Jump to content
chiliwili69

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

Recommended Posts

Tried this out.   Definitely need to boost these numbers up.  Would installing IL2 on my SSD help at all, perhaps?

Recommended settings in front page (with SS 1.7)
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  1578,     60000,  17,  32, 26.300

All my normal settings (with SS still on 1.7)
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  2135,     60000,  28,  46, 35.583

My normal settings:

Screen resolution 600 x 480

Full screen: off

Enable VR: ON

Multi GPU: off

Vsync: off

SSAO: off

HDR: off

Sharpen: off

Mirrors: Normal

Distant landscape detail: normal

Grass quality: normal

Landscape filter: None

Target FPS: off

Dynamic resolution: 0.8

Antialiasing: Off

Gamma correction: 0.9


System Specs:HMD:  Oculust Rift, 3 sensors.
Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3
GPU: MSI GTX 1070
RAM: 16GB 1600mhz
CPU: AMD FX-8350 Vishera 8 core.   Turbo boost disabled, OC'd to 4.1ghz (Started to OC but never really took the time to push it. Eventually priorities went elsewhere so haven't touched it since)

Game version: 2.012
Passmark CPU score: 8586
Passmark Single Core: 1446

Edited by bwc153

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that maybe the VR test settings in the 1st post would need to be updated a bit to address the new version 2.012 graphics options available, but in checking further I guess they're still OK as they are for these testing purposes.

 

Thanks for reporting your new tests with the new 2.012 release. I will incorporate them to the sheet.

The tests at Ultra with shadows/grass quality are also important since we really need to know what particular settings are fps eaters. I will put them in the graph-setting tests sheet. 

 

As you realise, the general test procedure is just a fps measurement instrument. Common base to compare and to determine "fps eater" factors (hardware, software or settings). We defined their settings as an average of the usual settings used with a moderate SS, not going to the minimum bar either the maximum bar.

Edited by chiliwili69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tried this out.   Definitely need to boost these numbers up.  Would installing IL2 on my SSD help at all, perhaps?

 

Many thanks for reporting your test with that CPU.

A SSD will not improve your fps, will only help in reducing a bit your loading times. 

 

You limiting element is the CPU. The FX-8350 has low performance for single thread. The reported Passmark public Single-Thread Mark is only 1507. You will need to stay above 2500 if you wish to play at High setting. With low settings you can maybe fine with 2000, but I have no data for this.

 

Please, try to run the free CPU Passmark to know your CPU MArk and Single-thread Mark numbers. The link is in the procedure.

 

What are your normal settings?

Have you tried to run the test procedure changing just the graphics settings to Low or Balanced? If so, please report the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that maybe the VR test settings in the 1st post would need to be updated a bit to address the new version 2.012 graphics options available, but in checking further I guess they're still OK as they are for these testing purposes.

 

When I ran the VR benchmark track using the same VR test settings as used for version 2.011, I did not see any significant difference in results (maybe even a smidge better with 2.012):

 

2.011: Frames: 5231 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 87.183 - Min: 64 - Max: 91

 

2.012: Frames: 5293 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 88.217 - Min: 68 - Max: 91

 

 

BUT, when I ran my usual maxed out/Ultra monitor-based settings, I saw a significant difference between maxed out 2.011 and maxed out 2.012:

 

2.011 (maxed out): Frames: 4446 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 74.100 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

 

2012 (maxed out): Frames: 3329 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 55.483 - Min: 44 - Max: 88

 

So something new (shadows, grass maybe) in 2.012 is having a significant impact - I'll be running some more tests to try to figure out which new setting in 2.012 is causing the biggest drop in performance.

 

[EDIT] Setting shadows back to medium did help quite a bit (but it's still not back up to 2.011 results, so something else must also be going on):

 

2.012 (maxed out except shadows = medium): Frames: 3977 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 66.283 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

 

And dropping grass back to Distant from max/ultra gained back a few FPS: Frames: 4207 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 70.117 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

 

And dropping grass back to low/normal pretty much got back the rest: Frames: 4406 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 73.433 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

Many thanks for sharing this! Good to know info, when I get a chance to test the latest build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah im seeing a significant performance hit as well in 2.012

What is most surprising is the frame rate drop I see even at high altitudes.

 

Im going to have to dial back the settings as its actually quite bad.

 

There is some stuttering when moving the head around the cockpit.

Edited by =TBAS=Tripwire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropping shadows down to medium almost brings the FPS back inline. High and Ultra lead to fps issues almost like the 1080ti was running out of memory perhaps. No data, just guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for reporting your test with that CPU.

A SSD will not improve your fps, will only help in reducing a bit your loading times. 

 

You limiting element is the CPU. The FX-8350 has low performance for single thread. The reported Passmark public Single-Thread Mark is only 1507. You will need to stay above 2500 if you wish to play at High setting. With low settings you can maybe fine with 2000, but I have no data for this.

 

Please, try to run the free CPU Passmark to know your CPU MArk and Single-thread Mark numbers. The link is in the procedure.

 

What are your normal settings?

Have you tried to run the test procedure changing just the graphics settings to Low or Balanced? If so, please report the results.

Yeah, I figured my CPU was getting old. I got the FX8350 back when they were brand around 5 years ago.  Good thing Black friday and cyber monday are coming up, guess I'll be getting a new CPU and Mobo this year.   Though in the meantime I could try squeezing a few hundred more mhzout of my CPU, as with the Hyper 212 EVO heatsink, which is what I use, some people have clocked theFX8350 to 4.5ghz.

 

I did the Passmark test, edited my above post to include them, as well as what my normal game settings are. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just downloaded the new 2.012 release, and before playing, I wanted to run the benchmark in VR and monitor.

The new release have a new graphic option which is shadows. The default value is medium, so this will be the value for the test procedure. I have edited the first post to include it.

 

The monitor run:

Frames: 9245 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 154.083 - Min: 121 - Max: 205

 

The VR run:

Frames: 4622 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 77.033 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

 

So, -5 fps in monitor and -4 fps in VR with respect to the 2.011

 

This is not aligned with the panthercules test who obtain a +1fps. (I suppose with shadows medium)

 

I will now see the Kuban map and will do more testing other day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided to run a few more tests with 2.012 using the 1st post VR test settings (i.e., everything exactly as it was for 2.011, but with the new shadows setting = 2).

 

2.011 results:  Frames: 5231 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 87.183 - Min: 64 - Max: 91

 

2.012 results:  Frames: 5225 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 87.083 - Min: 63 - Max: 91

 

So, virtually indistinguishable results between 2.011 and 2.012, as long as the new shadows are set to 2 (medium).

 

Will run some more tests to see impact of higher shadow settings using these standard benchmark test settings otherwise (my earlier tests of shadows were using my maxed out monitor-based settings so less useful for benchmarking purposes).

 

[EDIT]  

 

Standard VR test settings except shadows increased to 3 (High):  Frames: 5130 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 85.500 - Min: 58 - Max: 91

 

Standard VR test settings except shadows increased to 4 (Ultra):  Frames: 4319 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 71.983 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

 

 

Given that impact of "high" shadows is not that large compared to the big hit caused by "Ultra" shadows, and given that if I'm interpreting the patch notes correctly many of the best improvements in shadows may only be available with at least "high" setting, it may be worth trading off a few FPS for the shadow benefits - I'll run some more tests using my usual maxed out visual quality settings to see if I can tell any difference about the shadows and whether they seem to be worth the FPS hit (purely subjective of course, but they've got me curious now).

 

 

 

PC specs (since sig might change):

Intel Core i7-7700K @ 5.0 GHz (Corsair liquid cooler); 16GB RAM (Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3200MHz)
EVGA GTX 1080 TI SC2, 11 GB; ASUS ROG Maximus IX Code MB; Realtek ROG SupremeFX audio
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit; Oculus Rift (CV1); Logitech Force 3D Pro; Saitek Rudder Pedals and Throttle Quadrants
Edited by TG-55Panthercules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done some test today with the version 2.012.

 

VR:

 

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  3922,     60000,  44,  91, 65.367
 
Monitor:
 
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  8752,     60000, 117, 187, 145.867
 
CPU test:
 
CPU Mark: 12801
Single threaded: 2634

 

My PC:

 

i7-6700k@4.5GHz

GTX 980ti

RAM Corsair Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4 2400 Mhz 

Oculus Rift CV1

Latest SteamVR and Oculus Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah, I figured my CPU was getting old. I got the FX8350 back when they were brand around 5 years ago.  Good thing Black friday and cyber monday are coming up, guess I'll be getting a new CPU and Mobo this year.

 

Yes, the CPU is the bottleneck. Based in your Passmark ST Mark (1446) and based in the collected data you should expect 27 fps in VR. And you obtained 26 fps. So, everything as expected. Yes, CPU upgrade should be the solution (but look to good ST Mark CPUs with high overclocking capabilities).

Meanwhile you can try to squeeze your CPU with OC and play with Low settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have added a new column to the compiled list tittled ("VR expected"), where you will see a calculated fps based in the lineal regression with all data collected.

It basically tells you if your blue point is above or below the blue line in a numeric way.

If you are above you are lucky.

If you are too much below, maybe it is because the slow RAM or you have hardware/software issues or the test was done incorrectly.

The sheet is:

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

 

In fact, you don´t need a Rift/Vive to know your expected VR fps with this test.

Run the free CPU Mark in your PC and get the Single Thread Mark (STMark) as indicated in the first post of this thread. Then calculate:

Expected_fps = 0.039426*STMark - 29.3

 

Check your VR expectation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

VR:   Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg   3922,     60000,  44,  91, 65.367   Monitor:   Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg   8752,     60000, 117, 187, 145.867

 

Many thanks for submitting you test with the first 980Ti in this test.

Your results are a bit below expectation. Based in your STMark you should be around 74 fps.

Your RAM speed is quite OK, but, if the 980Ti is not the limiting factor, going to 3200MHz would give you about +8fps extra (I don´t put my hand on the fire) 

 

If you have a friend who can borrow you a 1070 or higher, you can give a try. But I don´t think the 980Ti is limiting your performance in this test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Expected_fps = 0.039426*STMark - 29.3

 

I think we can impove accuracy by taking into account DRAM frequency with some coefficient. I am not sure but for DDR3 and DDR4 coefficient may be different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who's performance tanked after installing Fraps and the Balapan trk file to run this test?

 

After installing the above, first thing I noticed was it would take app 3-4 minutes before my mouse became active and able to use after first launching the game. I then went in and ran the test, and was surprised by the low number. So I flew around in some missions I had done previously, and my performance was not what I had been getting prior to installing fraps and the trk file to run this test. Tried exiting out and restarting BoS, and again took a few minutes before could use mouse, and again performance was way down.

 

So I uninstalled Fraps, peformance and laggy mouse was still going on. I then deleted the trk file, and voila no more laggy mouse and performance was back up to where it used to be.

 

I do not believe my test was a good indication of my actual performance based on the above. But I am stumped as to why this happened and apparently from what I see was it likely was only me it happened to. Very strange! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who's performance tanked after installing Fraps and the Balapan trk file to run this test?

 

After installing the above, first thing I noticed was it would take app 3-4 minutes before my mouse became active and able to use after first launching the game. I then went in and ran the test, and was surprised by the low number. So I flew around in some missions I had done previously, and my performance was not what I had been getting prior to installing fraps and the trk file to run this test. Tried exiting out and restarting BoS, and again took a few minutes before could use mouse, and again performance was way down.

 

So I uninstalled Fraps, peformance and laggy mouse was still going on. I then deleted the trk file, and voila no more laggy mouse and performance was back up to where it used to be.

 

I do not believe my test was a good indication of my actual performance based on the above. But I am stumped as to why this happened and apparently from what I see was it likely was only me it happened to. Very strange! 

Dburne

 

I don't doubt what you experienced but find it strange installing Fraps would give such a heavy performance decrease. I have not noticed one. It is after all a very popular tool and would not be if it was that bad. Even more weird if it was the .trk file, unless that track file filled your last 27mb of primary harddrive space.

 

Fraps can record video and I think it's F9 to start a recording. If you accidentally hit that key it would likely affect your performance. F10 ( grab a screenshot with fraps) is less likely as I don't think your were spastically pressing f10 without noticing during the benchmark. I would bet it was a software conflict of some sort on your end or just good old windows deciding to do something weird during your testing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dburne

 

I don't doubt what you experienced but find it strange installing Fraps would give such a heavy performance decrease. I have not noticed one. It is after all a very popular tool and would not be if it was that bad. Even more weird if it was the .trk file, unless that track file filled your last 27mb of primary harddrive space.

 

Fraps can record video and I think it's F9 to start a recording. If you accidentally hit that key it would likely affect your performance. F10 ( grab a screenshot with fraps) is less likely as I don't think your were spastically pressing f10 without noticing during the benchmark. I would bet it was a software conflict of some sort on your end or just good old windows deciding to do something weird during your testing.

 

 

 

Well I can tell you my performance definitely dropped, and the whole time both fraps and trk file were installed it would take a few minutes before could even use the mouse. I do not believe my test results were accurate at all because of this. No problem with disk space, have plenty there.

 

I checked it after uninstalling fraps, and it was still the same. It was not until after deleting that trk file did the mouse come back to normal behavior and my performance came back up to what it used to be prior to trying this test.

 

I though maybe it might have been because of the trk file being recorded with an earlier version of the game, but then that would likely affect most folks rather than just me. Pretty sure I did not hit any function keys either.

 

I may give it another shot later today or this weekend and see if it does the same again. Something screwy was definitely going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your results are a bit below expectation. Based in your STMark you should be around 74 fps.

 

After I posted my results I overclocked my GF980ti by adding extra 38MHz to the core clock and RAM from 2400 to 2600MHz. I also used Oculus SDK instead of Oculus Tray Tool to set SS to 1.3. The average fps is a lot better now. 

Frames: 4368 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 72.800 - Min: 44 - Max: 91

 

I don't understand why min fps in all the tests I did is always 44 with ASW turned off.

Edited by marklar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone attempted NVIDIA FCAT VR for benchmarking instead of Fraps?

 

Typically that is what you see used on game reviews demonstrating VR performance and frametime (which is more important than FPS which tends to hide frame drops).

https://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/pdfs/NVIDIA_FCAT_VR_Reviewer's_Guide_Public.pdf

 

Looks like a lot more to setup than the average joe would be willing to go through though.

Edited by =TBAS=Tripwire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't think the 980Ti is limiting your performance in this test.

 

My CPU is quite fast so it must be GTX or/and RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why min fps in all the tests I did is always 44 with ASW turned off.

 

I noticed that on several of my most recent tests - not sure what's going on with that.  Been using CTRL+1 to turn of ASW, and it seems to be working based on observation, but that frequent min=44 result seems strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: CTRL+1 to turn of ASW , Is that just for benchmarking purposes or do you leave it off every game?  Ive been testing in game and I get stuttering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New results for 2.012:

 

Monitor:

FPS Avg:  128

FPS Min:  103

FPS Max: 171

Frames:    7684

 

VR:

FPS Avg:  46

FPS Min:  44

FPS Max: 64

Frames:    2759

 

Passmark scores:

CPU Overall:   14262

Single Thread: 2135

 

System:

CPU: R5 1600x @ 4.0 GHz

RAM: 16GB DDR4 @ 2800MHz

GPU: GTX 1080 TI

Mobo: MSI B350 Tomahawk

C:\: Samsung 960 Evo 500GB (BoS on this drive)

OS: Win 10

 

A more interesting note. Frametimes are all that matter here. The Rift can display 22.5, 45 and 90 fps only. Even if it displays 65 fps for a second according to fraps, it's 65 fps average for that second. Looking at individual frame times will show that you're getting a mix of 11 and 22 ms frametimings (corresponding to 90 and 45 fps respectively).

 

Looking at my system with these settings, I get 7.8 ms frametimes on average and this number is fairly stable, 99% of the time it is within 1 ms. Unfortunately, when multiplied by 2 for VR rendering, that equals 15.6 ms + or - 2 ms. Even in the negative case, it is still over the 11 ms cutoff for 90 fps nearly all the time but is also far below the 22 ms cutoff for 45 fps even in the worst case. This is why absolute max detail vs the test settings used here have absolutely no impact on frame rate in VR for my system.

 

I've also done some memory speed testing but am not ready to post detailed results. But here's a quick preview:

 

Average Frametimes:

2133 MHz: 7.961 ms

2667 MHz: 7.451 ms

2800 MHz: 7.353 ms

 

That works out to about -0.1 ms per 100 MHz memory clock speed. In theory, 3200 MHz memory would yield 6.95 ms at these settings, but that is still over the 5.5 ms expected cutoff.

 

Edit: Added number of frames to VR and 1080p results

Edited by BeastyBaiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I gave it another try.

 

This time at least I did not have the crazy mouse behaviour. 

However, my test results were still pretty low, but I think I may have a clue as to why, or at least part of the reason why.

 

While I was running it one of the times, I happened to lift the headset up and took a peek at my Precision XOC. My 1080 Ti video card whilst running this track, is actually downclocking. It normally runs right at 2 Ghz. When I was running the trk it was only running right at 1500 MHz, so about 500 MHz less than what it normally runs at. When I am flying in the game, it usually stays pegged right at 2 Ghz. 

 

I am not sure why that would be the case, but I checked it on a couple of the runs and each time it was down-clocking when running the trk file. Which would partly explain I guess why I see better performance whilst flying than what I am seeing in this benchmark run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think we can impove accuracy by taking into account DRAM frequency with some coefficient. I am not sure but for DDR3 and DDR4 coefficient may be different

 

It could be a little tricky to do a 2 variable correlation in Google spreadsheets. I could do that using another program I have for this ( CurveProfessionalExpert) but it might be too much.

People should be aware that +100MHz of RAM speed is about +0.8 to +1 fps increase.

But I just wanted a ballpark number, not an scientific work with so little data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: CTRL+1 to turn of ASW , Is that just for benchmarking purposes or do you leave it off every game?  Ive been testing in game and I get stuttering...

 

I've been turning it off for all my flying, not just my testing.  Was getting some of the prop animation weirdness that others have posted about with ASW on.  But I'm thinking about leaving it on for some of my next flying missions since I'm flying some of the twins and there's no prop right in front of me on those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more interesting note. Frametimes are all that matter here. The Rift can display 22.5, 45 and 90 fps only. Even if it displays 65 fps for a second according to fraps, it's 65 fps average for that second. Looking at individual frame times will show that you're getting a mix of 11 and 22 ms frametimings (corresponding to 90 and 45 fps respectively).

 

 

 

I don't think I understand this part - gonna have to take a look at the other files FRAPS generates and see if I can understand the point being made here.  I thought I understood that with ASW on the Rift would be doing something like forcing a display of only 45 FPS if it dropped below 90 FPS, but with ASW off I don't remember seeing anything about Rift forcing (or able to display) only those specific rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I understand this part - gonna have to take a look at the other files FRAPS generates and see if I can understand the point being made here.  I thought I understood that with ASW on the Rift would be doing something like forcing a display of only 45 FPS if it dropped below 90 FPS, but with ASW off I don't remember seeing anything about Rift forcing (or able to display) only those specific rates.

 

With ASW off, which is how I have set BoS to run, I get variable framerates not just 45 or 90. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can look at the ...frametimes.csv files. If you look at monitor results, you'll see a continuous range of timings from your minimum to maximum (if vsync is off). If you do the same with v-sync on or in VR, you will see something that steps between 11.25 ms, 22.5 ms and 45 ms with no values in between. There will be a little bit of error in the numbers, so you might see some 10 ms and 12 ms frametimes. But you definitely won't see 8ms or 16ms. Here's a look at my VR benchmark run, just a small portion of it obviously as there are thousands of frames rendered. The 20 frame average is 60 fps, but as you can see it is simply alternating between 11.25 ms and 22.5 ms (90 and 45 fps respectively).

 

post-13947-0-07586900-1504306830_thumb.png

 

Edit: in case it isn't obvious, those 20 frames are pulled from the 1000 area on the graph.

 

Edit 2: Here's a pic of a monitor result, notice how in the top pic there is a clear divide between roughly 22 ms and and 11 ms. In the lower pic, it's continuous set of results without any clear gaps.

 

post-13947-0-72622700-1504307774_thumb.png

Edited by BeastyBaiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Beasty - apparently I didn't have the frametime box checked in FRAPS, so I don't have any of those files to look at from my previous tests. I'll have to run some more tests and take a look at those.

 

@dburne - I watched my Precision XOC during my last test, and it stayed mostly at about 1936 with one or two drops into the 1800s, but didn't drop down to around 1500 until the test run had finished and I'd closed everything else out.  I hadn't even thought about it changing the clock speed around like that - is there some way to tell it to stay constant? (at least unless it gets too hot or something - my GPU temps seemed to stay steady at about 72)

 

[EDIT]

@ Beasty - I ran another test of the 1st post track and settings, with the frametime box checked in FRAPS, and added a column to the frametime file to show elapsed time between frames, and came up with the following (for the first 50 frames - all that would fit on the screen at a reasonable font size):

 

post-12147-0-55468600-1504322409_thumb.jpg

 

Not sure what any of it means, however.  Guess I'll look further down into the file to see if I start seeing the kind of discontinuity jumps you mentioned.

 

[EDIT]

 

I looked further down, and I still seem to be seeing some intermediate elapsed frame times between 8 something and 19 something - (along with a lot clustered around 10-12) as shown below:

 

post-12147-0-03408200-1504323227_thumb.jpg

 

I checked down around the 1,000 frame mark since you mentioned it in your post - mostly around 10-12 but I did see a 15 and a 31 (no 22-ish or 45-ish).  So I'm still not understanding the point you're making about the jumps between discrete FPS. 

 

I'll try running another test with my usual maxed out settings and see if those lower results display the sort of tendency you mention.

 

 

[EDIT]

 

Well, I ran a test with my maxed out settings, which yield much lower results (Frames: 3155 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 52.583 - Min: 44 - Max: 85) than my std benchmark test settings (Frames: 5241 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 87.350 - Min: 63 - Max: 91), and this time there does seem to be more evidence of elapsed frame times clustering around 10-12 and 20-21, as indicated in the screenshot below:

 

post-12147-0-75775400-1504324920_thumb.jpg

 

Not sure what it means (or why it happens with ASW seemingly off), but it is interesting.

Edited by TG-55Panthercules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been turning it off for all my flying, not just my testing.  Was getting some of the prop animation weirdness that others have posted about with ASW on.  But I'm thinking about leaving it on for some of my next flying missions since I'm flying some of the twins and there's no prop right in front of me on those.

 

ok. thanks, more tweaking and it seems to work for me now.  really needed it for the il2 43. maybe bc I had vsync on yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

After I posted my results I overclocked my GF980ti by adding extra 38MHz to the core clock and RAM from 2400 to 2600MHz

 

Just curious to know what change gave you the fps increase, maybe both but not sure really. But you had a great increase for that small change, about 8 fps!

 

Did you check if your CPU_Mark and ST_MArk changed after RAM change?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anyone attempted NVIDIA FCAT VR for benchmarking instead of Fraps

 

My initial thought was to use FCAT VR for the test, but later I saw that Fraps is much simpler for the general use, so it would be easier so more test data collected.

But it will be a better tool to analyze more in detail in case of low performance or detect anomalies. 

I have not tried FCAT VR, no current plans for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My CPU is quite fast so it must be GTX or/and RAM.

 

If you have a good cooler you could try more OC. Every 0.1 Ghz increase you could gain between 1.5 to 4 fps. (it depends how close you are to 90 fps, the more closer to 90 the less increase you will have) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Passmark scores: CPU Overall:   14262 Single Thread: 2135

 

Many thanks for posting your 1600x results and valuable explanations.

I saw your STMark is 2135 and I have been investigating which is the max STMark achieved for all people who run the passmark. You can know that in the Passmark tool.

Go to the CPU Mark, select STMark box, click on the third icon with a card and then select you CPU model:

post-18865-0-25729500-1504341850_thumb.jpg

You will see that the world record (for passmark users) is 2215, so you are quite close to it. If you do RAM speed test, please, check if RAM speed influence STMark.

 

People can use Passmark Performance Tool (v9.0) to know what is the passmark world record for STMark for their particular CPU, for example, for i7-7700K  is 3113:

post-18865-0-10910300-1504341856_thumb.jpg

Edited by chiliwili69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I happened to lift the headset up and took a peek at my Precision XOC.

 

I am glad you overcame your fears and gave this another try. And good to see mouse problem didn´t appear.

 

I read that you wear the Rift in your head while playing the performance test track. It could be OK as far as you keep quiet your head and keep the same position during that 1 minute with the two red lights at the bottom of your view. But I think it is better to do the test without wearing the Rift and fix it to a chair or something, so the view doesn´t change.

 

Also, could you run the Passmark test and report your CPU_Mark and STMark with your CPU OCed? We can know them what would be the expected results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@dburne - I watched my Precision XOC during my last test, and it stayed mostly at about 1936 with one or two drops into the 1800s, but didn't drop down to around 1500 until the test run had finished and I'd closed everything else out.  I hadn't even thought about it changing the clock speed around like that - is there some way to tell it to stay constant? (at least unless it gets too hot or something - my GPU temps seemed to stay steady at about 72)

 

 

 

Well technically K-Boost in Precision XOC should do that, however I also gave that a try yesterday as well and it did not have intended results for me, in fact it locked my card in at around 607 MHz and trying to do anything in the Rift was very choppy, so after trying a couple of times I disabled it again.

 

Not sure why my card is not running full boost when running the trk file, it certainly does a good job of staying around full boost speed when I am actually flying in BoS. And temps were not a problem either, GPU was running in mid 40's. 

I am glad you overcame your fears and gave this another try. And good to see mouse problem didn´t appear.

 

I read that you wear the Rift in your head while playing the performance test track. It could be OK as far as you keep quiet your head and keep the same position during that 1 minute with the two red lights at the bottom of your view. But I think it is better to do the test without wearing the Rift and fix it to a chair or something, so the view doesn´t change.

 

Also, could you run the Passmark test and report your CPU_Mark and STMark with your CPU OCed? We can know them what would be the expected results.

 

Ya I kept my head very still whilst running the trk file, so I really don't think that had anything to do with it. I will have a look at that Passmark test later on today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at my system with these settings, I get 7.8 ms frametimes on average and this number is fairly stable, 99% of the time it is within 1 ms. Unfortunately, when multiplied by 2 for VR rendering, that equals 15.6 ms + or - 2 ms.

 

I think that talking about fps or framerates is equivalent. Frequency (fps) is the inverse of the period (framerate) and viceversa. At the end, both measure the number of frames rendered for the test track. So, this test based in fps is equally valid as a pure measure instrument of the power of the CPU/RAM/GPU to make the work. If you divide the number of frames obtained in the tes by 60 (it is 1 min test) you will have your avg (new column V). If you want avg frametime then divide 1000 by avg fps. It doesn´t matter if the frametimes are clustered around 11 and 22, at the end and average is and average, which is FRAMES/TIME.

 

When you say you get 7.8ms you refer to your monitor where you obtained 128 fps avg, since 1000 ms divided by 128 is 7.8ms. So talking about 7.8ms or talking about 128 fps is equivalent.

 

As you said, the reason for what our fps performance in VR is about half of the performance in monitor is because two renders (one per eye) are executed by the graphic card in series. I wonder if one day SLI could work in VR, so we could render one eye in each GPU. Or perhaps even better, future GPUs could be designed specifically just for VR and execute the two renders in paralell (like having two GPU in one).

Edited by chiliwili69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dburne

 

Your card is downclocking as an energy saving feature, because it's not being fully used at those graphics settings. Lot's happening in that track file and your CPU is bottlenecking your card.

 

Normally during single player missions there won't be so many things happening and therefore you will have less of a load on the CPU. Allowing it to feed your Gpu card more.

 

To test my theory you can increase SS while testing that track, this will tax your Gpu card more while not giving your CPU much more to do. Gpu clock will increase as much as is needed. This will not give you any extra frames though. Only better SS.

 

Despite having an overclocked 7700 and a 1070, same thing happens to me in heavy situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...