DR if your GPU load is not reaching 100%, your CPU (at its best on a single core) is limiting it (assuming clean drivers/config)

One last note for today, actually 4k DSR with low AA doesn't even max my GPU either, and back to being CPU limited.

But this pretty much confirms what I read before that COH2 medium AA is equivalent of 2x DSR and high AA is 4x DSR. Not sure which looks best though, if there is even a difference.

But there's no point of running all together on 1080p monitor like my previous test did (except for maxing out GPU load for a test of course). That was like running 16k I suppose...

But probably someone with a 4k monitor who does want AA will need to hit a similar performance threshold as my previous test.