FPS performance worse vs Origin
I've reported this via the app so I'll keep it brief. Versus Origin, CPU usage with EA Desktop is higher than Origin and therefore the FPS in games is lower. And this is with a 9900K. Also when I r...
Forum Discussion
@loopy750 its a known issue, video playback in the client takes up more CPU/GPU https://answers.ea.com/t5/General-Discussion/Known-Issues-EA-Desktop-Beta/td-p/9496448
But that shouldn't be a problem once you launch the game and the client is in the bg, it should use more or less 0% then with the game getting priority from the system if you run full-screen.
Did you have any data on the difference for Origin and EA Desktop?
But that shouldn't be a problem once you launch the game and the client is in the bg, it should use more or less 0% then with the game getting priority from the system if you run full-screen.
Did you have any data on the difference for Origin and EA Desktop?
Hey zapy85. I tested on two games, Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 4. Interestingly, there's no FPS difference in BF1, but in BF4 it's easily reproducible. The easiest method is simply spawning into the test range and taking note of the FPS. I used MSI Afterburner to record the average, but of course the game engine's FPS counter will do if you don't use that.
Using Origin the average FPS was 673.
Using EA Desktop the average FPS was 572.
Obviously at such high frames it wouldn't really be noticeable, but the fact a 15% reduction in performance exists shouldn't be happening.
I have the in-game overlay disabled in both programs just in case that was affecting it.
