That's because fifa 15 is a 10 years old game with a new yearly paintjob.
I've been playing Lords of the Fallen at 1080p, and no performance issues either.
Does the Denuve DRM really hits the performance? I've never noticed it...
Sorry for my bad english.
This has already been disproven in a thread that was locked not even a day ago. Stop bringing this up, at this point it is obvious all you are trying to do is cause unnecessary panic.
Nothing's been disproven or even proven, all i know is that many people, myself included have a deep hate and (justified) distrust for the people who brought us securom.
This has already been disproven in a thread that was locked not even a day ago. Stop bringing this up, at this point it is obvious all you are trying to do is cause unnecessary panic.
Disproven cause devs say theres nothing to worry about? Ya devs and EA would never lie about their product.
http://translate.goo...36/&prev=search
Theres benchmarks for this game already, it is extremely CPU intensive (like LOTF, and fifa 75% cpu usage during load time). Given that its the same freaking engine as battlefield 4 it should not be like that. On an i7 4790k with gtx 780ti it runs like 45 fps max, maybe 60 fps at best with nvidia drivers for DAi that will come out at 1080p.
This was not the kind of performance I was expecting from an engine like this, BF games have much more going on and I get around 100-120 fps with max settings at 1080p on my gtx 780 an core i7 4770k. I am expecting around 40 fps and prob drops to 30 on a freaking gtx 780, thats disgusting honestly. This is not even max settings because frostbyte also allows higher msaa (4x is nothing) and supersampling.
Disproven cause devs say theres nothing to worry about? Ya devs and EA would never lie about their product.
http://translate.goo...36/&prev=search
Theres benchmarks for this game already, it is extremely CPU intensive (like LOTF, and fifa 75% cpu usage during load time). Given that its the same freaking engine as battlefield 4 it should not be like that. On an i7 4790k with gtx 780ti it runs like 45 fps max, maybe 60 fps at best with nvidia drivers for DAi that will come out at 1080p.
This was not the kind of performance I was expecting from an engine like this, BF games have much more going on and I get around 100-120 fps with max settings at 1080p on my gtx 780 an core i7 4770k. I am expecting around 40 fps and prob drops to 30 on a freaking gtx 780, thats disgusting honestly. This is not even max settings because frostbyte also allows higher msaa (4x is nothing) and supersampling.
Nothing about what you currently describe can be immediately attributed to Denuvo though. Battlefield 4 isn't managing the intricate systems that make an RPG an RPG when its being played. Battlefield as a game system is pretty straight forward. RPG's have a lot more going on in the background.
Everyone is always suspicious of various DRM mechanisms. Oh I won't run Steam it lags my computer, oh I won't run Origin its spying my datas, oh Securom was designed by the Chinese as a way to sap American morale.
If you're basing your opinions on what you read on the internet, you are not basing them in facts, you are in fact making suppositions built on other suppositions.
I suggest you pick this flag back up on the 18th, when you can conclusively prove, with graph metrics, that what you believe to be the case is actually true. Cause otherwise..its just meaningless yelling.
Disproven cause devs say theres nothing to worry about? Ya devs and EA would never lie about their product.
http://translate.goo...36/&prev=search
Theres benchmarks for this game already, it is extremely CPU intensive (like LOTF, and fifa 75% cpu usage during load time). Given that its the same freaking engine as battlefield 4 it should not be like that. On an i7 4790k with gtx 780ti it runs like 45 fps max, maybe 60 fps at best with nvidia drivers for DAi that will come out at 1080p.
This was not the kind of performance I was expecting from an engine like this, BF games have much more going on and I get around 100-120 fps with max settings at 1080p on my gtx 780 an core i7 4770k. I am expecting around 40 fps and prob drops to 30 on a freaking gtx 780, thats disgusting honestly. This is not even max settings because frostbyte also allows higher msaa (4x is nothing) and supersampling.
http://forum.bioware...ive/?p=17774393
It'll use up half of your CPU cores, so if you have anything less than an 8-core CPU you're screwed. You need to go buy a new PC for the game. Obviously they've designed it to be unplayable.
You have no idea what u'r talking about man. Unless u'r being sarcastic =)
I play lof on high with pretty mediocre specs without any problems, 60fps.
You have no idea what u'r talking about man. Unless u'r being sarcastic =)
I play lof on high with pretty mediocre specs without any problems, 60fps.
PC gamers today play on outdated toasters and complain that it is the games fault they are not pushing 60 frames.
PC gamers today play on outdated toasters and complain that it is the games fault they are not pushing 60 frames.
Where are you getting this weird ideas, guys =)
Heres someone who tested the SSD writes from LOTF which uses this drm:
"Resource monitors for RAM and CPU consumption numbers, memory viewer for trying to figure out what makes it tick and track address issues, SSD analysis tools for those delicious dead blocks and data tracking
Wanna know average number of times parts of LotF exe code are fucked around between RAM and HDD in the span of one hour? 150000 copy/write iterations. That's about 10000 times more than usual. DRM constantly decrypts the game code into the memory and encrypts it back. This is the most bullshit usage of encryption software I've ever stumbled upon. And even though code chunks are quite small(couple of kilobytes per go at worst), they are all stored in one memory block. And playing the game for 4-8 hours(depends on SSD quality) means that you can say goodbye to that block."
Seems doubtfull. If this Denuvo thingamajig really uses this extraneous amounts of updates, unless low level APIs are used to force flushing, write caching would throttle the physical writes. Also buffer flushing can be disabled completelly. I also noticed that no names of exact tools used or screenshots are provided for anybody to verify these claims.
Why can't I find any more information about this via Google?
FIFA has been out for 2 months and LOTF almost 3 weeks. If Denuvo is causing SSD failures, I expected to find tonnes of search results from irate gamers. I can't even find who wrote your quote.
If you could link to that quote that would be nice because I did also intend to use my SSD for this game.
I hope you realize that in the span that LotF and FIFA has been out it would be impossible to play enough to damage your SSD. However if what has been said is true it would severely shorten the lifespan if you would repeatedly play games using denuvo
I hope you realize that in the span that LotF and FIFA has been out it would be impossible to play enough to damage your SSD. However if what has been said is true it would severely shorten the lifespan if you would repeatedly play games using denuvo
The unsourced quote states that "Denuvo will destroy a block in 4-8 hours", which is a standard binge-gaming session. Why have you now changed the claim to "Denuvo shortens your SSD lifespan"? Why the inconsistency?
As you said, if it is true, why can I not look at the charts, graphs and methodology myself and form my own judgement?
I treat every claim with skepticism until the evidence is provided in front of me. I want that evidence. Some random unsourced quote is not evidence.
The unsourced quote states that "Denuvo will destroy a block in 4-8 hours", which is a standard binge-gaming session. Why have you now changed the claim to "Denuvo shortens your SSD lifespan"? Why the inconsistency?
What inconsistency? A destroyed block does not mean a broken ssd, it means the ssd will have less and less blocks to actually use and at some point it will start to fail. There's no such thing (at least not to that extent) with a standard HDD, but those small writes will certainly slow it down.
I've come to a conclusion that I cannot risk to buy this game because it uses Denuvo drm from company which brought us lovely SecuROM – yeat that piece of... I was talkin about this with my friend and he came to same conclusion. The reports from different users on many forums are worrisome and scary! I will not risk my hardware or operating system – I won't. More information is needed (not just Denuvo but Origin which is much worse than STEAM) before I'm willing to buy this game. Granted I'm quite new with Origin so it might gotten better from some earlier reports.
It is too bad and so sad that currently only one major company has stated repeatedly that there is no sense to punish paying customers with drm's, that company is CD Project Red to which I happily give my money to. Heck I gladly will buy my first Premium Edition (or similiar more expensive) version just to thank them.
So sad that Bioware isn't company whose product I can buy feeling good and safe with my purchase, and I was so waiting for this game.
I am living proof that DRM pushes customers away and so are some of my friends - will companies like EA listen? Well I won't keep my hopes up.
Heres someone who tested the SSD writes from LOTF which uses this drm:
"Resource monitors for RAM and CPU consumption numbers, memory viewer for trying to figure out what makes it tick and track address issues, SSD analysis tools for those delicious dead blocks and data tracking
Wanna know average number of times parts of LotF exe code are fucked around between RAM and HDD in the span of one hour? 150000 copy/write iterations. That's about 10000 times more than usual. DRM constantly decrypts the game code into the memory and encrypts it back. This is the most bullshit usage of encryption software I've ever stumbled upon. And even though code chunks are quite small(couple of kilobytes per go at worst), they are all stored in one memory block. And playing the game for 4-8 hours(depends on SSD quality) means that you can say goodbye to that block."
Look at the bold statement. It claims that in 4-8 hours (a binge-gaming session), the block will fail because Denuvo is somehow preventing wear-levelling. If the block is failed, it will be flagged as unusable, would it not? Similar to how a bad sector is flagged on an HDD.
The 4-8 hour statement is inconsistent with the following two claims:
It will not cause failures, hard drives have billions of blocks depending on size. It will however significantly reduce lifespan
I hope you realize that in the span that LotF and FIFA has been out it would be impossible to play enough to damage your SSD. However if what has been said is true it would severely shorten the lifespan if you would repeatedly play games using denuvo
This new type of claim only came up when I pointed out there was not a single search result suggesting that FIFA/LOTF has caused an SSD block failure. So now instead of Denuvo destroying a block in 4-8 hours, people changed their claim to how Denuvo destroys a block over long-term. It's like Chinese whispers and nobody knows who actually started it.
I want evidence to support the initial claim that Denuvo is destroying blocks within the stated 4-8 hours and is preventing wear-levelling. These games have been out long enough to establish a cause-effect relationship for this particular claim.
I have not even ordered DAI yet and if this claim is true then I refuse buy such nonsense. But as it stands I am still buying it once user reviews are in.
I see we just post every lie made up on The Codex as a thread now.
What inconsistency? A destroyed block does not mean a broken ssd, it means the ssd will have less and less blocks to actually use and at some point it will start to fail. There's no such thing (at least not to that extent) with a standard HDD, but those small writes will certainly slow it down.
Every destroyed(unwriteble one) block is immediately increases value of "Reallocated sector count" in the SMART of the drive. Everyone who monitors SMART from time to time will notice this, but I still didn't got got proofs of those claims, not even one screenshot
More information is needed (not just Denuvo but Origin which is much worse than STEAM) before I'm willing to buy this game. Granted I'm quite new with Origin so it might gotten better from some earlier reports.
Lords of the Fallen was cracked so another piece of nothing useful drm Denovo had become it took more then 3 days but now they know how to do it. I guess people never cared about Fifa 2015 enough to crack it.
Wow so they are slowing our games down for 3 days without cracked games???
Well, sign me up!
I can't tell the difference between Origin and Steam these days, except that Steam is a bit more sensible about multiboot setups.
Well that sounds promising indeed, and after readin some more about it I'm willing put Origin off my avoid list. Still too many conflicted reports and comments about denuvo so I'll wait on that one. Even the wors't drm had its supporters and defenders (at first specially), too often the very companies that used those in their products.
The game's read\write operations per 40 minutes resulted in 30 GB of data processed. The number of operations done is insane.
SSD's wear level hasn't changed though, however, the load is EXTREMELY high, so after, say, 100 hours of gameplay memory blocks will definitely start to wear down.
This is a bit worrying.
This is worrying! I don't want my hard drive damaged, even if I'm using a normal drive and not an ssd drive. Why do you have to use the Denovo DRM, Bioware? 
Waiting out for more information first. 
The game's read\write operations per 40 minutes resulted in 30 GB of data processed. The number of operations done is insane.
SSD's wear level hasn't changed though, however, the load is EXTREMELY high, so after, say, 100 hours of gameplay memory blocks will definitely start to wear down.
This is a bit worrying.
Again, some more information and screenshots would be nice. 30 GB reads or writes?
Left- before launching the game
Right- after 40 minutes
Resource monitors for RAM and CPU consumption numbers, memory viewer for trying to figure out what makes it tick and track address issues, SSD analysis tools for those delicious dead blocks and data tracking
Wanna know average number of times parts of LotF exe code are tossed around between RAM and HDD in the span of one hour? 150000 copy/write iterations. That's about 10000 times more than usual. DRM constantly decrypts the game code into the memory and encrypts it back. This is the most bullcrap usage of encryption software I've ever stumbled upon. And even though code chunks are quite small(couple of kilobytes per go at worst), they are all stored in one memory block. And playing the game for 4-8 hours(depends on SSD quality) means that you can say goodbye to that block.
IT IS CONFIRMED!!!!
From a Russian forum:
The game's read\write operations per 40 minutes resulted in 30 GB of data processed. The number of operations done is insane.
SSD's wear level hasn't changed though, however, the load is EXTREMELY high, so after, say, 100 hours of gameplay memory blocks will definitely start to wear down[/quote]
Left- before launching the game
Right- after 40 minutes
gj,bioware
PS I dare you no to hide this post.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut