Powerful PC ~ Low Frame Rate

Hello and thank-you in advance for taking the time to read through my post. I recently built a very powerful home computer and everything performs impressively with one solitary exception... You guessed it: Second-Life!

My old computer build was nothing special. (Specifications listed below this paragraph). On average, it was able to display about 20-30 frames-per-second (fps). If the sim design was very complex or heavily populated, this number would drop to 10-15 fps. Considering that the hardware is all five years or older, I felt that these were all acceptable numbers. Again, the specifications are as follows:

CPU: AMD Athlon64 @ 2.2ghz (single core)
Memory: 2gb Corsair DDR2 667mhz
Graphics: nVidia GeForce 6800 GS
OS: Windows XP Professional (32-bit)

I felt it was time to upgrade, and built my new machine last week. (Specifications listed below this paragraph). All of the hardware is currently 'top-of-the-line' or very close to it. Essentially, I wanted a system that would last for the next few years, so I built something very powerful by today's standards. Here are the specifications:

CPU: Intel Core i7 920 [d0] (4 cores)
Memory: 6gb Corsair XMS3 - DDR3 1600
Graphics: Radeon HD 5850 (currently the world's 2nd fastest single GPU chip)
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)

So, with a machine like this, I have seen improvements far beyond my expectations...except in Second Life! My frame rate average seems to hover around a measley 35...and it will dip in heavily populated areas & complex builds. The resolution does not seem to make a significant difference. I have also adjusted many of the graphical settings (Such as enable/disable VBO). Nothing really helps. At best, I managed to obtain a 10-15 fps-gain by setting the quality to low and resolution on 640x480, which is ridulous and not even worth it. (Comparing to 1920x1080 on high or ultra)

This doesn't make any sense! The processor is incredibly fast, there is plenty of high-speed memory (RAM) available, and the video card is currently the world's 2nd fastest single GPU chip.

For example... My old computer would average 20-40 fps on low settings at 1280x1024 in the game "Left 4 Dead." On this machine, it bottlenecks at 300 (three-hundred!) frames per second on maximum quality at 1920x1080... (However, it does dip during action, 260ish normal, 140 under stressed conditions) So clearly, something is not right.

Also, to avoid jumping to conclusions, I've observed and confirmed the following:
- All the components have enough power (850w PSU).
- The CPU is not overheating ~ 36 celcius inside of SL.
- The graphics card is not overheating ~ MAX @ 52 celcius inside of SL.
- The graphics card has the latest Catalyst drivers.

So... I am willing to admit that I am lost. I do not know what I can do, if anything. Perhaps its limited to Second-Life? I understand that the game is playable at 30 fps, but it does not feel good considering what my machine is capable of. I've heard a great many people claim that SL only performs well on nVidia cards, maybe there is some truth to this statement?

Whatever the case, I would *greatly* appreciate any advice on this. Even more so, if people with who share Radeon cards in the 5000 (or even 4000) series could post their experiences. Do you have a good frame rate? (Control+shift+1 in game, watch next to FPS)

Thank you too for reading through this post, I really do appreciate any advice!

ATI's OpenGL drivers do not play nice with Second Life.

Try Boy Lane's Rainbow viewer with the OpenGL/SSE2 patch:

http://my.opera.com/boylane/blog/rainbow-viewer

It works significantly better with ATI graphics adapters than any other viewer.

Boy Lane's Rainbow viewer with the OpenGL/SSE2:
The framerate did not seem to improve too much, maybe 5 frames at best?

However, when I moved the camera (alt-zoom) completely out of the sim, I did notice the framerate would immediately jump to numbers over 200. This is something that would only happen about one in ten times while emulating the same behavior on the standard client. (Odd.. I know) Otherwise, it seemed to perform similar to my original results while actually moving about the sims.

I also gave SnowGlobe a try, no success with this viewer either. Unfortunate

Thank you for the suggestion though Milla! This was something I hadn't seen before. I wonder if other clients *(such as Emerald?) have similar patches? I don't have too much experience using any other viewers.

I'll be back tomorrow, hopefully able to figure something out. I need a break from this, my head is starting to hurt!

Thanks again for the suggestion, Milla!

What do you have your draw distance set to?

Sorry if I kidnap this thread, but I'm about to buy a new computer, and reading through the topics in this forum makes me confused, problems with a powerful CPU, problems with win 7, GPU's, etc.. I have no idea what to buy, I just want a computer that performs very well in second life. I've read through tons of wiki pages, one of them about the CPU 2 quad not being compatible with SL at this time ??? when were these pages updated?! At this time, what kind of hardware IS compatible with second life, and what are the future plans. Why is it so difficult to find updated system requirement without having to spend hours searching through wiki page knowledge base. And where are the LL moderators, the last post in sticky notes with a link to the wiki pages from T. Linden was posted July 2006, 3 years ago!!!!!

So does anybody have any tips of of what kind of computer I should buy

You made a mistake of buying an ATI card for SL without reading the forums first.

If you can, return the "Words 2nd most powerful GPU" and get an Nvidia.

SuezanneC - I left it at the default setting on "high" settings. However, I did drag it all the way down and all the way up to the maximum. The framerate would only change about ~10 fps in either direction, so nothing significant.

Voff - The computer I built seems to handle everything very well except the graphics. If you want to build a computer just for playing Second-Life, just be sure to stick to nVidia. Although, I am not even positive if the new nVidia chipset has problems or not...

Briana - SL is nothing more than a pastime. I definately did NOT buy this card specifically for Second-Life. Its performance in every other application has been nothing but amazing! The Radeon HD 5850 has definately earned its keep from the cloest nVidia competitor, the GTX 285.

The Radeon is $100 USD cheaper ($260 vs $360)
The Radeon draws nearly 100 less watts of power consumption
The Radeon runs much cooler and *FAR* quieter
And it outperforms the 285 in 95% of all categories! (And in the few appliations where it doesn't, the difference is within 5%. The *ONLY* exception I've seen is in Second-Life. Now, at least I understand, in-part, why no hardware reviewer ever provides benchmark comparisons of new technology on Second-Life) So, in short, there's *no* way I am going to sacrifice all of the positives just to get a boost in one area.

With the release of the 5000 series, Radeon is beginning to dominate the market. They are far cheaper to produce than their nVidia counter-parts. So much that nVidia has begun to slow development of its current-generation chips because it is hemorrhaging money. So, that means ATI may become the majority's card-of-choice for potential new (and upgrading) users...This would be bad news if Second-Life is not optimized for their hardware? (At least until Nvidia releases information about their GT300 Fermi series, but that is still quite far off. And no, I am not an ATI fanboy, I've used both company's cards n the past).

9 sentences, 2 paragraphs on how ATI is better...

No, you aren't a fan boi. Obviously you made the right choice for you.

I buy my hardware specifically for Second Life so i don't have to post messages about my frame rate and hardware not performing up to spec.

Good luck with that.

You can't blame me for being enthusiastic about my rig. I put a ton of time and research into this build, so everything is still fresh in my head. The thorough explanations serve to illustrate that the ground I've covered and provide perspective in hopes to avoid "lazy" answers: (ie: reading return the card for xxxxx was not the type of help I was seeking)

The comparison served as a reference for the 'new' point I was trying to make about the future of SL and mainstream compatibility at the end of my post. It was not a response directly to you.

I'm just checking, but Rainbow viewer and the SSE patch are two installations, you did get them both?

There's also an option under the Advanced menu in SL under the Rendering section called "Run multiple threads". It should be checked. If you don't have the Advanced menu (next to help in SL) enable it by pressing CTRL-ALT-D.

I did install both items, but I did not do a lot of testing on different sims. When time allows, I will reinstall them and visit a bunch of locations and report back my findings.

I know I had multiple threads checked on the default client. But, I did not think to check if the settings carried over to the Rainbow viewer, so I will also look into this. Thanks again for the input, Milla!

I'm not really sure what you are expecting with your new rig. Taking the sever side induced lag away (something you have no control over), you will always see more lag and lower frame rates in SL than in a game such as WoW (or most other online MMO's). The reasons are probably much more than textures, builds, scripts and animations created by amatuers instead of professionals.......but that is the major contributer to lower frame rates and client side lag in SL. If you are looking for comparable FPS in SL to other games that have strictly professionally made textures,scripts, and animations you will never see it in SL.......it's the nature of the platform. It's what LL developed.....it's much different from other games online.

Probably one of the most useful methods of increasing your FPS is to lower your draw distance.........the client pulls in everything within that distance no matter if you are "looking" at it or not. That's an awful lot of data for any computer to process.............of course your graphics card does not get involved until you actually "look" at whatever it is that is "viisible". If that whatever it is you are looking at is 4 times as large, 32 bit when it should be 24 bit, is set to rotate by an unoptimized script, with glow enabled your GPU is working 2, 3 or even 4 as "hard" as it would in the same scene professionally built by WoW. Your FPS will not be as fast either.

And when you are benchmarking cards for games, find games that use OpenGL over DirectX if you want to compare performance in SL. ATI is probably the card of choice for big time gamers......because ATI has made the decision to optimize for DirectX. DirectX is a Microsoft product. Microsoft operating systems are on about 80% of the computers in the world and the games are developed with that in mind.........you can't blame ATI for their business decisions in that direction. But it makes comparisons against nVidia difficult since they have not focused so heavily on DirectX........a little more balanced, if you will. That is why everyone in SL perfers nVidia over ATI (or they seem to)........because nVidia out performs ATI in the game (they simply work better on average, with higher FPS, fewer issues). You can play around with your settings to get a few more FPS but you probably will never see 200 FPS unless you are parked 10,000 meters high with your draw distance set to 64, and overall setting set to minium and wait 30 minutes for everything to get cached.........on either ATI or nVidia.

Regardless of what ever uber box you build... A user created, prim built environment like SL will never have the FPS of an optimized video game. (^_^)

Frame rates from 15 to 30 FPS should be considered the "norm" here and there's no fighting it. This isn't a video game anyway. Film is projected at 25 FPS, U.S. Television 30 FPS, and Japanese Anime is typically 15 FPS. (^_^)

That said: I run on a GTX295 Co-op. No lag on me! (^_^)y

Peggy - Very informative post, you made a lot of good points. Although, I always thought that things like scripts were handled by the processor, the video card merely rendered the results graphically?

I do understand that it is currently next-to-impossible to have comparable FPS in SL to a game in which the textures are 'pre-loaded.' This was not my goal or expectation. However, I feel that it doesn't make sense to see such a tiny difference between the Geforce 6800 GS and the Radeon HD 5850. These cards are lightyears apart in performance, but produce very similar results in SL. I guess I was (still am!) very shocked to see that.

Also, I did adjust the draw distance from the minimum to the maximum setting (which, I believe is 512?) and there is very little difference. The framerate drops from ~35 down to ~25. Of course, looking outside the sim or at the sky (regardless of draw distance), everything immediately jumps up to 120 (200 with the Rainbow Viewer)



Imnotgoing - This is true. I hope none of my posts come across sounding as if I am complaining. I just wanted to understand, and even fix (if possible) what I feel is broken. Also, with your GTX295, what kind of framerates do you see? (Control+Shift+1 will open a meter). In a crowded area vs an empty spot?


Thanks Peggy & Imnotgoing (Sideways) for both replies and the constructive input!

I'm no technical guru, but it seems to me that 30 FPS seems to be fine....why would 100 FPS be something you would need in sl anyways? Not like we're playing pac man when we log into SL.

My machine at work runs around 10 FPS, and its aggravating, but at home, I'm running a 9800GT with decent hardware and getting 30 + FPS consistently. Is there lag? Sure, but it isn't in the graphics...mostly when i'm in a sim running a bunch of scripts, and I can't walk more than 3 steps before grinding to a halt...but you can't blame that on graphics...to me it seems to be a network/client issue. I've been in sims where they are running a lot of stuff, and low lag, but I also have been in sims that seem simple, yet are laggy as all get out.

Seems to me that SL needs to get moving and improve the client/network side.

Just my 2 cents worth....

JD, if you're really averaging 35 FPS in SL, you're doing very well. As others have stated, SL is not like video games. Because the content is user-created, the vast majority of it is NOT optimized for performance that way professionally made came content is. People routinely create textures that are WAY too large, construct geometry that is extremely polygon-heavy for what it is, and flood the area with unnecessary lights, particles, etc.

Try this. Go to a completely empty island, if you can find one. If not, go to one that is very sparsely developed, the less that's on it, the better. Take a look at your frame rate. Chances are it will be in the high double, if not low triple, digits. Now you know the speed at which your system is capable of handling SL, before unoptimized content is added to the scene. My guess is you'll be looking at high double digits, if not low triples.

The single biggest reason SL runs as slowly as it does is texture abuse. People do ridiculously silly things like slap a 1024x1024 image on a little one-meter sign, put a hundred such signs in their store, and then wonder why nobody can move. The second biggest thing is poor geometry decisions. Some of this is beyond our control, since everything has to be built from prims, which isn't always the most practical thing to do. But a lot of it does boil down to builders' choices. Most people build with prim count, rather than poly count, in mind. A performance-minded builder will keep an eye on both, but most don't think that way.

Bottom line, SL will NEVER run as fast as a professionally made game, so don't expect it to. If your average frame rate really is 35 in built up areas, you're doing better than at least 95% of the population.

I run Ultra, avatar impostors turned off, 4xAA, AF, RenderVolumeLOD 8, and RenderTreeLod 4. (^_^)

Skybox FPS (standing on a single box @ 2000M) 45+FPS. (^_^)

Crowded NCI Kuula 10FPS to 20FPS. (^_^)y

Ahhh okay, I definately don't feel anywhere near as frustrated anymore! Somehow I arrived at the conclusion that current-gen nVidia users were easily pulling framerates at 100 or higher. That information is what really prompted this whole topic.


Buster (& others) - The client/network issues are definately something that will hopefully be resolved (or improved) down the road. Though, I feel that a lot of people have confused this type of behavior (lag). Yes, it is choppy, but it is a completely seperate type from that of which is rendered (frames per second) on your client. I accept the lag, I know that I can't change that.


Chosen - I did not even consider things like that with the texture-abuse. Very good point! (As well as your entire post)


Imnotgoing - Thank you for the results! Again, I was expecting you to come back with numbers in the triple-digits due to how I thought nVidia users were playing. Do you think I should turn on 16xAA if it doesn't make any impact on my FPS?


Again, thanks for the replies Buster, Chosen, and Imnotgoign (Sideways)! You have all been really informative!

On my screen (1600x1200 LCD) I have noticed no visible distinction in a maximized window when going beyond 4xAA. But, your mileage may vary. (^_^)y

Some people exaggerate about the framerates their computers get.

Performance on my PC (3.2Ghz Core 2 Duo, GTX260) varies wildly. I was getting <10fps at the big events in Burning Life, but they were as crowded as SL ever gets. I get 70fps or better somewhere quieter like Welsh Lakes. Generally it's fast enough that I don't notice lag attributable to graphics.

However, I do notice a huge difference in performance between my old PC (3Ghz P4, Nvidia 7600GS, which seems comprable to what you had) and my current one. SL also looks a whole lot better with the GTX260 because I can turn the graphics settings up muh further.

I leave AA set to 4x. I think it's the best looking setting. Lower doesn't get rid of jaggies, higher makes things look soft.

I did a little quickie comparison with my 3 year old Lenovo desktop.....Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 gig, nVidia 9800GTX+, cable connection testing out consistantly at 19 mbps, draw distance set at 256, AA at 4x, and everything else maxed on the slider except trees, sky, and terrain (those are at the highest "mid" setting).

LL's official viewer (the latest 1.23.xx). First FPS is on my platform at 4000 meters. Second is directly on the land below that platform). I did a slow spin of my avatar to get everything cached (my normal behavior due to my clearing of my cache often) and waited about 30 seconds before looking at the FPS:

58 to 60 FPS

on the ground:

25 to 30 FPS

I also did the same on the Emerald optimized viewer with the same settings plus the feature for breast bounce enabled. Platform:

45 to 51

Ground:

20 to 25

So you see us nVidia users don't get those fantastic numbers many think we do........just about average that most people get who have a decent computer with a decent GPU. Nothing special. Sure I could mess around and get more (possibly up to the high double or low triple digits like Chosen said but what I get is quite good enough for my enjoyment). I didn't turn off the breast bounce in Emerald to see if that was causing the lower numbers..............frame rates that give satisfactory video is all I'm interested in. Why do you need 100 plus frames drawn when your eye cannot see the difference anyway? Bragging rights is about all I can say about that.

Plus I'm inclined to believe what Milla said........exaggeration. In some cases, gross exaggration.

Thanks again Imnotgoing (Sideways) as well as Milla. I'll leave it at 4x AA.

I've been toying with windowed mode and kind of liked 1600x900 on a (1920x1080) monitor. (So I dont have to 'twist' my neck lol) Do you think this would affect performance at all? The refresh rate is unlocked for applications that run in windows. Full screen keeps them at 60hz or whatever your lcd is set to.

Milla and Peggy, thank you for the numbers, everything seems much more reasonable now that its in proper perspective! I feel so much better knowing that I didn't get 'screwed' for lack of a better term. =)

Since we're all posting numbers, I guess I'll share mine. First, my system specs:

2.66 GHz Core2 Extreme (quadcore)
8GB DDR2 RAM @800MHz
Dual nVidia GeForce 8800 GTX with 768MB DDR3 VRAM, driving 4 monitors (two 1920x1200, and two 1280x1024)
680i SLI motherboard
Dual 10,000 RPM hard drives on a RAID stripe for system drive
Single 10,000 RPM drive for cache, scratchdisk, and other temps
Dual 10,000 RPM drives on RAID mirror for data drive
1100W power supply

All hard drives kept defragged automatically by Diskeeper at all times. (Makes a huge difference.)


My SL settings:

All graphics options enabled and maxed, including 512 draw distance and 16x AA

SL window size is currently 1874x1064, but that varies a little from time to time. I move things around and resize them a lot, as I'm usually running Photoshop, Maya, multiple browsers, etc., at the same time as SL. Even with 4 screens, it can be a juggling act.


Typical FPS:

60 to as much as 120 or so on an empty island
20's to 30's on built up island, maybe as much as 50 or so if it's an optimized build
10 to 30 or so on the mainland, depending on how badly abused the area is


Like yours, JD, my system was built with two things in mind: speed and longevity. Mine is a few years older than yours, obviously.

By the sound of it, you're getting considerably better FPS in SL than I am right now. If you do up the AA to 16x, I'd be curious to know what difference it makes.

Running a sized window is good. The scaling affects the rendering LOD so that the card has to do less work. That said, I never run fullscreen mode anyway because I almost always have at least 5 apps running behind SL that I'd want to Alt+Tab to at a moment's notice. (^_^)y

Reading this tread makes me want to pop the next question at you guys.

I am about to get a new pc, with the main purpose of using it for machinima. I def. decided i will go fot 2 x 295 nvidia cards, i7 940 (overclocked a little), 6 gig ram, -ddr3, and before I go into more details, what would you advice me ?

Framerates seem to dominate this discussion, and they are essential, agreed - and not always possible to avoid low framerates. I filmed at burning life in HD, got a framerate of 14 - not too good but acceptable in this case, and all this on a 2 year old computer (windows xp serv.pack3), 1 x nvidia 8800gt. I want and need more...i need the best graphics i can get, in SL. I aim to make a childrens series and, eventualy a movie. (working over an empty sim, high in the air, building sets).

What would you advice, for a monster machinima pc?