RIFT Client Performance Improvements

Posted by on 30 September 2013
Categories: From the Dev Team, Updates.

RIFT 2.4 contains some of the biggest under-the-hood changes we’ve made to date. Our engineers have been hard at work optimizing our renderer for both high-end and low-end systems. The result is that everyone should see a decent improvement in framerate, and some people will see really jaw-dropping increases: players with Radeon HD 6800 series cards, for example, have seen their average framerate increase by 17% after the 2.4 patch. Read on for the details …

Culling Improvements

One of a game engine’s big tasks is to figure out what exactly needs to be rendered – a more complex task than you might think! The culling system is responsible for identifying which objects and parts of the terrain should be sent to the graphics card to be rendered. If the culling system does a good job, it means less work for the GPU. On the other hand, if it runs too slowly, it becomes a bottleneck itself.

There are a few different ways to do culling, and they all have advantages in different situations. A simple frustum culler excludes objects that are behind you, to the sides, or too far away. Because it’s simple, it runs very quickly. However, a frustum culler won’t exclude anything that is obscured by another object, like a monster standing on the other side of a wall. With a frustum culler, the graphics card draws the monster and then draws the wall on top of it, which means more work for the GPU.

Since the launch of RIFT we’ve been using a second resource – a culling library from Umbra Software. It’s a slick system that uses a pre-pass by the graphics card to determine which objects should be drawn in the final pass. It’s good because it puts a lot of the work onto the graphics card, and also because it will work in any environment, like forests, cities, dungeons, and Dimensions. However, with players running at higher and higher resolutions, performing the culling on the GPU can become a bottleneck. Furthermore, most players now have at least 4 CPU cores, and RIFT wasn’t utilizing multiple cores as well as it could.

With RIFT 2.4 we’ve added support for the Umbra 3 culler. This new system uses multiple CPU cores instead of the GPU to determine which objects should be rendered, which means that the GPU is freed up to do the actual rendering. The main disadvantage is that the Umbra 3 culler only works with static geometry, which means that it won’t work at all in places with lots of dynamic objects like Dimensions. Additionally, the new Umbra culler may not be faster for all users. Players with older CPUs – or who aren’t bottlenecked by their graphic card – might not see any improvement.

In order to figure out which culler is best for RIFT, our engineers implemented an in-game detection system that periodically renders frames using all three cullers (frustum, Umbra, and Umbra 3). We originally wrote this system for our own internal comparisons, so that we could see the performance improvements using the Umbra 3 culler. But after we implemented it, we realized that it would nicely solve the problem of figuring out which culler is best for rendering a particular scene on a player’s specific hardware.

With this system, RIFT automatically adjusts the culler that it uses as you move throughout the world. For example, Umbra 3 works very well in Tempest Bay where there are a lot of walls and buildings, especially on newer hardware. The original Umbra culler works better in certain parts of the open world and with particular GPU / CPU combinations.

Surprisingly, the super-simple frustum culler is sometimes the fastest of all! This goes to show that it can be hard to predict exactly where the bottleneck will be. Some people get the fastest framerate when the game gets out of the way quickly and just throws polygons at the graphics card.

Pixel Granularity

Modern screens are getting large! 1920×1080 is a common resolution, and a lot of people run much higher than that. High-resolution screens are great for your UI, since they make the text sharp and crisp and easy to read. But they add a lot of overhead to the rendering of the game itself (the landscape, your character, other players and monsters, etc.). If you make your screen twice as wide, the game has to render twice as many pixels, and that causes your framerate to drop. And believe it or not, those extra pixels don’t actually do a lot for a 3D-rendered image. While your eye is great at spotting low-resolution text and fine lines, it’s much harder to spot a lower-resolution image.

“Well,” said our rendering engineers one day, “what if we could have the best of both worlds? What if we rendered the UI at full resolution so that it’s nice and crisp, and rendered everything else at a lower resolution to improve framerate?”

So we did just that. There’s a new slider in your video options menu called “Pixel Granularity”. The default is 100, which means that the in-game world is rendered at full resolution. You can drop it all the way down to 50, at which point the screen (except for the UI) is being rendered at half-resolution and then scaled back up.

If you’ve got an amazing rig and scoff at gamers who only have dual graphics cards, then you should probably leave the Pixel Granularity at 100. But if you’re yearning for a faster framerate, give it a shot. Most people on the dev team agree that you can drop it down to 75 or 80 without affecting quality too much, while giving a nice boost to framerate.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look at some screenshots. These are full-resolution BMPs, so they show you exactly what I have on my screen.

Here’s part of Tempest Bay at ultra settings with Pixel Granularity at 100. It looks great, and the framerate is a respectable 41 fps. The latency is 0 ms, but that’s just because this is on an internal server that sits about twenty feet from my desk.

(click on any of the following screenshots to see them at their original resolution)
Pixel Granularity 100

Now here’s the same location rendered moments later with Pixel Granularity set to 75. My question is: would you complain about the reduction in quality? Would you even notice? I wouldn’t. But I’d sure notice a framerate improvement of 15%, from 41 fps to 47 fps.

Pixel Granularity 75

Okay, let’s drag it all the way down to 50, just to show the effect. This is definitely a noticeable drop in quality, even to my engineer’s eyes. But it’s also a 22% improvement in framerate over the full-quality version, all the way up to 50 fps.

Pixel Granularity 50

Obviously how you set this slider will depend on your taste and your hardware. But I recommend you play around with it a bit, if only so you can see for yourself what Simon Ffinch calls the “magic-whizbang framerate slidery thing.”

Low-end Hardware Improvements

We’ve also put a lot of effort into improving our performance on low-end hardware. A lot of this went to under-the-hood fixes to make things work better at low quality settings. But we also added a few adjustments to the graphical detail sliders to let you cut down on the number of polygons that your hardware has to render, which can mean more frames per second.
Here’s an image of Old Meadow Farm in Freemarch using the previous minimum-quality settings:

Default distance

Now here is the same location when I drag the Terrain Distance, Object Distance, and Object Detail sliders down to their lowest values:

Lowest distance

Okay, so any of you with a rig purchased after 2011 are probably turning up your noses at both of these images. But if you have older gear, you may be very interested to see that the framerate improved by a whopping 18%. Yes, you don’t get the beautiful vista in the distance, and the Air Rift doesn’t look nearly as cool without the swirling rocks, but when you get close to those things, they’ll appear the same as before. And of course, you can combine this with the Pixel Granularity slider for even better framerates.


The one thing we didn’t want to do with these improvements was talk about things that we couldn’t deliver, which is why we waited for live data from RIFT 2.4 to start our bragging. To prove that we really improved RIFT’s performance, we captured extensive metrics before and after the patch. These are real live players using real live hardware – not benchmarks from our own internal systems:

  • Players at all quality levels saw an average speedup of 5%.
  • Players running on minimum quality settings saw a speedup of 11% overall, and almost 20% in the open world.
  • Players running on medium quality saw a speedup of 10% in the open world.
  • Players running at high quality saw a speedup of around 11% in Iron Tomb, Hammerknell, Darkening Deeps, and Deepstrike Mines.
  • Players running at high or ultra quality saw a speedup of 5-6% in Tempest Bay.
  • Players at all quality levels saw an average speedup of 8% in Warfronts.

As you can see, these improvements were across-the-board. And, since we left the defaults for sliders at their previous settings, no one’s graphical quality was harmed in the making of RIFT 2.4. As people start to fiddle with their settings, we expect that average framerates will continue to increase.

And as always, there’s more to come – we’re constantly looking at new ways to improve your experience in RIFT.

Chris “Aahz” Swiedler
Engineering Development Director