Mafia Optimization: Definitive Edition (Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven)
It's coming soon, in a few hours there will be a real masterpiece!!!! Let's share the game's optimization here. How it goes, what settings graphics, whether there are some problems with the game, what performance.The optimization is excellent, the framework is pretty smooth. Yes, the system is not weak, but take the same Horizon zero Dawn for comparison. It's much worse there with smoothness, and the graphics... Overall, an average of 90 fps at a maximum of 2560 x1080. Played 15 minutes, at least so far saw like 74, at the time of the drawdown. The system on R5 3600-RTX2080.
Thomas Sevchenko
On this species there are drawdowns of up to 50fts in some areas outside the city with grass at 1440p (in 1080p there are no drawdowns), so don't scratch that in 1440p on this map at ultra stable stable 60fps
The most stingy moment in the game, when the tram at high speed bypass
The game is very "likes" frequency of the quote and RAM
Maybe someone's going to help. There were micro-jerks and the fps did not rise more than 70 (the map is not weak). Turn off and turn on the twirl. Synchronization didn't help. The label's property included "Disable the optimization all screen" and voila, no drawdowns and phps increased significantly
Hello everyone!
Faced the following situation:
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 super has been working in conjunction with Ryzen 5 2600X for more than six months. The first curiosity happened yesterday. Installed Mafia DE via EpicGameStore (the game is not displayed in GeForce Experience, possibly due to the fact that it is launched via a 2K launcher). I set up the graphics manually - the game itself suggested setting the maximum settings. The game on ultras did not lag, there was nothing, the FPS was stable, but after an absolutely run-of-the-mill period of time, the game simply freezes (and the process also hangs in the task manager). Moreover, this happened yesterday after 5 minutes of the game, after 15, today for an hour of the game it never froze.
Please tell me - what am I doing wrong? How can you get rid of such a problem?
In 4k, the game with rather simple graphics requires a very powerful video card, preferably a card from the older series of nvidia, on amd video the game is on the verge
I don’t understand why the frame time graph is not affected by SSD?🤷â€â™‚ï¸
HDD
SSD
Found out what the problem is.
If you connect the dual shock from ps4, then the game starts to freeze. Turn off - immediately everything is clear and smooth.
Denis Kyokushin
Recently launched for the test, the HDD periodically caught small freezes, i.e. like the game is going fine, and suddenly for a split second a freeze, and so stably once every 2-3 minutes. After transferring to SSD, I did not observe such a problem.
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
I don't understand why the frame time graph is not affected by the SSD?
Because, in principle, it cannot influence it, only the processor, memory subsystem, and video card affect the frame time graph and FPS. An SSD can only give faster downloads, but it doesn’t matter if you wait 15s or wait 40s at all. There is no other sense from the ssd, it makes sense to put the operating system on the ssd for faster loading, but it’s generally useless for games.
Palych Rokov
Do not invent, but check all the games yourself, and most importantly - do not contradict your own logic: the download speed is EQUAL to the data transfer speed during the game itself (the game is loaded as you move). If you speak, then at least think about what you say.
Spoiler
Palych Rokov wrote:
but it doesn't matter what to wait 15s, what to wait 40s is generally unprincipled
Yes - yes, fitting data in 1.5 milliseconds to a video card or in 40 milliseconds. There is no difference at all. Just think, the figure is more than the average time for which 60 frames are rendered - 16.6 milliseconds.
You just don't want to see the difference. That is the problem. I did understand what the joke is. And yes, not all games so actively hammer the disk. And by the way, video cards are different, FPS is the same. If 60 frames is 16.6, then 100 frames is already 10 milliseconds, and 150 is 5 milliseconds, for which you need to have time to adjust the data + settings of the game world and details, NPCs, tasks, data.
Of course, on some 588 this is not so noticeable at 60 frames and FullHD, but on 3070 at 150 frames in FullHD it is striking.
By the way, the mafia has long had a GOG file without Denuvo and with the latest patches.
Evil in the flash
Evil in the flash wrote: Recently
launched for the test, the HDD intermittently caught small
freezes
Same
crap . When you restart your games, they are loaded not from the HDD, but from the memory cache. The amount of cache directly depends on the amount of RAM: the more RAM, the more cache. From it, loading games is much faster than from the HDD. cleans from old data, it is cheated by another application, replacing it with its own data. And in your test, the frame time graph is also uneven + microfreezes
Denis Kyokushin
At the first start, the cache is completely useless. I will say more, it is cleared and fixed. More of it can be done and is done only in the server segment, and for this there is also a setting in the services, a line that allows you to increase it. And in fact, what does the RAM have to do with it? If this is a swap file, then it is also on the disk, with the difference that now this is ready-made data of a certain area, and they do not need to be searched for by request through the processor. And by the way proof, I want to read where it says that the cache depends on the size of the RAM. So far, I have not noticed a difference between 16 and 32 gigs in RAM consumption, as well as in the size of the cache.
The disk also has a cache, but this is a set of information about the location of files on the disk.
By the way, there is a cunning SysMain service that monitors user actions and loads frequently used applications into the RAM in advance. Disable this buggy bullshit.
Personally, I clean out the data so that it doesn’t take up space either in RAM or in RAM, because it’s easier to pick it up from the disk again, the speed allows, and the likelihood that I will return to the same place is sometimes extremely doubtful, because being on the move and changing a place on a large map, completing missions, you rarely return to the previous one, and the place is not infinite, probably this data has already been replaced. On this topic, I would like to know more in practice and in numbers, how much they are stored, at what point they are cleared. And reboot doesn't matter.
Data is cached even when transferring files.
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
And in your test, the frame time graph is also uneven + microfreezes.
There are enough such games in which he simply ignores. There are a lot of them here, I would pick why:
And for another type on SSD c 6900XT everything goes smoothly, perfectly. No, it can't be, some kind of bullshit.
01001000 01101001
I always turn off SysMain, it is also worth clearing cached memory every five minutes.
01001000 01101001
01001000 01101001 wrote:
On the first run, the cache is completely useless.
I know. I recently launched The Witcher 3 v 1.02 specially from the HDD. Even in the White Garden, at the very first launch, there were serifs and freezes in places, exactly the same as in
Beauclair
. read where it says that the cache depends on the size of the RAM.
I have 16GB of RAM and a cache of 12GB. You have 32GB of RAM and a cache of 22GB. You can request the amount of cache from Palych from his 64GB of RAM 01001000
01101001 wrote:
ready-made data of a certain area, and they do not need to be searched for by request through the processor
Well, that means I was wrong. It means that it can be monitored, which makes it even easier to track where exactly the data is being loaded from. It will be necessary to do this in HWInfo
.
01001000 01101001 wrote: Personally , I
clean the data so that it does not take up space either in the RAM or in the RAM
RAM - this is the RAM. The data itself is cleaned, replacing each other. I would like to know more in practice and in numbers, how much they are stored, at what point they are cleared They are stored exactly as long as you play the same game. What numbers do you need if you don’t change the cache? Its volume remains the same, the data changes. check it yourself.
Denis Kyokushin
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
RAM is RAM.
Such a typo. I wanted to write to disk (neither in RAM, nor on disk).
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
And if the paging file is disabled, where is the data cached from?
You can't play with 16 without a swap file. I think I understand, it's a pity that I misunderstood this topic. "Reserved" is the cache, and if there is not enough physical, then the data goes to disk. Those. yes, you were right here, he is in the RAM. It is he who is, but the maximum size allowed. 22 is correct. But you need to look at 16GB, I thought the same.
Spoiler 
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
They are stored exactly as long as you play the same game.
no. Unnecessary data is cleared in the process. The new ones replace the old ones. Especially considering the space is limited. There is a task on this subject, and yes, I noticed that it is fixed at 22GB somewhere. Or 25, and that's it. When it gets clogged, it starts to clean it, not to zero, but removing the old ones.
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
What numbers do you need if you don't change the cache?
There is a setting called LargeSystemCache that affects how often the system writes modified pages to disk. Increasing the size of the file system cache generally improves server performance, but reduces the amount of physical memory available to applications and services. Parameter for the server machine.
One of the tricks for the game system, especially with one "looped" map, where the data can just be cached, in particular, this is good for strategies.
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
I have 16GB RAM and 12GB cache.
So, there is a maximum figure of 12 gigs right there? 16 gig machines are rare. Now I can look myself, while 5600 is available and waiting for 3070. I'll look somehow, I looked through this moment. For some reason I thought that the cache was strictly on the disk, what a stupidity it was.
