Measuring rig performance: Common Baseline (for IL-2 v3.010)

[katdog5]

Nice boost for you Mobo and RAM upgrade. congratulations.

Well, in fact it is too good. You have 12 fps above expectation for that ST passmark. This is quite interesting.

 

Please, double check you have run the test at the settings that it is described in the procedure (HIGH settings, two red lights at bottom of image screen, etc).

 

Other people running a 6700K at 4.5 were achieving 72.8 fps avg. Double check that you are effectively OC at 4.3 during test.

 

You can also try to OC to 4.6 (or more depending of your temps) to see how far you can go.

 

Just double checked everything. Looks legit. The only thing I noticed is my DDR looks to be 2600+ (1337x2)

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

  4730,     60000,  46,  91, 78.833

 

[ZachariasX]

 

 

I guess increasing ram speed also has an impact on cpu voltage.

 

No, but it makes it likely that you run uncore out of spec frequencies. This invites "bits gone wrong" / memory errors.

 

Most applications (and most games such as IL2) do not profit very much from high memory frequencies, as the CPU cache manages to absorb most of the requests. Only if lots of memory  beyond the CPU cache is constantly used (such as in Prime95), faster memory gives benefits. Fast memory does howver look good on artifical memeory benchmarks.

 

As a rule of the thumb, first OC your CPU cores. Once you find out what you can do there, only then you should start using XMP profiles or even attemt to go beyon these.

[chiliwili69]

 

 

Just double checked everything. Looks legit. The only thing I noticed is my DDR looks to be 2600+ (1337x2)   Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg   4730,     60000,  46,  91, 78.833

 

 

Yeah!  Then there is something good in your machine apart from CPU/RAM/GPU that affects the performance in the right direction.

 

I have just re-run the VR test (just to be sure no influence of new drivers of Nvida or Steam or wahever) with my CPU at 4.4 GHz and I achieved 71 fps with an ST mark of 2644. So it is aligned with the expectation.

 

The incredible thing of your case is that at 4.3 (with a logical STMark of 2510) you go to 79-80 fps. About 12 fps above expectation.

 

Man, you need to tell to all of us how you do it.  IT could be any new feature of your Mobo? 

 

The only thing I see different is that you use SteamVR Beta (I just run SteamVR)

[katdog5]

A few more tests.

 

@4.4ghz

  4734,     60000,  48,  91, 78.900 

  4757,     60000,  48,  91, 79.283

 

STMark 2580

 

@4.59Ghz  (2720 DDR)

  4927,     60000,  51,  91, 82.117

  5022,     60000,  52,  91, 83.700

 

STMark 2698

[SimpleThe1st]

Ran the test:

 

4790k - 4.4 ghz

CPU Mark: 12381

 

Vr test: Avg: 62.833 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

Screen test: Avg: 144.817 - Min: 117 - Max: 192

 

System specs are in signature.

Edited November 27, 2017 by SimpleThe1st

[chiliwili69]

 

 

@4.59Ghz  (2720 DDR)   4927,     60000,  51,  91, 82.117   5022,     60000,  52,  91, 83.700   STMark 2698

 

Quite good results for 4.6 OC, it is still 7 fps above expected. That Mobo must have something special.

[chiliwili69]

 

 

4790k - 4.4 ghz CPU Mark: 12381

 

I have seen you have upgraded the RAM and the GPU at the same time.

 

Could you provide also the SingleThread Passmark performance? It is reported when you run the CPU Passmark (it is one of the sub-run of CPU Passmark). Look at the instructions at first post.

 

A 4790K at 4.4 should have an avg of 73 fps, mine was achieving 71 fps. Something else is limiting your fps. How do you OC?

[chiliwili69]

 

 

Something else is limiting your fps.

 

From my almost total ignorance, just two things to check of on the hardware side:

 

1. Put the RAM in the 1 a 3 slots (or 2 and 4), whatever your Mobo recommend.

2. Use the right PCIE slot for your 1080 

[doog442]

I finally got around to doing the test. The reason being that I've ordered some faster ram as previously suggested by chiliwili69. It would be interesting to see the improvement. 

 

Passmark

 

CPU single threaded 2482

CPU Mark 8659

 

Frames 2808

Average 47.6

Min         42

Max        82

 

 

System is i5 4690K OC to 4.3

GPU 1070

Ram 8gb DDR3 1333mhz

VR - Rift

MB MSI Z97 G43

 

 

cheers

 

A quick update on this. Upgraded RAM to 2400Mhz from 1600mhz

 

Frames: 3053  - Avg: 50.883 - Min: 43 - Max: 91

 

Not much of an improvement, appears a little smoother but that's it .Perhaps 8GB of ram isn't enough ? I did a few re runs before firing up MSI afterburner. This showed my GPU ( 1070) quite often over 90% which surprised me. 

 

I've no issue with upgrading the CPU in due course but it would be nice to squeeze more out of my system which doesn't appear to be doing itself justice despite its age. 

[katdog5]

A quick update on this. Upgraded RAM to 2400Mhz from 1600mhz

 

Frames: 3053  - Avg: 50.883 - Min: 43 - Max: 91

 

Not much of an improvement, appears a little smoother but that's it .Perhaps 8GB of ram isn't enough ? I did a few re runs before firing up MSI afterburner. This showed my GPU ( 1070) quite often over 90% which surprised me. 

 

I've no issue with upgrading the CPU in due course but it would be nice to squeeze more out of my system which doesn't appear to be doing itself justice despite its age. 

 

Yeah I personally would say minimum 16Gb DDR4. 

[katdog5]

Ok, this might be the last one for me for a bit. that was fun chili.  great idea. highest temps spike 77C-79C

 

@4.69Ghz  DRAM 3060Hz

 

STMark 2762

 

  5031,     60000,  54,  91, 83.850

  5029,     60000,  57,  91, 83.817

  5079,     60000,  57,  91, 84.650

[SimpleThe1st]

From my almost total ignorance, just two things to check of on the hardware side:

 

1. Put the RAM in the 1 a 3 slots (or 2 and 4), whatever your Mobo recommend.

2. Use the right PCIE slot for your 1080

Sorry, was this advice for me?

[chiliwili69]

 

 

Sorry, was this advice for me?

 

Yes, it was. Just in case. 

[chiliwili69]

 

 

A quick update on this. Upgraded RAM to 2400Mhz from 1600mhz   Frames: 3053  - Avg: 50.883 - Min: 43 - Max: 91   Not much of an improvement, appears a little smoother but that's it .Perhaps 8GB of ram isn't enough ? I did a few re runs before firing up MSI afterburner. This showed my GPU ( 1070) quite often over 90% which surprised me. 

 

In your previous test you reported 47.6 with the 1333Mhz RAM. So now running at 2400 you should have a better performance based in your Single Thread passmark.

 

I think 8Gb is more than enough for BOS, you can monitor the RAM usage during game and you will see it doesn´t go beyond 3.5 GB. It is a pitty that there are not many other tests with 8Gb to fund this thesis. 

 

Be sure you mounted your new RAM in the right slots you benefit from dual channel. Also verify with CPU-Z that your RAM is running effectively at 2400 (1200x2).

 

The GPU is right to be at 90%, since 1.7 SS is the treshold where your fps start to decrease. Try to run the test with SS=1.0 and SS=1.5 and report you fps.

 

I think you can try to squeeze more your current CPU since there is something strange there.

 

 

highest temps spike 77C-79C

 

Yes, you should not exceed the 80C for long period of time. A spare spike to 80 is not a problem.

Do you use Vcore voltage in auto or manual? What voltage? What cooling system? 

[doog442]

 

The GPU is right to be at 90%, since 1.7 SS is the treshold where your fps start to decrease. Try to run the test with SS=1.0 and SS=1.5 and report you fps.

 

I think you can try to squeeze more your current CPU since there is something strange there.

 

 

Thanks for your patience. 

 

SS1.0 =  Frames: 3400 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 56.667 - Min: 43 - Max: 91

 

SS 1.5 = Frames: 3196 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 53.267 - Min: 43 - Max: 91

 

Memory is running in dual channel at 2400mhz,confirmed by CPU Z ,its in slots 1 &3 as required for my MB, latest NVIDIA drivers downloaded. In NVIDIA control panel the game is set to run at maximum performance. CPU /GPU temps are all within range. 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

doog442, do you run the game with a Rift?

 

At these FPS ranges, you may want to keep ASW enabled 24/7. Then use 3DMigoto's mod for both SteamVR and IL-2, to disable the propeller disk. That way you won't have the artifacts in front of you nose all the time - you may lose 5-10fps (I assume), but that will not matter - you are running in ASW at 45fps fixed anyway!

 

You get butter smooth head movement as a secondary bonus. I recommend you to at least try it.

 

 

Take a look what files you put where - if you don't like this after testing - you can simply delete them and they're gone.

 

 

Please report back in case you did this, and how it worked out.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Hey guys,

 

I have delidded my i7 7700k and achieved a stable overclock. Then re-ran the test track and got new results.

 

 

System Specs

CPU: i7 7700k (delid, Liquid Metal between DIE/IHS and IHS/Plate), 5GHz clock, AVX offset 0, vcore fixed 1.330, LLC1

RAM: 16GB DDR4 3200MHz via XMP profile

Mainboard: ASRock Z270 Fatal1ty Gaming K6

GPU: Nvidia GTX1080 (Gainward Phoenix Golden Sample), Powertarget 120%, Chipclock 1840MHz (boosts 1979MHz), VRAM 5309MHz

PSU: Seasonic Focus Gold+ 750W

USB Controller: Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3.0 PCI-E

Cooling: Antec H2O 920 for CPU, normal PC case

 

Results:

IL v2.012d

OC test 5.0GHz

Passmark ST 2913 (?  30 day trial is over but it should read this)

RAM 16 3200 

GPU 1080

HMD Rift

Frames 5216

min,max,avg    60, 91, 86.933

 

 

What does that tell us?

The raise in clock was 100MHz, the performance increased by less than 1%. Either the CPU is not a bottleneck anymore from 4.9GHz onwards on the track, or the difference is really that small. The delidding itself was worth it though, my temps never exceed 55°C now, that is a delta of roughly 20°C compared to before. I will later increase the OC to 51 and maybe even 52, and then see what happens.

[doog442]

doog442, do you run the game with a Rift?

 

At these FPS ranges, you may want to keep ASW enabled 24/7. Then use 3DMigoto's mod for both SteamVR and IL-2, to disable the propeller disk. That way you won't have the artifacts in front of you nose all the time - you may lose 5-10fps (I assume), but that will not matter - you are running in ASW at 45fps fixed anyway!

 

You get butter smooth head movement as a secondary bonus. I recommend you to at least try it.

 

 

Take a look what files you put where - if you don't like this after testing - you can simply delete them and they're gone.

 

 

Please report back in case you did this, and how it worked out.

 

Hi

 

Yes i run it with a Rift. Thanks for the suggestion but for some reason frame rates in the region of 45FPS gives me a touch of motion sickness. I'm more inclined just to reduce settings to get that higher frame rate.

 

The only thing I haven't done during the test was your suggestion of disabling AVX offset in the BIOS. My motherboard is an MSI Z97 G43 and I cant see the setting. That said I'm leaning more towards a CPU upgrade.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Having AVX offset enabled means that you didn't OC your cpu for VR IL-2. It will revert to its pre-OC clock when you enter the Rift/Vive in IL-2. Then, when you exit VR again, it goes back up to its overclock.

 

That's why we made such a fuss about AVX offsets as well. It's kinda sneaky and mean 

[doog442]

Having AVX offset enabled means that you didn't OC your cpu for VR IL-2. It will revert to its pre-OC clock when you enter the Rift/Vive in IL-2. Then, when you exit VR again, it goes back up to its overclock.

 

That's why we made such a fuss about AVX offsets as well. It's kinda sneaky and mean 

 

Cheers

 

Research appears to show that my CPU doesn't have the AVX offset feature  (i5 4690k )

 

I've confirmed with CPUZ and CPUID Hardware monitor that my overclock is still at 4.3ghz whilst running the game. Max CPU temp whilst running Balapan track was 63C , Max CPU utilisation was 82%, RAM utilisation was 22%.

 

Ah well, it looks like I've hit a brick wall with my current set up. :-(

Edited November 30, 2017 by doog442

[dburne]

Haha, that may be a bit of a game changer bearing in my stock speed on my i54690K is 3.5 ghz and I'm overclocked at 4.3....I just need to work out what to do in my BIOS. 

 

Is this the case in all VR games with the rift ? 

 

 

Edit : research appears to show that my CPU doesn't have the AVX offset feature so I'm presuming it remains at my OC speed even during VR.  

 

Correct, AVX is newer technology, does not apply to some older platforms - like mine, I am running a 4820k and an X-79 MB.

Not sure which platform it was introduced in.

[MAJ_Balapan]

After seeing tests results of 8700k decided to upgrade my pc.

My system and results of the benchmark:

 

System Specs

CPU: i7 8700k (delided), 5GHz clock

RAM: 16GB DDR4 3200MHz via XMP profile

Mainboard: Gigabyte z370 gaming 7

GPU: Nvidia GTX1080ti

VR: Oculus Rift

 

Results:

CPU Mark - 18129

CPU single Threaded - 3031

Frames: 5369 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 89.483 - Min: 86 - Max: 91

[dburne]

 

After seeing tests results of 8700k decided to upgrade my pc.

My system and results of the benchmark:

 

System Specs

CPU: i7 8700k (delided), 5GHz clock

RAM: 16GB DDR4 3200MHz via XMP profile

Mainboard: Gigabyte z370 gaming 7

GPU: Nvidia GTX1080ti

VR: Oculus Rift

 

Results:

CPU Mark - 18129

CPU single Threaded - 3031

Frames: 5369 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 89.483 - Min: 86 - Max: 91

 

 

 

 

Nice rig, looks like great performance there.

Congrats!

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Nice one, worth it definitely!

[katdog5]

Nice upgrades fellas! Impressive!

[chiliwili69]

 

 

SS1.0 =  Frames: 3400 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 56.667 - Min: 43 - Max: 91   SS 1.5 = Frames: 3196 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 53.267 - Min: 43 - Max: 91   Memory is running in dual channel at 2400mhz,confirmed by CPU Z ,its in slots 1 &3 as required for my MB, latest NVIDIA drivers downloaded. In NVIDIA control panel the game is set to run at maximum performance. CPU /GPU temps are all within range.

 

OK, then the gpu is only reponsible of a minor drop in fps.

 

With SS=1.7 you had 50.88 and with SS=1.0 you have 56.66, so a drop of 6 fps due to GPU (or your GPU in your Mobo). My 1070 also shows a fps drop when going from SS=1.0 to SS=1.7

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31307-how-ss-decreases-your-fps-testing-results/

 

But the big difference with respect the expected (66 fps) is show when you run with SS=1.0 (56.66 fps). So a 10 fps drop.

 

The reason for that could be just the CPU (but you had a good STMArk) or any other setting of IL-2 or software setting or how you run the test.

 

Do you leave the rift in a fix position (not in your head) during the test?

You can use Oculus debug tool (with Visible HUD: layer) and Oculus mirror just to verify that your render is a the right resolution as explained here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30436-pixel-density-supersampling-steamvr-oculustraytool-and-oculu/

You should also verify that ASW is OFF during test.

 

It is a pitty that there are no other i5-4690K CPU in the list to compare.

[chiliwili69]

Thanks Balapan for running the test you gave us some months ago. Nice results!

 

With your new rig you are almost at 90fps all time. It will be interesting to see how the avg is impacted when you set other higher SS (2.0, 2.5, 3.0, etc).

 

When all of us move to better CPU, like the 8700K, this test will be a bit useless since having almost 90 fps (the max) will not measure anything at all.

 

But in the other hand, new VR devices (windows MR devices or Pimax 8K) are arriving to the market, so since they have higher FOV and resolution we will have less avg fps with the test.

[BeastyBaiter]

Nah, just have to move from our medium-ish settings to max detail. Incidentally, the 8700k + GTX 1080 TI will run it reasonably well like that, but there are dips to 45 fps at times.

[Madmatt]

I was curious if any of the recent Il-2, Nvidia or Oculus updates had made any difference so I decided to rerun these tests and compare them to the ones I ran a few months ago. Results below:

 

With latest WHQL 388.43 Nvidia drivers:

In Monitor

2017-12-02 18:01:37 - Il-2

Frames: 10780 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 179.667 - Min: 139 - Max: 219

 

 

In VR - Oculus Rift

2017-12-02 17:39:06 - Il-2

Frames: 5169 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 86.150 - Min: 65 - Max: 91

 

 

 

And here are my older September benchmarks:

 

*********************************************************

Results in-Monitor

2017-09-12 18:08:20 - Il-2

Frames: 10093 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 168.217 - Min: 138 - Max: 220

 

Results in VR (Oculus Rift HMD)

2017-09-12 18:30:16 - Il-2

Frames: 5027 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 83.783 - Min: 57 - Max: 91

My BIOS has no AVX offset and my CPU was running at 4.9GHz.

**********************************************************

 

My analysis shows that while the Maximum FPS are the same in VR and the Averages improved by barely 3%, the Minimum is higher at a 14% increase. That would seem to indicate that there have been improvements made in the drivers, or in Il-2 since the last time I ran these tests which exhibit themselves by being better able to cope with more demanding scenes and rendering. 

 

As for improvements without VR, maximum and minimum FPS are statistically the same at just a 1fps variance. However, this time we see a healthy boost to the Average framerate in the shape of an 11 FPS increase which is a 7% gain, Not bad...

 

Madmatt

Edited December 2, 2017 by Madmatt

[MAJ_Balapan]

It will be interesting to see how the avg is impacted when you set other higher SS (2.0, 2.5, 3.0, etc).

2.0

Frames: 5352 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 89.200 - Min: 81 - Max: 91

 

2.5

Frames: 5319 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 88.650 - Min: 74 - Max: 91

 

3.0

Frames: 5282 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 88.033 - Min: 63 - Max: 91

 

3.5

Frames: 5185 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 86.417 - Min: 49 - Max: 92

 

4.0

Frames: 5145 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 85.750 - Min: 46 - Max: 93

 

4.5

Frames: 4357 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 72.617 - Min: 45 - Max: 81

 

5.0

Frames: 4303 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 71.717 - Min: 44 - Max: 80

 

Played MP 'WoL" for two days using test settings, and I definitely like stable FPS at 89-90 even with the HUD on. Noticed sags in FPS only couple times.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Balapan

[chiliwili69]

 

 

The raise in clock was 100MHz, the performance increased by less than 1%. Either the CPU is not a bottleneck anymore from 4.9GHz onwards on the track, or the difference is really that small. The delidding itself was worth it though, my temps never exceed 55°C now, that is a delta of roughly 20°C compared to before. I will later increase the OC to 51 and maybe even 52, and then see what happens.

 

Congrats for a successful delid operation!

 

I also has been thinking more about why the test doesn´t show a proportional increase from certain overclock frequency. First reason is that the closer you are to 90 the less proportional is the increase since the asymptotic max value is 90. You can try to run exactly the same test but with SS=1 and see how much you GPU is bottlenecking the test.

 

Another important value from the 8700K and 7700K tests is the min fps value. The 8700K is around 84 and 7700K is around 60-62. This weight the overall average meaning that 7700K handle the worst final test  scene a little bit worse than the 8700K. But for remaining test both are at 90fps.

 

You can try to OC your CPU to 5.1 or 5.2 until you achieve a STMArk of 3031 and then run the VR test. (since it is a short test not very demanding in terms of temperature there should not be a problem). Obiously this is only for testing purposes not to use in normal gaming.

[chiliwili69]

 

 

My analysis shows that while the Maximum FPS are the same in VR and the Averages improved by barely 3%, the Minimum is higher at a 14% increase. That would seem to indicate that there have been improvements made in the drivers, or in Il-2 since the last time I ran these tests which exhibit themselves by being better able to cope with more demanding scenes and rendering. 

 

Nice observation!  Good to see that the new drivers or IL-2 modifications go in the right direction. (sometimes software changes are for worse)

[chiliwili69]

 

 

4.0 Frames: 5145 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 85.750 - Min: 46 - Max: 93

 

Thanks for running these tests! even until 5.0! that´s a lot of supersampling, but good to see how far you can go.

It seems that you machine start to see a fps drop from SS=4.0 which is very nice.

 

These results give me a lot of hope for the future Pimax 8K (which renders at 2.5K), since when you run at SS=4.0 you render 17.2 Million of pixels.

Which is equivalent to running the Pimax 8K with SS=1.5 (SteamVR SS and assuming Pimax use the same internal supersampling ratio than the rift).

 

But with 200FOV the scene is larger and it will require more CPU to calculate, so CPU will became bottleneck again.

In any case, next year we will see how this CPU handle the Pimax requirements.

[chiliwili69]

 

 

CPU Mark: 12381

 

We need also the Single Thread Passmark. Look the instructions at first post. 

[Mick_00]

Hi All

 

Just saying hello as a new pilot and being usefull :

fraps result:

Frames: 2560 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 42.667 - Min: 32 - Max: 46

 

 

 

i5-4690k@4ghz

Zotac 1070: core@1600MHz memory@8008Mhz (both stock) 

GPU mem: 8Gb

 

PASSmark: 5690

 

 

HMD: Samsung Odyssey Windows MR 

[chiliwili69]

 

 

i5-4690k@4ghz Zotac 1070: core@1600MHz memory@8008Mhz (both stock)  GPU mem: 8Gb   PASSmark: 5690

 

Thank you for reporting the test results for the first Odyssey test!!

 

We will need to know also you RAM size and speed. You can know that using the CPU-Z free tool.

Your CPU passmark of 5690 is quite low, it should be higher for your CPU. Please, verify with CPU-Z that your CPU is really running at 4.0 GHz during the Passmark test and also during IL-2 test.

Report also your Single Threaded Passmark (it is displayed when you run the CPU Passmark).

 

As you might have seen in the table of results, there is another person (doog442) with the i5-4690K CPU. We still don´t know why this particular CPU is not giving the expected results in IL-2 VR with the Rift (it should deliver about 66 fps avg but only gives 51).

 

In any case, if you want to have a fluent experience in IL-2 you could do the following:

 

1.- Try to OC your CPU as much as your CPU temperatures allow.(what cooling system do you have?)

2.- Do and report six runs of VR tests: With LOW settings (SS=1.0 and SS=1.7), with BALANCED (SS=1.0 and SS=1.7), with HIGH (SS=1.0 and SS=1.7)

3.- Then, it you can afford it, we will see if you would need a better CPU or GPU to have a better fps.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Congrats for a successful delid operation!

 

I also has been thinking more about why the test doesn´t show a proportional increase from certain overclock frequency. First reason is that the closer you are to 90 the less proportional is the increase since the asymptotic max value is 90. You can try to run exactly the same test but with SS=1 and see how much you GPU is bottlenecking the test.

 

Another important value from the 8700K and 7700K tests is the min fps value. The 8700K is around 84 and 7700K is around 60-62. This weight the overall average meaning that 7700K handle the worst final test  scene a little bit worse than the 8700K. But for remaining test both are at 90fps.

 

You can try to OC your CPU to 5.1 or 5.2 until you achieve a STMArk of 3031 and then run the VR test. (since it is a short test not very demanding in terms of temperature there should not be a problem). Obiously this is only for testing purposes not to use in normal gaming.

Temperatures are not the bottleneck in my Overclock now, fortunately. The bottleneck is the voltage and continuous stability by now.

 

At 5GHz (now with 1.4V because only that gives me continuous stability in IL-2 and in x264-over-night), the max temperature was on core#0 and 69°C. Hence I still got a bit of headroom. But the voltage multiplier is hindering me, I set the limit to 1.4V while playing IL-2 (I go back to 4.6GHz 1.28V at normal operation). I need to see if 5.1GHz remains stable using the same voltage of 1.4V

 

The better min FPS of the 8700K are very interesting indeed!

 

 

 

P.S. In my opinion we may get more expressive results for the most modern machines by creating a secondary, higher demanding set of settings for running the test track. That way we can see much easier how the different CPUs and clocks behave at a heavier load of Ultra+High Shadows+4x terrain. The asymptotes for CPU or GPU or RAM clock you mentioned are more diagonal that way and not largely leveled out yet, hence way more expressive. I like the way you think, are you also Engineer?

Edited December 4, 2017 by 2./JG51_Fenris_Wolf

[Mick_00]

Thank you for reporting the test results for the first Odyssey test!!

 

We will need to know also you RAM size and speed. You can know that using the CPU-Z free tool.

Your CPU passmark of 5690 is quite low, it should be higher for your CPU. Please, verify with CPU-Z that your CPU is really running at 4.0 GHz during the Passmark test and also during IL-2 test.

Report also your Single Threaded Passmark (it is displayed when you run the CPU Passmark).

 

As you might have seen in the table of results, there is another person (doog442) with the i5-4690K CPU. We still don´t know why this particular CPU is not giving the expected results in IL-2 VR with the Rift (it should deliver about 66 fps avg but only gives 51).

 

In any case, if you want to have a fluent experience in IL-2 you could do the following:

 

1.- Try to OC your CPU as much as your CPU temperatures allow.(what cooling system do you have?)

2.- Do and report six runs of VR tests: With LOW settings (SS=1.0 and SS=1.7), with BALANCED (SS=1.0 and SS=1.7), with HIGH (SS=1.0 and SS=1.7)

3.- Then, it you can afford it, we will see if you would need a better CPU or GPU to have a better fps.

reporting again:

 

i5-4690k@4.5Ghz

12Gb RAM @1600 (799MHz)

SSD

zotac nvidia 1070 stock

 

CPUmark after OC: 

8571

single threaded 2630

 

Samsung Odyssey

SteamVR says it renders:

2x 1428x1777@ SS1.0

2x 1862x2317@SS1.7

FRAPS:

low SS 1.0

2017-12-04 16:40:24 - Il-2

Frames: 2789 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 46.483 - Min: 44 - Max: 70

 

low SS 1.7

2017-12-04 16:44:53 - Il-2

Frames: 2872 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 47.867 - Min: 40 - Max: 80

 

balanced SS 1.0

2017-12-04 17:20:45 - Il-2

Frames: 2733 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 45.550 - Min: 43 - Max: 61

 

balanced SS 1.7

2017-12-04 16:47:46 - Il-2

Frames: 2706 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 45.100 - Min: 43 - Max: 54

 

high SS 1.0

2017-12-04 17:03:03 - Il-2

Frames: 2683 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 44.717 - Min: 43 - Max: 46

 

high SS 1.7

2017-12-04 16:52:31 - Il-2

Frames: 2686 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 44.767 - Min: 43 - Max: 46

 

 

I ve noticed that Im affected by the fov/ipd bug, so my hmd was showing bit more image than the screenshot in the first post.

 

 

 

full passmark:

[chiliwili69]

Samsung Odyssey SteamVR says it renders: 2x 1428x1777@ SS1.0 2x 1862x2317@SS1.7

 

Thank you for reporting these tests with the Odyssey, but before going to your topic it surprises me the reported Odyssey resolution in SteamVR for SS=1 and SS=1.7.

 

I made some numbers shown in this image:

The strange thing is that the Odyssey has 2 panels of 1440x1600, but the rendered pixels for SS=1 are 2x1428x1777.

What?? they do subsampling in the horizontal!!

That´s very different from what the Rift do. (2x1080x1200 physical panels and 2x1344x1600 pixels at SS=1)

 

So, the number of pixel for SS=1 is 4.3Million for Rift and 5Million for the Odyssey.

So in terms of pixels rendered and GPU load, running the Rift with SS=2.0 (SteamVR) is equivalent to run the Odyssey with SS=1.7. But obviously the image in the Odyssey will be much better since it is down-sampled less to fit in the better physical display.

Edited December 4, 2017 by chiliwili69

[chiliwili69]

 

 

low SS 1.0 2017-12-04 16:40:24 - Il-2 Frames: 2789 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 46.483 - Min: 44 - Max: 70   low SS 1.7 2017-12-04 16:44:53 - Il-2 Frames: 2872 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 47.867 - Min: 40 - Max: 80

 

It is a bit strange that you achieve a Max fps of 80 with SS=1.7 than with SS=1.0 and Max=70.

Be sure you switched ASW off and follow all instructions as the first post.

Nevertheless, I think all these tests tell us two things:

 

1.- The SS is not really affecting significantly the avg numbers, so your GPU is not really stressed. So keep your 1070.

 

2.- Even at LOW graphics settings your avg fps does not increase significantly and your system can not even reach 90 fps at any moment. So despite you have a reasonable ST Passmark (2630) your CPU is not performing well with IL-2 in VR. I don´t know the reason but it is the same case than the doog442 with the same CPU than you.

 

You can spend some more time trying to know why this CPU is not performing as expected. For example you can run the test with monitor as explained in the post.

 

If you can not solve you will need a rig upgrade:

 

1. Upgrade CPU: You can go to 4790K if you want to keep your Mobo, but as the new 8700K is in the market at almost same price, I would go for 8700K with a new Mobo and DDR4 ram

2. Upgrade RAM: Try to go above 2600 MHz