Getting 20fps with max settings...on my gtx 970. Everything is up to date, is the game this badly optimized? I can even run dying light maxed and its known for bad optimization.

Grimrock is pretty CPU bound and ressource hungry.

Take a look here for tweaks: https://www.gog.com/forum/legend_of_grimrock_series/log_2_poor_performance_any_tweaks

I figured it out already, it was neither cpu or gpu. And it is most definitely NOT cpu bound...that statement is 100% false. There was an error in my last graphics driver update, a clean reinstall of my geforce drivers did the trick. Solid 60fps no hiccups. Cpu bound...cpu bound games are the huge open world games, and tons of physics.

This was extensively analysed, it is indeed the CPU (if the GPU is properly working).

If the GPU is properly working, and you are having issues, then of course its the CPU. But Grimrock is still not a CPU bound game. The requirements for the game itself are stupid low compared to what I am running. Recommended, not minimum, recommended is quad core amd 3.2ghz or quad intel 2.66ghz. Gpu recommended is Radeon hd 2900/Geforce 8800. Immediately after stating that it is a CPU bound game, I have dismissed everything else you have said. Only a beat up toaster wouldnt be able to run it well at this point. Even the things I upgraded from recently far exceed the recommended. Also, that link is for Legend Of Grimrock 2, which is more open world than the first one. Meaning it will take alot more cpu. More view=more cpu.

Another thing to point out, is that "test" was max 2 cores. Which the original recommended was 4 core even with intel processors. So trying to play the second with 1-2, and showing the amount of usage on those cores, when its like the minimum requirement...is a joke.

Yeah, a useless recommendation of 4 cores, when only clock matters and the engine is single threaded.

(maxed out at 1.5 cores, not 4, with help of GPU driver parallelization only).

What you say doesnt matter at this point, because thats the wrong game in the link man. Thats 2, not 1. 2 has more open areas which require much more cpu usage. Im running amd cores, which are pretty weak. But regardless of that theory you have based on one random thread of someone "testing" legend of grimrock 2, I decided to do my own test with #1. Even just using windows wont unpark all those cores.

seems you are not a programmer/cs seeing your struggles in understanding the situation. That a process is distributed around between the various cores by the os means nothing. Sum up the core utilization. i see summed up a cpu utilization about 1.9 cores, not 4 , in your graph.

(Also try to deactivate other processes if possible) pinning cores to processes helps too.

Compare this then against GPU utilization, which will be most likely not 100%, meaning CPU limited.

About log1 vs log2 they are the same engine basically (2 updated), confirmed by petri the programmer.

Your point is moot, because its not the right game i was having the problem with for 1. Because the game itself isnt demanding enough to give me issues for 2. And no matter how much the game can use, any hardware close to the year it came out is far more powerful than the game needs for 3.

I know all about how to determine where the bottleneck is. But this game is so undemanding on modern systems its pointless to do. If you cant play it well, either upgrade your potato, or there is a driver issue or something somewhere...which was the case for me. But suggesting its my cpu, without knowing my system specs or anything, knowing I have a gtx 970 as per my OP, you basically should know its not because of my cpu. Please just drop it and move on.

For someone using a computer with a gtx 970 and enough cpu power to play dying light maxed out. Worst advice I have ever gotten on GOG forums, possibly worst advice computer wise ever I have gotten. Its in the running for top spot for sure.

Im really not trying to be disrespectful to you or anything here. Its just the recommendations you gave are not relevant at all. Its like you did not read the OP even, which is pretty much a must to give settings advice or help someone get a game working smoothly. I do appreciate that you were trying to help, but try reading the post before trying to give advice.

sorry dude you still don't understand the issue at hand. You seems stuck with your assumption that grimrock is undemanding, but it is not. Additionally in being pretty badly optimized, limited by dx9 single thread function call overhead and has misleading recommendations.

It doesnt matter if its undemanding, because its not as demanding or unoptimized as say dying light. Dying light is known for its bad optimization and demanding use of cpu. Also The Crew would max out every core on my old fx 6300. So no, Legend of Grimrock is not as demanding as these games, not in any way shape or form. Its not that I dont understand, its that its impossible for it to be as demanding as these games that require 30gb of hard drive space. And are notorious for their hogging of the cpu.

Again, it does not matter if legend of grimrock is undemanding, it is not demanding enough to have problems on my system. I ran it maxed out fully on my old cpu/gpu. So your point is moot, and you still refuse to let it go.

Again I will say it. 60fps no problems on my old fx 6300, and amd hd 6950. So upgraded cpu/gpu with better core clock, cores, and a way better gpu will not have issues unless its a driver or software issue somewhere. I cant make myself any clearer to make you understand what im saying here.

Good, we should stop here as you keep side stepping the topic. You original had a performance problem, I pointed out that Grimrock is surprisingly demanding while badly optimized. You fixed your problem, a bad driver install, case closed.

Suprisingly demanding? Compare it to dying light, the crew, the division, or any big game and it is in fact not. That was my point i was making, that along with the fact that it could never have been the issue of my hardware not being able to push 60fps on it. Not sure why you pushed that issue so much, because even an intel i-2510E from 2011 is far more than the game could require, or say even an amd phenom 2.

I dont know why you kept saying its "demanding". If you have a storebought HP or Dell then yeah, you probably cant play anything on those. If you have an 8 year+ old pc then yeah, probably cant play it well. But my OP i said I max out dying light, so everything you said was a pointless discussion of pointing out articles and facts that held no weight because they werent relevant.

It may be suprisingly demanding, if you are playing on a toaster pc.

Although I do appreciate the help you were trying to give. Saying the game is demanding when I can play Ark survival evolved and other insane games, was pretty insulting to me. As a PC gamer I take a certain amount of pride in the gaming rig I built, as many of us do. So im sorry if I came off like a jerk, but making suggestions about someones issue that is insulting their pc performance, while also not being relevant based on their hardware power set me off.