A hotfix was released a couple days ago. Did that fix your game?
no, now fps is 2 
on late game gpu usage like %2 cpu %98
I had another look at this, and feel the need to add that it’s actually really close to maxing out the 1650 during the ranked benchmark. So while the 1660 Super didn’t increase the score, it would increase the score if the CPU was more powerful. As the i7 6700T in that PC isn’t really powerful enough for serious multiplayer use, I wouldn’t advise anyone to choose a 1650 for seriously playing this game with a decent CPU, as it will be GPU limited. 1660 upwards is a much better option.
Not really, my gpu usage is less than 30% the gpu clock stays at 500mhz because the game is not really demanding,however it needs a buffer size of 3 gb of vram so anything with less vram will be the only gpu limitant, the 1650 is fine.
The i7 6700t is more than enough to run this game, the game only needs one core and guess what, the i7 of that laptop has a boost clock of 4.0 or something close for one core which is more than enough to max out the game, problem is when you have more apps running so the load goes to the non boosted core, then the performance will drop, since the frequency of mobile chips are really low.
Anyway laptops are always limited by thermals so i wouldn’t recommend playing this game on laptops since it reaches 95% full load of one core and that will rise temperatures in few minutes of game session.
Okay, here’s a screenshot during the benchmark on the PC with i7 6700T and 1650. It’s not a laptop, it’s a full tower ATX case, nothing is overheating. I have the 6700T in it because I use it for work and want it silent.
VRAM is not maxed out, but the GPU is at 98% at 29fps (it gives more fps when there is less going on, it does more like 150fps at the start of a single player game), and is running at 1920MHz. The CPU’s cores are all used by the game, all the usage you see there stops when the game is exited. There’s nothing non-essential running in the background.
Well looking at ur capture you have the game fully zoomed out, that doubles the canvas resolution, so that is why the high load on the GPU and the low fps, at that resolution no one gets good fps with several units and animations happening despite the cpu or gpu.
The game only uses one core/thread, you can verify that seeing the task manager process’s, that reading from the afterburner has never shown the actual specific cpu usage of any game, it shows the cpu load in general, so it can be anything, windows has always apps/services running in the background.
In my end 8% usage means one core, the game uses another core for the sound and input devices, but the simulation is running in one.
It’s not fully zoomed out, it’s at 80% with 1440p, which I find comfortable for playing. I get 50fps with exactly the same settings on my PC with a Ryzen 5 3600 and 3080. The 3080 is completely unstressed, running at well below maximum clock speed and with a low % usage. With the Ryzen 5 3600 the game does appear to use one core, but I promise you that the usage of all the cores on the other PC is the game, all that usage of all the cores stops when the game is exited. I showed you this back in September:
With a better CPU, I expect it would perform much better than 50fps, as the R5 3600 is quite a way off the best modern CPUs now for single thread performance.
if you have high GPU utilization, it is going to be the cause of high CPU usage unless you are specifically using GPU only to do calculation work. this game isn’t that, with higher resolution and zoomed out like soumexican said, it will result in higher cpu usage as well.
this game is old, runs off same engine, it uses 1 cpu core even if it shows a bunch of core/threads being used. also 3600 overclocked gets you pretty good performance already, better than any intel 7-10th gen CPU at the same clock.
they have to fix one more … still performance is not good some of my friends can not playing this game…
The IPC of the 3600 is only surpassed by 4.8 ghz from intel 10 gen and by new ryzen 5000, so i’d say the single thread performance of that cpu is more than enough to show how the game can’t handle 4k 60 fps 4x4 games.
Your canvas is already 1440p so zoomed to 80% is like 3800x2160 some sort of that internal render resolution, if you want more fps reduce the resolution or wait for the ryzen 6000 or intel 14 gen to have an IPC above 50% faster than current gen.
We seem to have moved away from the important point here. The claim was that the 1650 is fine. I’ve shown it maxed out at around 30fps in the ranked benchmark. When the GPU isn’t a limiter (3080), a Ryzen 5 3600 is giving 50fps, and a 5x00 would most likely give over 60fps. If someone bought a decent recent CPU, I think they’d be pretty disappointed if they bought a 1650 to use with it and only got half the fps they could be getting.
If someone fails the benchmark test, does the game offer a list of possible solutions they could try out to increase their score? For example, I tried Zoom level at 0% instead of 100%, and my score was 1301.3 instead of the 1295 range. If someone gets a failing score, will it say, “You score is too low. You might try doing u, v, w, x, y, or z to improve your score.”
1650 vs 3080 sure bro, what else, i have friend playing this game 1080p with an atlon vega 3…not everyone uses full zoom out to 4k resolution on a budget gpu, just saying you lost the main point there.
I also have the problem that the game is hardly playable after 45-60 minutes. This has always been the case with multiplayer, but now the game has 1-2 FPS and a delay that makes it almost impossible to play.
We play on the largest map size, 4 against 4 computer opponents. We all play via the cloud service Shadow, with a 3.4 GHz quad-core CPU etc.
But since a few days you can’t play the game at all anymore. Is it because of the update or what could be the reason?
OS: Windows 10 pro 64-bit, build 19042.
CPU: i5-1035G1 @ 1.0GHz upto 3.6Ghz 4C/8T
GPU: no dedicated gpu just the integrated uhd g1
MEM: 8GB DDR4 3200 MHz with 16g page file on my ssd
STOR: 128GB nvme ssd samsung mzalq128hbhq-000l2
Benchmark results
test 1: High graphics preset: 1079
test2 medium graphics preset: 1106.4 points
test3: low graphics preset: 1106.4 points
all test have 25-30 fps
I am considering a gt 1030 or a gtx 1650 low profile 4GB with my sff tower that has an i5-4590. Would that greatly improve my experience?
It’s not 1650 vs 3080 - as I said, the 3080 is not stressed at all, something half the performance of a 3080 would also not be GPU limited.
It was in response to you saying “Well looking at ur capture you have the game fully zoomed out, that doubles the canvas resolution, so that is why the high load on the GPU and the low fps, at that resolution no one gets good fps with several units and animations happening despite the cpu or gpu.”. So I showed that isn’t true by showing a setup that can handle it. You don’t need that setup to handle it, around half the 3080’s performance would be fine.
I also tried running the benchmark at 1080p with the 6700T and 1650, and it made little difference. FPS was down in the low 30s, and GPU utilisation was in the 80s%, peaking at just below 90%. You can play with a setup like that, yes, but that GPU would not be a good match for a decent CPU.
What are you using to measure fps? I don’t see anything like that change in fps on any of my setups. Even a setup that scores around 1260 is only doing around 50fps in the ranked benchmark.
If you install MSI Afterburner and get it to show GPU% (if you can’t work out how to do this, search on youtube and you’ll find a video) you’ll know whether you’re being held back by your GPU (in which case it would show close to 100%).
My mistake, I was checking the fps by double pressing f11 on a single player game which was not during the benchmark testing (i’ll edit my post). You’re right, I used steam’s in-game fps tool and the frames are much lower between 25-30 fps in all graphics settings.
I installed MSI Afterburner and checked the GPU usage during the benchmark test. The GPU is being used 80-85% on low and medium graphics preset, and 97-99% during High and ultra graphics preset but rarely reaching 100%. Nonetheless, My CPU is 100% in all of the tests.
Okay, so you’re CPU limited, and upgrading your GPU alone would make no difference. But your GPU is close to maxed out such that if you upgraded just the CPU, you wouldn’t see that much of an improvement because the GPU would become the limiter. To get a big improvement you’d need both faster CPU and GPU. In general, the game benefits from a good CPU, but it doesn’t need a huge number of cores, it’s more dependent on single core speed. And even the best CPU doesn’t need the best GPU, though it’s hard to predict exactly what GPU would be fast enough to not be the limiter for any given CPU. I know, for example, that a Ryzen 5 3600 won’t max out a 1660 Super for this game. But would a 5600X max the 1660 Super out? I’d say it’s possible it would, but you probably wouldn’t need something a huge amount faster than the 1660 Super to be fast enough to make a 5600X the bottleneck. It’s hard to predict, as I haven’t seen anyone post any data yet for this game with the new CPUs.
The quality settings don’t make much difference, by the way, the main things that affect performance are resolution and the level of zoom. The more zoomed in you play, the less it demands from the PC.
Makes sense, I guess adding a dGPU to my i5 4590 wont really make a difference because the i5 4590 would be a bottleneck worst than my i5 1035G1.
For now, I managed to get 1159.4 with 35 FPS on 1080p, 50% zoomed out, and medium settings by following this article: