SYN_Vander BENCHMARK v6 to measure IL-2 performance in monitor & VR

January 2, 2023

4 hours ago, dburne said:

Best overclocking is 1: CPU followed less by 2: GPU.

However with latest Intel CPU's and motherboards not sure that much is to be gained from overclocking the CPU.

Never thought of this before, so I thought it would be worth a test on my 13700K. Daily driver OC vs stock settings. My daily OC is for 3 cores boosting to 6ghz and all core at 5500mhz, DDR5 is at 6600mhz. The stock setting used is stock and DDR5 at XMP 6400mhz. I tested three CPU benchmarks for each with HWinfo64 data.

The daily OC is about 1c cooler in the benchmarks and pulls about about 7watts more package power than stock. The daily OC is around 12 FPS faster in the CPU test and almost 7fps fast in VR Test 2. So nothing huge, but it does run cooler and has a few more FPS...

2023-01-01 16:47:42 - Il-2
Frames: 9137 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 152.283 - Min: 133 - Max: 197 (OC) CPU Test

2023-01-01 16:55:03 - Il-2
Frames: 5154 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 85.900 - Min: 76 - Max: 91 (OC) VR Test 2

2023-01-01 17:17:28 - Il-2
Frames: 8373 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 139.550 - Min: 117 - Max: 187 (Stock) CPU Test

2023-01-01 17:26:46 - Il-2
Frames: 4748 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 79.133 - Min: 62 - Max: 91 (Stock) VR Test 2

January 2, 2023

9 hours ago, NoBreaks said:

If I may ask, what are you basing this on? It would seem apparent that you'd likely never own an AMD GPU...so it seems safe that we can rule out first-hand experience.

As much as I respect everyone has a right to their own opinions, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that there ought to at least be some kind of valid *reason* for having a certain opinion.

What's your reasoning? Any empirical data to corroborate? Links or other references?

Nope just word on the street so to speak. AMD is known for being behind the curve for their GPU's in VR. Their CPU's are really good with VR but GPU's not so much. Everyone is certainly free to try what they want however. And yep that is my opinion.

January 2, 2023

would be really nice if we had a test of comparable GPU's (nvidia&amd&intel) on the same mobo/cpu combination - from my personal experience, with 5700XT and HP G2 (very similar results to 1080ti in online gameplay), and 6900XT plus Pico4 (with Virtual Desktop produces results similar to vanilla 3080)

January 2, 2023

9 hours ago, DBCOOPER011 said:

Never thought of this before, so I thought it would be worth a test on my 13700K. Daily driver OC vs stock settings. My daily OC is for 3 cores boosting to 6ghz and all core at 5500mhz, DDR5 is at 6600mhz. The stock setting used is stock and DDR5 at XMP 6400mhz. I tested three CPU benchmarks for each with HWinfo64 data.

The daily OC is about 1c cooler in the benchmarks and pulls about about 7watts more package power than stock. The daily OC is around 12 FPS faster in the CPU test and almost 7fps fast in VR Test 2. So nothing huge, but it does run cooler and has a few more FPS...

2023-01-01 16:47:42 - Il-2
Frames: 9137 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 152.283 - Min: 133 - Max: 197 (OC) CPU Test

2023-01-01 16:55:03 - Il-2
Frames: 5154 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 85.900 - Min: 76 - Max: 91 (OC) VR Test 2

2023-01-01 17:17:28 - Il-2
Frames: 8373 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 139.550 - Min: 117 - Max: 187 (Stock) CPU Test

2023-01-01 17:26:46 - Il-2
Frames: 4748 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 79.133 - Min: 62 - Max: 91 (Stock) VR Test 2

Happy New Year to all of you!

i am about to buy a new mobo plus cpu system because i am cpu bottlenecked since i already own a 3090 ti card. So my goal it with my new cpu and mobo plus memory sticks to achieve 150 fps while running synvander 1080 cpu benchmark.

So my question is this : Is that possible to achieve 150 fps with a ddr4 memory Z690 mobo and intel 12900k cpu or should i go for ddr5 memory mobo and ddr5 sticks?

I am asking that because i already own two fast ddr4 gskill F4-3200C14D-16GVR RIPJAWS memory sticks with 3200 mhz 14-14-14-32 timing , I only play IL2 with my G2 so no need for more than 16 GB RAM which are enough for IL2. I see that those DDR5 ram sticks are very expensive with high latency times. So those high transfer rate values that ddr5 memory sticks have plus ddr5 mobo high memory transfer rates, are necessary for achieving 150 fps minimum during Synvander 1080 cpu benchmark?

Checking performance chart https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gJmnz_nVxI6_dG_UYNCCpZVK2-f8NBy-y1gia77Hu_k/edit#gid=1266758920

i see that in line No 67 a guy named "FoxbatRU" has already achieved to get 152 fps with i9-12900k cpu and DDR4 3860 MHZ 17-17-17-34 memory sticks.

So what do you think?

On 6/5/2022 at 4:57 PM, FoxbatRU said:

I have not played for a long time, but now I tried to test the processor.

CPU test

4.705c

Frames: 8937 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 148.950 - Min: 126 - Max: 198

4.701b
Frames: 9095 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 151.583 - Min: 137 - Max: 199

?‍♂️

Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4

CPU: 12900K
CPU Freq:    5.2 GHz
L3 cache:     30 Mb
Cores:     8
Threads: 16 (turned off E-cores )
RAM type: DDR4
RAM size:       16 GB (2x8)
NB Freq:    4164 MHz
RAM Freq:    3860 MHz
RAM Latency: 17-17-17-34
GPU: RTX 3080

OS:                    Windows 10 (x64, 21H2)

IL2:                   4.705c

CPU Cooling:   NZXT Kraken X73

Edited January 2, 2023 by dgiatr

January 2, 2023

3 hours ago, dgiatr said:

i am about to buy a new mobo plus cpu system because i am cpu bottlenecked since i already own a 3090 ti card. So my goal it with my new cpu and mobo plus memory sticks to achieve 150 fps while running synvander 1080 cpu benchmark.

So my question is this : Is that possible to achieve 150 fps with a ddr4 memory Z690 mobo and intel 12900k cpu or should i go for ddr5 memory mobo and ddr5 sticks?

I am asking that because i already own two fast ddr4 gskill F4-3200C14D-16GVR RIPJAWS memory sticks with 3200 mhz 14-14-14-32 timing , I only play IL2 with my G2 so no need for more than 16 GB RAM which are enough for IL2. I see that those DDR5 ram sticks are very expensive with high latency times. So those high transfer rate values that ddr5 memory sticks have plus ddr5 mobo high memory transfer rates, are necessary for achieving 150 fps minimum during Synvander 1080 cpu benchmark?

Checking performance chart https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gJmnz_nVxI6_dG_UYNCCpZVK2-f8NBy-y1gia77Hu_k/edit#gid=1266758920

i see that in line No 67 a guy named "FoxbatRU" has already achieved to get 152 fps with i9-12900k cpu and DDR4 3860 MHZ 17-17-17-34 memory sticks.

So what do you think?

My recommendation would be a 13700K or 13600K processor, and either a Z790-D4 or Z690-D4 motherboard. Raptorlake can obtain/sustain higher frequencies than Alderlake and the 13700K is the same price as a 12900K. Or you can save 100 bucks with the 13600K. I'm using a cheap Asus Prime 790-P mobo, and its working great for me and get 150+ FPS on the settings I have above. I prefer the Asus bios as there is a lot of options available to configure. I believe that upgrading to DDR5 might be a negligible gain at this time.

January 2, 2023

5 hours ago, dburne said:

AMD is known for being behind the curve for their GPU's in VR.

Known by whom? According to what source(s)?

Again, I have no problem with opinions. Everyone has them. I spent a good part of my adult life defending your right to express them (as did my wife, her Dad, my Dad, my brother, her brother...I think you get the idea).

But saying "AMD is known for being behind the curve..." It doesn't sound like an opinion, it sounds like it's being presented as factual ("known" is a funny word like that).

Even though you go on to say it's your opinion, that statement reads as if it's fact.

Which, of course, it isn't. For every internet opinion that says AMD sucks, I can find 10 that say AMD is great. Nature of the internet and people's opinions. Doesn't make any of it factual.

BTW I'm an Nvidia user, and always have been, FWIW. I'm not some AMD fanboy. That said, I am also a formally trained and experienced computerized systems maintenance professional, and I strongly prefer to keep facts and opinions clearly distinguished. I've been in the PC business since before it *was* the PC business, and I do realize AMD has brought a lot of hate on themselves, years ago - but it's not really like that now.

And I do see a lot of people who have no first hand experience simply going off other opinions or repeating what Steve at Gamer'sNexus said, or whatever...but often, not a lot of actual fact.

I hope this makes sense, and mean no disrespect. Just trying - for the benefit of the reader, as it were - to distinguish fact from...everything else.

5 hours ago, 102nd-YU-cmirko said:

would be really nice if we had a test of comparable GPU's (nvidia&amd&intel) on the same mobo/cpu combination - from my personal experience, with 5700XT and HP G2 (very similar results to 1080ti in online gameplay), and 6900XT plus Pico4 (with Virtual Desktop produces results similar to vanilla 3080)

While I can't test every combination, I have been doing some testing and I'm working toward publishing results to show exactly what you're describing: Same person, same platform (MB/CPU/RAM...), everything same but different GPU.

Obviously there are constraints - I cannot afford to buy cutting edge hardware just to test it...but I do have a number of GPUs (perhaps 20 or so) from the Nvidia and AMD range...only real issues are the time it takes, and the fact that I'm not a fan of changing from Nvidia to AMD on the same platform; it's not like just swapping a GPU out

But I do intend to do *some of* what you're talking about. I think it will help illustrate there are some issues with this "benchmark" that are causing people to have (and spread) opinions about performance that can be *very* misleading, IMHO.

January 2, 2023

He may be referring to this review..

https://babeltechreviews.com/hellhound-rx-7900-xtx-vs-rtx-4080-50-games-vr/

January 2, 2023

@ chiliwili69

I am using this benchmark as instructed and working toward presenting some conclusions but I had a question, if you please:

How is the load for CPU and GPU monitored and recorded? I've looked over the instructions and the spreadsheet but don't seem to find these details anywhere, nor do I see any capacity for actually collecting them.

Can you tell me what I'm missing? Thanks.

PS: Also, I was looking at the sheet tab GainMap to help determine which settings would have what effect; I noticed up top it says "Remagen 4.003" - is this data still valid for the other test (SYN_Vander)?

Edited January 2, 2023 by NoBreaks

January 2, 2023

41 minutes ago, DBCOOPER011 said:

He may be referring to this review..

https://babeltechreviews.com/hellhound-rx-7900-xtx-vs-rtx-4080-50-games-vr/

Ah, excellent - an actual link! Thank you.

Having that reference makes it crystal clear where the idea comes from, thus allowing the reader to make a more informed decision about what's being presented. There appears to be a good deal of testing in that review, and it would *seem* to warrant at least some consideration.

Now that there is an actual reference, let's look at something closely...here's a quote from that review:

One major issue although affecting relatively few gamers is poor VR RX 7900 XTX performance compared with the RTX 4080. It’s going to need some attention from AMD’s driver team before we can recommend the RX 7900 XTX for the best VR gaming.

It says "affecting relatively few gamers" ...so, it doesn't seem appropriate to base our entire opinion on what one review says about 'relatively few gamers'...at least to me. I don't know if this really proves "AMD sucks compared to Nvidia for VR" lol

In fact it even goes on to say that more attention from AMD's driver team is needed...these days, it's not at all uncommon for hardware to ship with immature drivers...everything (including Nvidia and my stupid TV for that matter) is *constantly* being updated. So to be more accurate, we might say (for example) "AMD might not be as good as Nvidia for VR right now, but then the product's just been released and driver updates are all but certain, at which point AMD might actually be even better than Nvidia."

And, incidentally, I'm not sure I can agree with the idea of generalizing "all AMD sucks for VR" based on a review that's only covering the very latest GPU from AMD - if that is the actual source; we don't know since no sources have been given. That's among the problems with not giving sources.

And the biggest problem with not giving sources, of course, is that a reader can't make an informed decision when there's nothing for them to actually consider (except opinion, that is).

Edited January 2, 2023 by NoBreaks

January 2, 2023

55 minutes ago, NoBreaks said:

While I can't test every combination, I have been doing some testing and I'm working toward publishing results to show exactly what you're describing: Same person, same platform (MB/CPU/RAM...), everything same but different GPU.

Obviously there are constraints - I cannot afford to buy cutting edge hardware just to test it...but I do have a number of GPUs (perhaps 20 or so) from the Nvidia and AMD range...only real issues are the time it takes, and the fact that I'm not a fan of changing from Nvidia to AMD on the same platform; it's not like just swapping a GPU out

But I do intend to do *some of* what you're talking about. I think it will help illustrate there are some issues with this "benchmark" that are causing people to have (and spread) opinions about performance that can be *very* misleading, IMHO.

if you are planning to do a comparative GPU test on the same mbo+cpu combination, please think of including a single run of a "real world GPU setup scenario" and include it in results

OCAT is a good tool to record frametimes of all tests and MSI Afterburner could be used if you want to record specific CPU and GPU loads....

January 2, 2023

5 minutes ago, 102nd-YU-cmirko said:

if you are planning to do a comparative GPU test on the same mbo+cpu combination, please think of including a single run of a "real world GPU setup scenario" and include it in results

OCAT is a good tool to record frametimes of all tests and MSI Afterburner could be used if you want to record specific CPU and GPU loads....

I certainly appreciate the suggestions. I pretty much have methods for testing that I'm familiar with and which work, but always open to ideas I can use.

Can you tell me more about what you mean by "real world GPU setup" please? I actually think I understand what you mean, but rather than assume I prefer to ask for clarification. If you have suggestions for what "real world" values should be, I'm happy to consider it. (And again, I think I understand what you're getting at - and I agree, if it's what I think). Please elaborate.

January 2, 2023

exactly as you thought, I think it's a valid option to test specific CPU and GPU loads as Chilliwili has been doing for years now while collecting results - and your own tests should do at least 4k and VR tests as per Chilliwilli's instruction - so as to be comparable to current results in the thread and for the sheet that is maintained.

I also think that a realistic load on GPU (how would you fly a campaign or an online mission with Your eye candy settings) will better show driver efficiency if you record GPU loads in those tests. This is how I test my Pico4 lately for virtual desktop updates - same exact settings as I fly online

January 2, 2023

15 hours ago, DBCOOPER011 said:

The daily OC is about 1c cooler in the benchmarks and pulls about about 7watts more package power than stock. The daily OC is around 12 FPS faster in the CPU test and almost 7fps fast in VR Test 2. So nothing huge, but it does run cooler and has a few more FPS.

Thank you for this test. I see you changed to an ASUS Mobo, did you used your 4090 for this?.

It gives a good indication about the gain one should expect for dense scenarios.

January 2, 2023

4 minutes ago, 102nd-YU-cmirko said:

exactly as you thought, I think it's a valid option to test specific CPU and GPU loads as Chilliwili has been doing for years now while collecting results - and your own tests should do at least 4k and VR tests as per Chilliwilli's instruction - so as to be comparable to current results in the thread and for the sheet that is maintained.

I also think that a realistic load on GPU (how would you fly a campaign or an online mission with Your eye candy settings) will better show driver efficiency if you record GPU loads in those tests. This is how I test my Pico4 lately for virtual desktop updates - same exact settings as I fly online

As I mentioned earlier, I don't do VR so I wouldn't really be able to test that. The thread title mentions both 'monitor and VR' so I'm under the impression we're not excluding folks who only use monitors.

As for CPU GPU loads...maybe I have misunderstood you, but I don't see these load figures on the sheet, and there's no mention in the instructions about monitoring them - I know/have used various utils including AfterBurner to do this, but it doesn't appear as if any of the test results include load figures. This is why I've asked chiliwili69 for his input, as it's his benchmark/sheet.

January 2, 2023

12 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

Thank you for this test. I see you changed to an ASUS Mobo, did you used your 4090 for this?.

It gives a good indication about the gain one should expect for dense scenarios.

Yes, 4090 with default settings and Win11 balanced power plan..

January 2, 2023

17 hours ago, NoBreaks said:

If I may ask, what are you basing this on? It would seem apparent that you'd likely never own an AMD GPU...so it seems safe that we can rule out first-hand experience.

For IL-2, at least, there's a documented history of problems with AMD cards, due in part to the game developers mostly focusing on NVIDIA cards for their testing. They do eventually fix the bugs and get IL2 to play nice with AMD cards, but (in the past at least) there have been problems with this particular game. That's not really anything against the AMD cards, more a reality of a small development team and a limited set of test hardware.

It would be great if we can have a real alternative to NVIDIA for IL2 in VR. I'll just be waiting for other people to get it working first ?

January 2, 2023

3 hours ago, DBCOOPER011 said:

My recommendation would be a 13700K or 13600K processor

Here I would not go to the 13600K, if budget allow. In all previous tests across the Intel generations the i5 were allways below the i7 and i9.

I think the caches sizes matter for IL-2, specially in VR. I could go to the table to find examples and this is what it is in my mind if someone ask me.

And if budget allows, I would go for the i9 for the same reason, look at cache sizes and higher stock turbo:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-13700KF&id=5061

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i9-13900KF&id=5055

The SingleThreaded number was quite well correlated with the IL-2 VR performance (if GPU is not a constraint).

January 2, 2023

1 hour ago, NoBreaks said:

I think it will help illustrate there are some issues with this "benchmark" that are causing people to have (and spread) opinions about performance that can be *very* misleading, IMHO.

I think before taking a steaming dump on the "benchmark" it would be helpful for you to understand the context. For years, there was no such benchmark. The developers of the game have not seen fit to create an in-game benchmark, so Vander and Chili have gone ahead and tried to create one. Even with all its warts, it's much better than the voodoo / placebo / opinion that was sloshing around before.

No credible review outlet I know of would include a game in their benchmark suite unless they could get reproducible numbers out of it. The current "benchmark" may fall short of that, in some respects, but absent an actual built-in benchmark it's the best we've got, and it has raised the bar in terms of discussing hardware and comparing results.

I know you're trying to help, but please understand the context and have a little respect for what the folks are doing here with their efforts.

January 2, 2023

2 hours ago, NoBreaks said:

I do have a number of GPUs (perhaps 20 or so) from the Nvidia and AMD range.

Hey, this is great! if you can test those cards with IL-2 in monitor. And also in VR?

Unfortunately IL-2 is not included is most of the public tests neither in monitor or VR.

January 2, 2023

11 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

I think before taking a steaming dump on the "benchmark" it would be helpful for you to understand the context. For years, there was no such benchmark. The developers of the game have not seen fit to create an in-game benchmark, so Vander and Chili have gone ahead and tried to create one. Even with all its warts, it's much better than the voodoo / placebo / opinion that was sloshing around before.

No credible review outlet I know of would include a game in their benchmark suite unless they could get reproducible numbers out of it. The current "benchmark" may fall short of that, in some respects, but absent an actual built-in benchmark it's the best we've got, and it has raised the bar in terms of discussing hardware and comparing results.

I know you're trying to help, but please understand the context and have a little respect for what the folks are doing here with their efforts.

Hold on a sec...who 'took a steaming dump"?

I am making effort, right here, to "understand the context". That doesn't mean I have to go along with everything I see - and just because it's been here for a long time doesn't make anything any more valid.

All I said was that I feel - in my opinion - that some people have gotten misleading impressions based on these tests. And there are specific examples, right here in this thread. For example, earlier it was stated that the 5700XT and 6900XT were about the same based on this test, where I can assure you that, outside this test that's absolute balderdash. And I *do* own and am testing both cards.

The problem, as I explained earlier (you know - context) is that people who don't know any better will read this stuff, and they might not realize (as I do) that some of it is very misguided.

I'm sure no one wants to mislead anyone intentionally so, in context, as it were, let's just take the test for what it is (the good and not so good). We're not going to improve on anything by personal attacks like "taking a steaming dump".

Edited January 2, 2023 by NoBreaks

January 2, 2023

20 minutes ago, NoBreaks said:

As I mentioned earlier, I don't do VR so I wouldn't really be able to test that. The thread title mentions both 'monitor and VR' so I'm under the impression we're not excluding folks who only use monitors.

As for CPU GPU loads...maybe I have misunderstood you, but I don't see these load figures on the sheet, and there's no mention in the instructions about monitoring them - I know/have used various utils including AfterBurner to do this, but it doesn't appear as if any of the test results include load figures. This is why I've asked chiliwili69 for his input, as it's his benchmark/sheet.

I'm not an arbiter on this public forum, if you feel like testing 2k and 4k resolutions across a different range of cards your tests will be useful.

it's just that for 4k resolution any 1080ti/5700xt will do GPU power wise with a modern (read last three generations at least) CPU in offline or online gameplay, real issues come from huge amount of pixels pushed for VR gameplay....

January 2, 2023

3 minutes ago, NoBreaks said:

I'm sure no one wants to mislead anyone intentionally so, in context, as it were, let's just take the test for what it is (the good and not so good). We're not going to improve on anything by personal attacks like "taking a steaming dump".

I get that you're trying to be constructive, I just think your tone is off. I can go back and pull out examples, but if you don't think your tone is off then there's no use me arguing it. It's great that you're trying to help, but phrases like "very misguided" are, in my opinion, excessively negative. You should see some of the voodoo certain VR users spout when it comes to performance. At least this thing is producing numbers that are (more or less) repeatable on the same rig with the same settings.

Anyhow, you do you, Chili doesn't seem to have taken offence to your tone, so I'll keep out of it.

January 2, 2023

2 hours ago, NoBreaks said:

How is the load for CPU and GPU monitored and recorded?

The CPU load reported by most of the tools is meaningless. Since it is averaging the load of all core, and what it is more important, the heavy threads of IL-2 (there one or two which are the heavy threads) are jumping from core to core, so there is no way to measure how bottlenecked in the CPU in monitor.

For VR, we have the CPU frametimes reported by fpsVR (but it is a paid app) and I wanted to provide a basic free way to test IL-2 for everyone.

The GPU load is much easier, but it requires dedicated tools like MSI afterburner (free) or fpsVR or other.

I have been using MSI afterburner to measure GPU load and other variables while runing IL-2:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/66910-how-fxaa-or-msaa-affects-to-cpugpu-loads/

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/65414-vram-used-by-il-2-in-vr/

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/58555-how-much-ram-do-you-need-for-il-2-vr-and-monitor/

In principle there is no need to report and record the GPU load when running the test since in the CPU test the GPU should not be bottlenecked and in the GPU test the CPU shold not be bottlenecked. But with the latest 4090 cards we saw that even in the GPU test (4K) the CPU could became the bottleneck.

January 2, 2023

3 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

I get that you're trying to be constructive, I just think your tone is off. I can go back and pull out examples, but if you don't think your tone is off then there's no use me arguing it. It's great that you're trying to help, but phrases like "very misguided" are, in my opinion, excessively negative. You should see some of the voodoo certain VR users spout when it comes to performance. At least this thing is producing numbers that are (more or less) repeatable on the same rig with the same settings.

Anyhow, you do you, Chili doesn't seem to have taken offence to your tone, so I'll keep out of it.

Well, if claiming that a 5700XT and a 6900XT perform about the same isn't very misguided, I can't imagine what is...

And I'd say there are most likely a lot of 6900XT owners out there who would agree with me. For what it's worth.

The point (in this example) is that the only reason the 5700XT and 6900XT come off as looking about the same is because of how the test is set up and the way the sim works, not because of anything else.

Yet, someone clearly wound up misguided because of it. There is specific discussion, outside the scope of this benchmark, about what AMD did wrong and/or got right with the latest gen...all based on a half-dozen records in this test (and some of those appear to be flawed).

The thing is, *I* understand how the test works and what it's designed to do (or I think so). But not everyone does, and I don't find any mention that "Hey, this is meant to do (some specific thing), and not represent (other stuff) - please don't misunderstand, and please don't make recommendations etc unless you mention this test isn't meant for that".

And - trust me - there are ***far*** more people reading this that will misunderstand and walk away with the wrong idea - bashing AMD GPUs all the way lol.

January 2, 2023

I think you have grossly underestimated il2 public - that's just my feeling though and impression from your latest posts

also, I feel like the average PC machine on il2 public forums is light months ahead of average steam user or an average gamer (this feeling comes from real world impressions of mine :))

January 2, 2023

2 hours ago, NoBreaks said:

Also, I was looking at the sheet tab GainMap to help determine which settings would have what effect; I noticed up top it says "Remagen 4.003" - is this data still valid for the other test (SYN_Vander)?

All this started one day that I was asking how we could design a test for IL-2 initially for VR since VR was requiring better hardware and we couild make wiser choices and peer to peer comparisons.

There has been 5 benchmarks since 2017:

1.- Balapan: 1 minute in BOS. Recorded track valid for IL-2 versions 2.XXX

2.- Samuel: 3 minute in BOS. Recorded track valid for IL-2 version 3.001 to 3.004

3.- Chili: 2 minute in BOK. Recorded track valid for IL-2 version 3.005 to 3.010

They has been reported in this thread:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/29322-measuring-rig-performance-common-baseline-for-il-2-v3010/

4.- Remagen: 3 minute in BOBP. Recorded track valid for IL-2 version 4.002 to 4.005

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/56485-benchmark-for-cpuram-performance-remagen-4002-to-4005/

And finally , and thanks to SYN_Vander, who created that dense mission used today :

5.- SYN_Vander: 1 minute in Velikie Luki (free map). It is a mission which theoretically will be valid for any future IL-2 version

So, that GainMap was created with the Remagen test (it contain a variety of things, cabin view, bullets, smoke, fire, low fly, remagen city, etc) and since then a number of fundamental things has changed like Clouds, referred rendering, sky-dome, damage model, etc. So gain could not be the same.

That GainMap was reported in this link:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/57586-performance-impact-of-every-graphics-option/

I took a good amount of time to make all those runs and put those results in a way easy to read.

Ideally we could repeat that work but using the SYN_Vander and current release in a non GPU limited PC.

January 2, 2023

1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

At least this thing is producing numbers that are (more or less) repeatable on the same rig with the same settings.

Exactly this. We just wanted something repeatable that everyone can test.

But no offence taken. We are just a group of people who share a passion for planes, and IL-2 bring us the opportunity to fly them as we were inside them.

I think all come from a missunderstading about the 5700XT and 6900XT cards. And how this SYN_Vander test has been designed.

As you all know there are 5 tests in the instructions (as said in first post):

There are two test for monitor and three for VR:
1. CPU test in monitor: Run in 1920x1080 (FullHD) resolution. Here the bottleneck should be the CPU. (GPU load should be always well below 100%)
2. GPU test in 4K monitor: Run in 3840x2160 (4K) resolution. Here the bottleneck should be the GPU.
3. CPU&GPU&VR-device test in VR: Settings for 9.54 Million pixels at 90Hz. There are many factor affecting VR performance (device, software ecosystem, FOVs, panel refresh rate, etc)

4. CPU&GPU&VR-device test in VR: Settings for 19.5 Million pixels at 90Hz.

5. CPU&GPU&VR-device test in VR: Settings for 19.5 Million pixels at 90Hz with Extreme clouds and MSAAx8.

The CPU test is trying to use settings which minimize the GPU load (low resolution, low clouds, no MSAA) and maximize the CPU load. So, we can run a test to exclusively test and compare CPUs, which are very important for VR.

So, it is absolutely normal that 5700XT and 6900XT give the same results in the CPU test, in the same way that 1080Ti give the same results than a 3080 in the CPU test.

The GPU test is exactly the opposite. It tries to maximize the load to the GPU (4K, Extreme clouds, 8xMSAA) and minimize the load to the CPU.

So in this GPU test, the CPU should not be a constraint in any case. The problem is that if you test a weak CPU (for example a Ryzen 3700X or a i7-4970K) with a top GPU like a 4080 or 4090, then the CPU constrain the test and it is not valid. I mark this in red or orange when this happen.

The VR tests are a bit more complex and more factors influence the results (FOV, VR software, refresh rate, compression).

But what we have observed along these years is that the AMDs cards tested with the SYN_VAnder test were giving issues in this way:

CPU test: For the same CPU, they gave lower fps, regardeless of the card

GPU test: Lower fps that similar NVIDIA cards (according to GPU public passmark)

VR test: Lower fps that similar NVIDIA cards (according to GPU public passmark)

In fact, nobody has demostrated yet that an AMD card (5XXX, 6XXX) is able to perform better than a equivalent NVIDIA card in IL-2 (monitor or VR).

We all would love to have another option for GPUs, but currently the safe bet is NVIDIA. Maybe you can test more the new AMD cards and compare them with the old ones.

January 2, 2023

2 hours ago, Alonzo said:

It would be great if we can have a real alternative to NVIDIA for IL2 in VR. I'll just be waiting for other people to get it working first ?

This.

This game sadly doesn't work as well with comparable AMD GPUs. Believe me...I wish it wasn't so @NoBreaks as I would love to go for the 7900 XTX to replace my 3080, but thje reality is I would spend $1,000 for equal or worse VR performance and that has nothing to do with AMD's hardware.

Edited January 2, 2023 by drewm3i-VR

January 2, 2023

6 hours ago, NoBreaks said:

Known by whom? According to what source(s)?

Again, I have no problem with opinions.

Apparently you do.

How bout we agree to disagree this does not need any further discussion imho.

No one is being forced to heed my advice.

January 2, 2023

2 minutes ago, dburne said:

Apparently you do.

How bout we agree to disagree this does not need any further discussion imho.

No one is being forced to heed my advice.

No, I don't. I have a problem with opinions which are being represented as fact.

January 2, 2023

2 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

This.

This game sadly doesn't work as well with comparable AMD GPUs. Believe me...I wish it wasn't so @NoBreaks as I would love to go for the 7900 XTX to replace my 3080, but thje reality is I would spend $1,000 for equal or worse VR performance and that has nothing to do with AMD's hardware.

The problem is AMD does not put the effort into their drivers for VR that Nvidia does.

Heck even Varjo will not even write a driver for AMD with their expensive headsets due to this, only Nvidia is supported.

And yes that is a fact.

Edited January 2, 2023 by dburne

January 2, 2023

Folks I would just like to point out that I haven't said **anything** about Nvidia vs AMD. Somehow it seems to have been contorted into that and I have no idea how.

In fact, the only specific example I've actually cited concerns two AMD cards.

I haven't even got around to AMD vs Nvidia - I even said earlier I was hesitant because it involves more than simply swapping out a GPU. You start with AMD vs Nvidia, and (among other issues) now you have to consider what "equivalent GPU" means (and in whose opinion), when every test and study I've ever seen acknowledges that it really depends on the game, settings, specifics of the test, etc.

I haven't said *at all* that AMD is better than Nvidia. Again, I don't even know where that came from.

January 2, 2023

3 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Exactly this. We just wanted something repeatable that everyone can test.

But no offence taken. We are just a group of people who share a passion for planes, and IL-2 bring us the opportunity to fly them as we were inside them.

I think all come from a missunderstading about the 5700XT and 6900XT cards. And how this SYN_Vander test has been designed.

As you all know there are 5 tests in the instructions (as said in first post):

There are two test for monitor and three for VR:
1. CPU test in monitor: Run in 1920x1080 (FullHD) resolution. Here the bottleneck should be the CPU. (GPU load should be always well below 100%)
2. GPU test in 4K monitor: Run in 3840x2160 (4K) resolution. Here the bottleneck should be the GPU.
3. CPU&GPU&VR-device test in VR: Settings for 9.54 Million pixels at 90Hz. There are many factor affecting VR performance (device, software ecosystem, FOVs, panel refresh rate, etc)

4. CPU&GPU&VR-device test in VR: Settings for 19.5 Million pixels at 90Hz.

5. CPU&GPU&VR-device test in VR: Settings for 19.5 Million pixels at 90Hz with Extreme clouds and MSAAx8.

The CPU test is trying to use settings which minimize the GPU load (low resolution, low clouds, no MSAA) and maximize the CPU load. So, we can run a test to exclusively test and compare CPUs, which are very important for VR.

So, it is absolutely normal that 5700XT and 6900XT give the same results in the CPU test, in the same way that 1080Ti give the same results than a 3080 in the CPU test.

The GPU test is exactly the opposite. It tries to maximize the load to the GPU (4K, Extreme clouds, 8xMSAA) and minimize the load to the CPU.

So in this GPU test, the CPU should not be a constraint in any case. The problem is that if you test a weak CPU (for example a Ryzen 3700X or a i7-4970K) with a top GPU like a 4080 or 4090, then the CPU constrain the test and it is not valid. I mark this in red or orange when this happen.

The VR tests are a bit more complex and more factors influence the results (FOV, VR software, refresh rate, compression).

But what we have observed along these years is that the AMDs cards tested with the SYN_VAnder test were giving issues in this way:

CPU test: For the same CPU, they gave lower fps, regardeless of the card

GPU test: Lower fps that similar NVIDIA cards (according to GPU public passmark)

VR test: Lower fps that similar NVIDIA cards (according to GPU public passmark)

In fact, nobody has demostrated yet that an AMD card (5XXX, 6XXX) is able to perform better than a equivalent NVIDIA card in IL-2 (monitor or VR).

We all would love to have another option for GPUs, but currently the safe bet is NVIDIA. Maybe you can test more the new AMD cards and compare them with the old ones.

It may not seem so (for which I apologize) but I do understand and appreciate the meaning of the test, as well as the work that went into it. I'm awfully sorry that some people here have taken what I'm saying the wrong way...there is nothing intended as disrespectful or "taking a steaming dump". I don't really think I did that, but I am sorry if it looks that way.

But, yes, I do find there are misunderstandings (not just one) based on this test. I don't look at it as a fault of the test necessarily; rather, an opportunity to overcome the misunderstandings people seem to have concerning the results.

It happens that this sim shows terrible CPU utilization *at times* (i.e., not always). This issue can (and definitely does) cause even a *very* capable GPU to run like total cr*p (for lack of a better way to put it). Has nothing to do with the benchmark, directly, and never mind comparing two cards...I'm just talking about the effect one card here.

But (and this is crucial) that particular idiosyncrasy of this sim will absolutely cause two completely different cards to perform at the same level. I've seen it with Nvidia cards, so it's not just AMD. (I had hoped to show proof, soon as I can stop having to defend my every statement to four different people, every time I post.)

Anyhow, the problem that *does* involve the benchmark (I **think**) is that it creates the same set of conditions that is already proven to cause the issue described above, where two very different GPUs will perform about the same. And *this* is more of an issue in the sim itself, not with the GPUs (whether AMD or Nvidia). To me, the benchmark is producing results that say more about this behavior in the sim than it says about the different hardware.

And it's not just that one instance, to be clear. I've seen other stuff in the short time I've been here that suggests to me that people are misinterpreting the benchmark result.

Maybe that's the issue: I should specify the problem is with people misinterpreting the result, and that it isn't necessarily a problem with the benchmark itself. Clearly I've stepped on some toes here. I just feel that there might be some effort to prevent the misinterpretations.

No one can say that only people who post (or are even members) on this forum are the only ones reading. So I'm not underestimating anything. I'm saying that there are false statements being made based entirely on the results from the benchmark, and it could mislead others - which no one should really want to happen.

On that note...shouldn't the *accuracy* of any test result be more important than worrying about politics, or whose toes got stepped on?

I haven't tested Nvidia vs AMD, I generally prefer to avoid that particular fight, because that's usually what it turns into. As I mentioned, it means changing more than just swapping out a GPU to test...plus, you have to consider what "equivalent" GPUs even means -

And besides that, it already appears the that the benchmark could cause a 5700Xt to run like an 6900XT...so, what if the same thing happens with an Nvidia vs AMD test?

Are we going to conclude my 3090 is 'about the same' as a 1080 without question? Because I can show you that it does happen in this sim in certain circumstances.

Bottom line: It's already happened (at least once; actually more) that a person factually looked at the test results as proof of their own absolutely wrong idea concerning AMD hardware (actual published specs confirm this). If it happened once, it can happen any number of times. So, it is factual that these test results have actually been misinterpreted - whether that's a fault of the test or not is another matter, I suppose. But is definitely what happened.

3 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

This.

This game sadly doesn't work as well with comparable AMD GPUs. Believe me...I wish it wasn't so @NoBreaks as I would love to go for the 7900 XTX to replace my 3080, but thje reality is I would spend $1,000 for equal or worse VR performance and that has nothing to do with AMD's hardware.

I agree completely - or I think I do. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think we agree.

Again, I don't know where anyone got the idea I said AMD GPUs work as well as comparable Nvidia GPUs. I didn't say that, and I'm not even arguing that point (although it might be worth more consideration).

Edited January 2, 2023 by NoBreaks

January 2, 2023

37 minutes ago, NoBreaks said:

Folks I would just like to point out that I haven't said **anything** about Nvidia vs AMD. Somehow it seems to have been contorted into that and I have no idea how.

In fact, the only specific example I've actually cited concerns two AMD cards.

I haven't even got around to AMD vs Nvidia - I even said earlier I was hesitant because it involves more than simply swapping out a GPU. You start with AMD vs Nvidia, and (among other issues) now you have to consider what "equivalent GPU" means (and in whose opinion), when every test and study I've ever seen acknowledges that it really depends on the game, settings, specifics of the test, etc.

I haven't said *at all* that AMD is better than Nvidia. Again, I don't even know where that came from.

I don’t think anyone’s saying you did. But most of us here have multiple years into VR (and not only in IL-2) and have had our searching and lurking and head scratching done for quite some time before jumping into VR. We are trying to share that knowledge with you. We can’t pull all the threads, user experiences shared, and all the reviews for you but there is a common understanding that niche games like IL-2, iRacing, ACC does not really play well with AMD cards in VR. So perhaps you should do a bit more research on your own. With the release of 7000 series GPUs, you are definitely to find quite a bit of reviews now.

Some relate the performance difference to AMD cards’ architecture not scaling up well as pixels being pushed increases (as is the case for VR), some relate this to immature driver development on AMD’s part, and some relate it to unoptimized settings since the user base is much smaller compared to nvidia. It’s most probably a combination of all.

most of us are tired of nvidia’s bullying of the market, of the card manufacturers, and end users as they kept pushing prices up and up and up. Unfortunately, when I’m spending over a $1k on a possible new graphics card, I will go with the known quantity instead of losing time on testing and retesting and the having to return it for an nvidia card as mush as I dislike helping nvidia with their bottom line.

Edited January 2, 2023 by kissTheSky

January 3, 2023

14 minutes ago, kissTheSky said:

I don’t think anyone’s saying you did. But most of us here have multiple years into VR (and not only in IL-2) and have had our searching and lurking and head scratching done for quite some time before jumping into VR. We are trying to share that knowledge with you. We can’t pull all the threads, user experiences shared, and all the reviews for you but there is a common understanding that niche games like IL-2, iRacing, ACC does not really play well with AMD cards in VR. So perhaps you should do a bit more research on your own. With the release of 7000 series GPUs, you are definitely to find quite a bit of reviews now.

Some relate the performance difference to AMD cards’ architecture not scaling up well as pixels being pushed increases (as is the case for VR), some relate this to immature driver development on AMD’s part, and some relate it to unoptimized settings since the user base is much smaller compared to nvidia. It’s most probably a combination of all.

most of us are tired of nvidia’s bullying of the market, of the card manufacturers, and end users as they kept pushing prices up and up and up. Unfortunately, when I’m spending over a $1k on a possible new graphics card, I will go with the known quantity instead of losing time on testing and retesting and the having to return it for an nvidia card as mush as I dislike helping nvidia with their bottom line.

Hey, I hear ya...but please do consider that, not only am I not interested in VR, I'm also not asking anyone to do any research for me.

In fact, the single factual issue I've cited so far was discovered entirely by my own research. ICYMI I've been doing this 40+ years myself, and I'm not unaware of how this stuff works - I build 10-20 systems a year (in addition to family and friends), almost all of which are for gamers. Just not VR, but as I've said several times in this thread: The thread title is about performance in "monitor and VR", not just VR.

I'm no more a fan of Nvidia's BS than of AMDs. I've pretty much stuck with Nvidia GPUs (well, after my Matrox and 3DFx cards) but I happen to own 20 or so examples of both Nvidia and AMD GPUs. Most people don't have that 'depth of field'. I just recently started getting into this sim (can't tell you how welcome all this makes me feel, but whatever)...working with a friend who's been using the sim for a while but updated to a 3090 right when I did, we discovered somewhat of a problem with CPU utilization. I came here to (you'll love this) research it...and...well, you know.

I haven't said anything about AMD v Nvidia and I have no idea how it even got turned in that. However, 40+ years of training and experience specific to computers has taught me the discipline and importance of accuracy, and I don't play favorites based on politics, who's been here longer or any other immaterial nonsense. I do the math, do the legwork, and let facts speak for themselves.

Edited January 3, 2023 by NoBreaks

January 3, 2023

13 minutes ago, NoBreaks said:

Hey, I hear ya...but please do consider that, not only am I not interested in VR, I'm also not asking anyone to do any research for me.

In fact, the single factual issue I've cited so far was discovered entirely by my own research. ICYMI I've been doing this 40+ years myself, and I'm not unaware of how this stuff works - I build 10-20 systems a year (in addition to family and friends), almost all of which are for gamers. Just not VR, but as I've said several times in this thread: The thread title is about performance in "monitor and VR", not just VR.

I'm no more a fan of Nvidia's BS than of AMDs. I've pretty much stuck with Nvidia GPUs (well, after my Matrox and 3DFx cards) but I happen to own 20 or so examples of both Nvidia and AMD GPUs. Most people don't have that 'depth of field'. I just recently started getting into this sim (can't tell you how welcome all this makes me feel, but whatever)

Were you by chance under a different user name previously? Appears you joined the forums around 10 years ago. Your postings tend to remind me a little of someone that used to post in here. No big deal really was mainly just curious.

January 3, 2023

Please go and re-read @Alonzo’s last post. Perhaps that will help you understand why you believe you’re being “misunderstood”.

I, on the other hand will take a leaf out of @Alonzo’s book and leave it alone.

January 3, 2023

34 minutes ago, kissTheSky said:

Please go and re-read @Alonzo’s last post. Perhaps that will help you understand why you believe you’re being “misunderstood”.

I, on the other hand will take a leaf out of @Alonzo’s book and leave it

If you're referring to the part about "very misguided"...as I already said, if saying a 5700xt is about the same as a 6900xt isn't misguided, I don't know what is.

But I'll explain: the two cards scored basically the same in one part of a 60 second test run. A test run which, by design, is intended to create a CPU bound situation.

This in turn (factually) caused someone to claim it somehow proved their own (inaccurate) ideas about AMD hardware, concluding the 5700xt and 6900xt are about the same.

Again if that's not misguided, I don't know what is. And as before, I bet every 6900xt owner in the world would agree with me. Why? Because they'd have to be stupid otherwise, to pay for a 6900xt and get performance of a 5700xt. And unless you're saying they'd all do that, or that they're just stupid, well...

36 minutes ago, dburne said:

Were you by chance under a different user name previously? Appears you joined the forums around 10 years ago. Your postings tend to remind me a little of someone that used to post in here. No big deal really was mainly just curious.

Nope. And please don't start that. Personal 'ad hominem' attacks have no place in civil discourse. This is a discussion concerning technical matters and I've done my part to stay on topic. Please do likewise.

Edited January 3, 2023 by NoBreaks

January 3, 2023

3 minutes ago, NoBreaks said:

Nope. And please don't start that. Personal 'ad hominem' attacks have no place in civil discourse. This is a discussion concerning technical matters and I've done my part to stay on topic. Please do likewise.

Lol that was a sincere question not an attack of any sort. Why take that as an attack? Yeah you are sounding really familiar.

You ansered the question though fair enough.

Carry on... I will drop out of this one.

Edited January 3, 2023 by dburne

January 3, 2023

3 minutes ago, dburne said:

Lol that was a sincere question not an attack of any sort. Why take that as an attack? Yeah you are sounding really familiar.

You ansered the question though fair enough.

Carry on... I will drop out of this one.

Because you seem very determined to find something wrong with me, rather than discussing on the technical merits. Ad hominem.

SYN_Vander BENCHMARK v6 to measure IL-2 performance in monitor & VR

Recommended Posts

DBCOOPER011

dburne

102nd-YU-cmirko

dgiatr

DBCOOPER011

NoBreaks

DBCOOPER011

NoBreaks

NoBreaks

102nd-YU-cmirko

NoBreaks

102nd-YU-cmirko

chiliwili69

NoBreaks

DBCOOPER011

Alonzo

chiliwili69

Alonzo

chiliwili69

NoBreaks

102nd-YU-cmirko

Alonzo

chiliwili69

NoBreaks

102nd-YU-cmirko

chiliwili69

chiliwili69

354thFG_Drewm3i-VR

dburne

NoBreaks

dburne

NoBreaks

NoBreaks

kissTheSky

NoBreaks

dburne

kissTheSky

NoBreaks

dburne

NoBreaks

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse All

Activity