My UPS/FPS very slow

[alexsimm]

CPU AMD Ryzen 3970/128Gb/Nvidia 3090/SSD
CPU load <8% every time
UPS/FPS slow down <30

Log, save, screenshot are here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Help me , pls.

[Rseding91]

Try disabling sync.

[alexsimm]

It did not help

[Rseding91]

Looking at the screenshot showing time usage, and looking at the per-core performance of your CPU, I believe your computer is simply too slow for how much is going on in your save. Although your CPU has 32 cores, they are quite slow cores - which does not work well for gaming.

For reference, my laptop with an i7-9750H CPU (not ultra fast by any means) is able to run it at about twice the speed as your computer seems to be capable.

[alexsimm]

I bought my computer for rendering and it copes with this task just fine.
There's a problem with games
And there are developers here, what will they say?

[Rseding91]

I bought my computer for rendering and it copes with this task just fine.
There's a problem with games
And there are developers here, what will they say?

I am one of the developers, so - what I already said. The issue is your CPU does not work well for games and you've run into the limit of what it can handle. Your CPU is 5 years old.

For comparison: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/50 ... pper-3970X

The latest AMD Ryzen 9 7950X CPU is so much faster than the threadriper you have, that with half the cores it almost beats it in overall performance while being 60% faster in single core performance.

[alexsimm]

Yes, of course, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X is faster, but the fact is that the game uses of my CPU resources by a maximum of 8 percent.
Why?

[aka13]

You are limited by single-core performance, because as usual, not evertyhing can be multithreaded. A lot of stuff is, but single core performance still matters.

[alexsimm]

This only means one thing - the game is not optimized for multi-core processors. (((

[Koub]

It's optimized for best performance overall, and to take as much advantage as possible from multiple cores, and from fast cores.
However a few faster cores contribute a lot more to performance than many slow cores.

The overwhelming majority of games benefit more from a few high speed cores than from a huge number of slower cores. Last time I checked, games benefit a LOT going from 1 to 2 cores/threads, still get significant gains going from 2 to 4, benefit marginally more going to 6 or 8, and don't gain much more going above (at constant single core/thread performance).

Memory bandwidth and latency is also a limiting factor for Factorio, probably more than the average game.

This subject has been discussed a LOT (this is the big discussion, brace yourself for a wall of text, but there are loads of small threads about this very subject) :
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39893

And here a thread about comparing the performance on various hardwares.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42165

[alexsimm]

I'm saying that the game cannot use all cores 100%.
This is sad.
Is there any benchmark in the factorio or a topic where there is a stage for performance testing?

[Tertius]

Benchmarking bases and Factorio performance is a huge topic everywhere and for ages. I didn't collect links, but googling for "factorio benchmark" will get you a start for performance research in general (connected with PC hardware), and "factorio benchmark map" for map-specific factorio internal benchmarking.

About the latter: there is an internal benchmarking tool, see the --benchmark command line parameter. It's loading a given save, run it for given amount of ticks, repeated for a given amount of times, and print timing results. This way it's possible to compare different buildings that produce the same thing to see which contraption is more ups-friendly.

In general, the most common worst performance drags are:
- inserters
- assembling machines
- enemies + pollution
- mods (varies vastly, depending on what specific thing mods do, it's impact none, up to grinding halt)

Your save runs on my machine (i5-13600k with rtx 4070) with 56-57 UPS.

[Koub]

I'm saying that the game cannot use all cores 100%.

I don't know any game that does (but yet again, I don't know all existing games on earth).

[aka13]

I'm saying that the game cannot use all cores 100%.
This is sad.
Is there any benchmark in the factorio or a topic where there is a stage for performance testing?

Yeah, that is sad indeed, but it uses more cores, than I would expect either way, which is pretty cool.
You can compare with the benchmark command against other users here:

https://factoriobox.1au.us/results/cpus ... ec8da1e1bb

[TheKillerChicken]

Cities Skylines II can use up to 64-cores/threads, but to what I have noticed with my Ryzen 9 7950x is that across all 32 logical cores, the game still performs like a cement truck drag-race compared to, let's say, Team Fortress 2, which is built on the 2007 source engine, or another game I play is Rust, but optimised for single-core performance. Developing a game for SMT support is a myth and has absolutely no, to 2% benefit. So, if Factorio was even running off of a 144core Xeon 6, it will only get 1-2% increase in performance compared to a 1-core, high-frequency processor. A threadripper should be the last processor to use for gaming as they are intended for SMT workloads, and not for gaming at all. My suggestion is get a gaming processor/ram/gpu setup as the Threadripper will crawl due to its' poor single-core performance. I also state the same for Intel's Xeon Platinum or Gold processors. Great for SMT workloads, awful for gaming.