Ark: Survival Evolved: Low fps becaue of UE4 or due to no optimizations?

[anonymous_user_f28231101 (anonymous_user_f2823110)]

@;307067

If my proposed method to test multi-threading/cpu usage in games is not right, then what would you need it for in games at all. In games all you need multi-threading for is more objects in the scene, better lighting, more physcis-enable objects etc., so more going on screen.
The foliage tool test case is a good example. You want grass as far away from the player as possible and not cull it to early to avoid naked polygons being visible. It is the classic example for performance/fps critical elements in a level and you do not want to have cpu idling if fps drops because of it. There are many more examples.

Essentially, what I want to bring across is, that when you ship a game done in UE4, and you specifiy the maximum requirements, then you can write:
maximum cpu: dual core

Any money spend on more cores is wasted.

I think most games actually don’t need more than one or two cores. In many cases one would probably be enough but since the OS requires some resources as well a second one might be a good idea.
Most of what games give you is eye candy on top of more or less simple game mechanics, and making eye candy is in almost all cases the job of the GPU. The actual game logic is often very primitive. For example the game logic of Star Craft 2 is not much different from Star Craft 1. So if Star Craft 1 ran on machines from the 90s (is that right? I am not sure) then a modern CPU can do that stuff easily.

The only cases I can think of where the CPU might be critical are very simulation heavy games with large amounts of physics or maybe some sort of complex economic simulation. Maybe a very complex AI system can also make good use of some additional CPU power.