What does fixed/good performance look like?

[ChildeR]

Could someone who doesn't have performance issues with 1.8 measure how long a year takes in 1.7 and 1.8 when using speed 5? Preferably both an early game year and a late game one, with ironman and autosaves disabled so they don't affect things. If you don't have good late game saves, just an early year would be great too.

I'm interested in knowing what sort of performance I should be expecting once any hardware specific bugs get worked out.

If you don't feel like measuring, fine, but please don't pull numbers out of your ass.

 

[itsuart]

I'm curious too, so

If you don't have good late game saves,

please use latest start date.

 

[brainstronaut]

1.8 works faster than 1.7 here, and this is without hotfix yet (I'm sure with hotfix that'll get even faster). Can't be bothered to measure year time, but month goes by within 6 seconds.

 

[ChildeR]

Can't be bothered to measure year time, but month goes by within 6 seconds.

Thanks, but that's not very useful information without knowing how long it took in 1.7.

 

[ChildeR]

I'm curious too, so

please use latest start date.

Yes, that could be useful as well. However, late game saves that are played through from 1444 are slower for me than starting from the latest date. Probably due to all the history and extra colonization.

 

[brainstronaut]

Thanks, but that's not very useful information without knowing how long it took in 1.7.

In 1.7 it took nearly 10 seconds. Here (on my laptop) performance gain is obvious. Note that I'm playing on lowest settings possible, but with rivers and borders. I got Intel HD 4000, Intel i7 and 4 GB of RAM.

 

[Knut Skallagrim]

5 +1.2 (save) seconds each month on ironman
i'd say 6+1.2 seconds late date. I swear it. In fact i can't understand people who say that even in early dates they're getting lag... i dunno i felt that the game was slower in the mid of the game, but it became quicker during the last century (i'm at 1750 on a game i played myself). Maybe that's thanks to holy roman empire which formed in my game and raped 20 tags in a click, but really, i'm enjoying it.

Anyways months for sure are quicker than 1.7, and that's just because of how they coded it. Most of the cpu work is done the 1st of the month now

Also my cpu is a tiny 2.0 - 2.8 ghz quad core i7 6 gb of ram and i've an nvidia gt 540m (2gb). playing with all the settings on (multisampling max etc.), no compressed autosaves

 

[ChildeR]

In 1.7 it took nearly 10 seconds. Here (on my laptop) performance gain is obvious. Note that I'm playing on lowest settings possible, but with rivers and borders. I got Intel HD 4000, Intel i7 and 4 GB of RAM.

Thanks. Encouraging if everyone can get that sort of a performance boost.

5 +1.2 (save) seconds each month on ironman
i'd say 6+1.2 seconds late date. I swear it.

Again, mind sharing your numbers in 1.7? (The more exact, the better. Preferably no "IIRC" numbers.)

In fact i can't understand people who say that even in early dates they're getting lag...

There's clearly something that behaves differently depending on the hardware (or other factors), because here's my performance as posted in the beta thread:

Performance is still significantly worse than with 1.7.3 here. Early game months take half again as long on speed 5 (7-8 seconds compared to 4-5) and late game (latter half of 18th century) months at least 3x as long (19s compared to 5-6s). Times measured over half a year with ironman disabled. (Caveat: v1.8.1 late game save was started with v1.8.)

Since then I've measured early 16th century performance with a 1.8.1-started game to be ~15s/month (93s measured over 6 months).

 

[aitaituo]

A month takes about a minute on my machine now, but I don't actually meet the minimum requirements. It is a labor of love to play EUIV. Netflix helps.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

5 +1.2 (save) seconds each month on ironman
i'd say 6+1.2 seconds late date. I swear it. In fact i can't understand people who say that even in early dates they're getting lag... i dunno i felt that the game was slower in the mid of the game, but it became quicker during the last century (i'm at 1750 on a game i played myself). Maybe that's thanks to holy roman empire which formed in my game and raped 20 tags in a click, but really, i'm enjoying it.

Anyways months for sure are quicker than 1.7, and that's just because of how they coded it. Most of the cpu work is done the 1st of the month now

Also my cpu is a tiny 2.0 - 2.8 ghz quad core i7 6 gb of ram and i've an nvidia gt 540m (2gb). playing with all the settings on (multisampling max etc.), no compressed autosaves

There's almost certainly a tech support introduction in 1.8. 1.7.3 I can do earlygame months in ~4 seconds and later on in the 4-5 range. In 1.8 by 1500 I'm already well over 10 seconds and getting worse. The difference is as flagrantly obvious to me as an improvement is to others. Something is still up even in the latest beta hotfix.

 

[Mztr44]

I haven't seen any noticeable difference in time for a month to go by from 1.7 to 1.8. Takes about 3 seconds per month on speed 5 in both no matter if it's early or late game years. I've got a pretty powerful PC though and running the game on my ssd.