Jump to content

chiliwili69

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    1592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

513 Excellent

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Spain

Recent Profile Visitors

1818 profile views
  1. Thank you very much for bringing the first 9900KS results!! The 5.4 GHz freq is impressive as well. Now looking to details, your PC is very similar to the one of Walterscott. The only differences are: -Mobo: Hero vs Apex -RAM freq: 4000 vs 4400 -NB freq: 4300 vs 4900 And the is 20fps difference. So it is not explained by those differences. Just three questions: - Is the AVX offset=0? - Is the 5.4 GHz maintained during the run of the benchmark track? (to be sure there is no throttling) - Did you switch off mods?
  2. Same for me. The built quality of Index is quite superior to any Pimax. I think that what Fenris described was an issue of his particular unit. And by simply putting more pressure in the T6 torx screw the problem should be solved. And also the speakers can be removed if you want.
  3. What I say is that the GPU frametimes are directly shifted by the CPU frametimes. I took the second chart I made: 1.- The first two peaks (I think it is the moment of the loop or the hangar, so clean sky) are separated just 3ms. This 3ms is the time that the GPU needs to do its job (render scene). So GPU frametimes. 2.- The big peaks are where the track is most of the time. Again the GPU adds about 3ms to the frametimes of the CPU 3.- Once the CPU exceed the 12.5 limit, then the delay added is 0 ms, since the GPU has a full cycle (12.5) to do his job.
  4. Having all three same input resolution I really don´t understand why the F1 car was showing better shadows over the red skin of the car. Perhaps the Pimax8K+ run with other settings or version of the game. Having the 8KX I don´t see the point of the 8K+. Being Pimax a small company perhaps they should focus in just 2-3 devices (Artisan, 5K+, 8KX), same design for all, improve software and reduce their typical delays. I really want them to succeed but this 2020 I will pass with Pimax.
  5. Thank you for asking this, since this is something I also want feedback about what other people think about how IL-2 VR and fpsVR reports frametimes for CPU and GPU. As I understand it for every cycle (80 cycles per second in my Index): The CPU is the one who first calculate for this instant of time the FlyingModel, DamageModel, the AI, etc, and based on all this produce a geometry (just where all 3D objects are situated on the space). After that, and only after, the GPU takes that geometry and render the scene (think on render like taking a picture of the scene, i.e.: put a color to every pixel based on lights, geometry, textures, etc). So, based on this, the frametimes of the CPU should be always below the frametimes of the GPU. This is what I always have seen in fpsVR frametimes. It means that the frametimes shown by the GPU take into account the time taken by the CPU plus the time taken by the GPU. This is my interpretation. If it is wrong it means that there could be cases where the CPU frametimes are above GPU frametimes in IL-2 VR with fpsVR. (If onyone have seen this, please just let me know). In the first chart, the CPU is showing the main peak around 11ms, and the GPU (which is needing about 4ms) ends up above 12.5ms most of the time. But in the second chart, since the CPU has dropped the main peak around 8.5ms, now the GPU is able to complete the frames below 12.5ms. So it was not a GPU problem it was a CPU problem.
  6. WOW! 5.4GHz, nice freq. Thanks for pushing this to the top and re-run the test!!
  7. Let´s make the calcs (just approximation, some important factors not really taken into account): Artisan: One Eye FOV:113, Hpix:1700, PixelPerDegree: 15 Pimax5K+: One Eye FOV: 123.5, HPix: 2560, PPD: 20.7 Index: One Eye FOV:103.6, HPix:1440, PPD:13.9 Rift-S: One Eye FOV:90, HPix: 1290, PPD: 14.3 So as per the screenshoots taken you will see that Pimax5K+ is comparable to Index, but according to the cacls it should be lower. Why, because the pixels are not equally distributed along the degrees. The more FOV the density in the edges. And about the MRTV guy (Sebastien). I normally tend to believe him but take into account that he is a good friend of Martin. An this counts. I wold prefer to see detailed quality screenshoots of Pimax5K+, Artisan and Pimax8KX. But in any case, I think the Artisan is a very valid device (if you put the DAS or equivalent) for that price. It is good that Pimax has created a low budget option to enter in competition other VR makers. If I were in you case I will pick it, just to test by yourself all the good things of Pimax FOV (and also some bad). If you don´t like it there will always a good second hand price. So, you will know how good is to have a nice FOV, not only horizontally but also vertically.
  8. Wow! I have not seen those clouds in QMB. Although I am Single Player guy, I will then need to enter in this combat box server just to enjoy those clouds (and be killed immediately!... 😉 )
  9. Thanks. The benchmark is described with instructions in the below link. Everyone can run it if they want to know if their PC is delivering the expected performance. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/56485-benchmark-for-cpuram-performance-remagen-40024003/
  10. I think you say in another post that you did your test with the new RAM using a mod, so this data is affected. I will then not include it in the table. let me know when you run without the mod. you should be at 150fps.
  11. Hey, those clouds at the beginning of the video are quite nice!! How did you do it? Did you use any mod? Run on Ultra settings with Extreme clouds?
  12. Thanks Don for re-running in version 4.003. Good for you that the new version didn´t steal you the 3 fps others have seen.
  13. I don´t think the Artisan would be a good choice for flight sim over others VR headsets (including other Pimax models) since the angular resolution will be less than any other. Even with the Pimax5K+ resolution I was still preferring the Index as I described here and show pictures. Again, just my opinion. I think all latest devices (Pimax5K+, Reverb, Index and even Rift-S) are all great devices, all of them with their pros and cons. I will not try to defend my choice as the best choice, it is just the choice which covered better my needs. The Pimax8KX is really the one to go but even at half of the price (I was backer) I didn´t ordered. Why? The lenses of the Pimax5K+ didn´t convince me and well, my life is so easy with the Index. For Pimax you really has be an enthusiast able to invest some time and money. Nevertheless I really love the Pimax guys for always pushing the limits of the VR technology and their charismatic marketing director (Martin). Ideally there should be specialized VR shops where for an small fee one could really test all VR devices in the market. That would be great. Fenris, Just curious, how do you know that? I was taking real pictures with the Index vs Pimax5K+ and they were similar. So the Artisan will be worse. BTW, the FOV of the Artisan, according to specs, is just wide, no ultrawide.
  14. Thank again for making the regression!, it is interesting what we obtain. I agree that particularities of one PC could weight more the regression to that PC, but in the other hand that PC will also show the clear gains of that PC. There are several things here that we can do to improve this: - Separate versions in groups (In this case the 4.003 gets about 3 fps less) - Separate the Ryzens in other group since they have a different IPC than Intel and very different NB freq. (unless we take NB freq) - I think it is better to take STMark rather than CPU freq, since the STMark accounts for both CPU freq and IPC - We have seen that NB freq has an impact as well, so it should show some correlation. - The GPU Passmark should not affect. I think that the best CPU freq has also good GPUs, so there should be some collinearity in GPUMark and CPU freq or STMark For the time being I am going to group by version. With your correlation all of us will know the fps we will achieve before buying the PC, so we can do a wiser purchase.
  15. I am not familiar with Asus BIOS, but in general it is better to do manual OC rather than Auto. In Auto mode the BIOS decide the freq at which it should be run and usually put higher voltages than needed, producing more heat, so higher temps/power, so lower CPU frequencies. Maybe someone here with Asus BIOS or Mr google can tell you how to setup your BIOS for manual overclocking (all cores to same freq, AVX=0). I am not an expert in OC, I have just asked advice to people in this forum and they gave me good insight: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29881-overclocking-a-4790k-for-better-bos-performance/
×
×
  • Create New...