Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Nutsman
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon, 19. Jul 04, 18:11
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Nutsman » Mon, 9. May 22, 10:30

..... interessting topic :!:
I would say the "Dense Empire" savebench will be the most important for CPUs.
If i catch this right the current Intel platforms for example 12900k or 12700K with DDR5 perform the best way in X4 and push the FPS over 30 in Dense Empire :o
What about the new 5800X3D with the new AMD Cache feature.... it looks to me we not see this impressive boost to go in the same region as Intel.

Any other conclusion about this ?

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Imperial Good » Mon, 9. May 22, 13:01

Nutsman wrote:
Mon, 9. May 22, 10:30
What about the new 5800X3D with the new AMD Cache feature.... it looks to me we not see this impressive boost to go in the same region as Intel.
From what I can tell both trade blows with each other pretty well. 12900k does better in Dense Emp but the 5800X3D does better in Young Gun and Dense Emp/Empty.

I would not recommend people buying AM4 and the 5800X3D new given how AM4 is EoL with AM5 scheduled to be released later this year. If you already have a compatible AM4 motherboard and an older Zen2 or earlier CPU it is by far a fantastic upgrade which is on par with the 12900k at a fraction of the power used and cheaper memory, and possibly even cheaper price. Otherwise if you are buying a new motherboard then going with Intel might be the better long term choice as the platform is both DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 compatible.

If AMD has a Zen4 CPU with anywhere close to as much cache Intel really has to be worried as that will absolutely dominate games like these.

Nutsman
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon, 19. Jul 04, 18:11
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Nutsman » Mon, 9. May 22, 16:44

@Imperial Good
thanks for the hints this makes sense :thumb_up:

IratusAvis
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed, 13. Sep 17, 19:27
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by IratusAvis » Wed, 11. May 22, 09:35

Yesterday I upgraded from Ryzen 3900X & RTX 2070S to Ryzen 5800X3D & RX 6800 XT and noticed a huge performance gain while playing my own savegames (2560x1440). I will try to deliver my scores later. Had not so much time for playing because I had to build my old stuff into my wife's Sims-4-Machine. :mrgreen:

EDIT:

Game: V5.10
CPU: 5800X3D <<<
GPU: 6800 XT (Red Devil)
RAM: 32 GB DDR4-3600 CL16 19-19-39 (DOCP enabled)
Resolution: 2540x1440
Settings: High, no SSAO

DLCs: SV only

Young Gun Empty: 178-185 FPS
Dense Empire: 21-26 FPS
Dense Empire Empty: 114-124 FPS

DLCs: SV, COH, TOA

Young Gun Empty: 167-172 FPS
Dense Empire: 21-26 FPS
Dense Empire Empty: 91-103 FPS
CPU: Ryzen 7 5800X3D - GPU: Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB - RAM: 32 GB DDR4-3600 Kit

lmike
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu, 19. Dec 19, 00:18
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by lmike » Wed, 18. May 22, 00:07

Hi. I have a powerful system also
CPU: 12900K stock
GPU: 6900 XT (Red Devil) + 15% PL in windows tests
RAM: 32 GB DDR5-6200 CL40
OS - Windows 11
All DLCs enabled, v 5.10 beta

This is my results:

Resolution: Windowed 1280x720
Settings: Low preset, no MSAA or upscaling

Dense Empire Empty: first 3 mins about 110-115FPS, then drops to 100-105
Dense Empire: 21-24
Young Gun Empty: 145-147


Resolution: Windowed 3824x2073
Settings: Ultra preset, no MSAA or upscaling

Dense Empire Empty: 100-105, GPU usage ~80%
Dense Empire: 21-24
Young Gun Empty: 145-147

Upd:
I don't liked my results. I thought it is caused by Windows 11 or slow SSD Adata Swordfish 2TB. That's why I tried the same test on Linux and SSD Samsung 970 evo

Windowed borderless 3840x2160
Settings: Low preset, no MSAA or upscaling
All DLCs enabled, v 5.10 beta
OS - Ubuntu 20.04

Dense Empire Empty: 94-105
Dense Empire: 19-25,
Young Gun Empty: 104-117

In best scenario Linux is the same as Windows 11 in terms of perfomance, in worst scenario it is worse.

Somewhy me perfomance much lower that other 12900k or even 5800X3D. Idk why is it so. System is relatively new, 3 month only, fresh installation.

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Imperial Good » Wed, 18. May 22, 15:29

lmike wrote:
Wed, 18. May 22, 00:07
Somewhy me perfomance much lower that other 12900k or even 5800X3D. Idk why is it so. System is relatively new, 3 month only, fresh installation.
It is unlikely to beat the 5800X3D in many tests as I mentioned earlier. The cache on the 5800X3D is just so good for games like X4, factorio, e.t.c. due to all the cache misses. The only down side to the 5800X3D, and why I cannot recommend it for new builds, is that AM4 is EoL as far as better CPUs and memory go and scheduled to be replaced with AM5 by the end of the year. Intel's platform is just a lot more "future proof" right now with DDR5 and PCIe gen5 for GPUs.

The lower performance than other 12900Ks is likely due to not testing like for like. They were tested without Tides of Avarice DLC and each additional DLC reduces performance. Some people have even pointed out that the DLC invalidates one of the tests (empty space is no longer empty).

Any difference outside of like for like testing would be due to differences in memory timing. DDR5 might have higher memory bandwidth but it also generally has worse latency than many of the reasonably priced DDR4 kits currently available. Due to all the cache misses the CPU experiences (why the 5800X3D is good) memory latency has a huge impact on performance as the CPU has to stall while waiting to read from memory. This is also why high core frequencies have little impact on performance, with people reporting +300 MHz core clock OCs having practically no impact on modern CPUs compared with tightening memory timings a very little.

spookywatcher
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu, 11. Apr 19, 20:26

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by spookywatcher » Wed, 18. May 22, 15:48

lmike wrote:
Wed, 18. May 22, 00:07
Hi. I have a powerful system also
CPU: 12900K stock
GPU: 6900 XT (Red Devil) + 15% PL in windows tests
RAM: 32 GB DDR5-6200 CL40
OS - Windows 11
All DLCs enabled, v 5.10 beta

This is my results:

Resolution: Windowed 1280x720
Settings: Low preset, no MSAA or upscaling

Dense Empire Empty: first 3 mins about 110-115FPS, then drops to 100-105
Dense Empire: 21-24
Young Gun Empty: 145-147


Resolution: Windowed 3824x2073
Settings: Ultra preset, no MSAA or upscaling

Dense Empire Empty: 100-105, GPU usage ~80%
Dense Empire: 21-24
Young Gun Empty: 145-147

Upd:
I don't liked my results. I thought it is caused by Windows 11 or slow SSD Adata Swordfish 2TB. That's why I tried the same test on Linux and SSD Samsung 970 evo

Windowed borderless 3840x2160
Settings: Low preset, no MSAA or upscaling
All DLCs enabled, v 5.10 beta
OS - Ubuntu 20.04

Dense Empire Empty: 94-105
Dense Empire: 19-25,
Young Gun Empty: 104-117

In best scenario Linux is the same as Windows 11 in terms of perfomance, in worst scenario it is worse.

Somewhy me perfomance much lower that other 12900k or even 5800X3D. Idk why is it so. System is relatively new, 3 month only, fresh installation.
Those are pretty low scores. I suspect you are running X4 on the E cores. Maybe try disabling them in the bios and try again just off the P cores.

lmike
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu, 19. Dec 19, 00:18
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by lmike » Thu, 19. May 22, 01:29

Retested 12900k
Windows 11, same 720p res, same 5.10 beta

DLCs: SV, COH
Dense Empire Empty test is broken. It spawns inside Heart of Achronomy II

Dense Empire Empty: 108-117
Dense Empire: begins with 27-31, after ~2 min its floating 21-24
Young Gun Empty: 155-157


DLCs: SV
Dense Empire Empty test is broken also

Dense Empire Empty: 108-123
Dense Empire: begins with 27-31, after ~2 min its floating 23-25
Young Gun Empty: 160-163

Testing without E cores maybe I'll do later

Perkel
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue, 12. Oct 10, 09:00
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Perkel » Tue, 24. May 22, 00:17

Imperial Good wrote:
Wed, 18. May 22, 15:29
It is unlikely to beat the 5800X3D in many tests as I mentioned earlier. The cache on the 5800X3D is just so good for games like X4, factorio, e.t.c. due to all the cache misses. The only down side to the 5800X3D, and why I cannot recommend it for new builds, is that AM4 is EoL as far as better CPUs and memory go and scheduled to be replaced with AM5 by the end of the year. Intel's platform is just a lot more "future proof" right now with DDR5 and PCIe gen5 for GPUs.
It is ****** amazing cpu. In all games i test with some complex simulations like Dwarf Fortress. X4. Kenshi etc. It literally doubles triples or quadruples FPS. Dwarf Fortress went from 14x14 tile embark in range of 1-2 fps with often seconds per frame rather than frames per second into 120ish fps with split second drops to 0 fps every 5-6 seconds suggesting some bottleneck like cache miss with some calculation and going into ram and back. World creation and 250 years of history went from 15-20minutes on 5600X to just 3-4 minutes on 5800X3D. People who build stuff in Fallout 4 say it also effectively nearly doubled FPS compared to 5800X and it stands like 30% above 12900KS.

Imho dense empire and other tests aren't great tests for CPUs because they are more about pipeline between gpu and cpu. Yes good CPU can help with draw calls issue but ultimately you are clogging pipeline between CPU and GPU.

On other hand stuff that is done entirely on CPU like world simulation can give you best example.

I use fires of defeat start. Just start game wait maybe 2-3 minutes and then you have relatively empty map with some ships and some wrecks. Lower res and details and you are limited mostly now by simulation of world rather than gpu or pipeline clogging.

In my test:

5600X - 110fps
5800X3D - 230fps

It literally doubled fps

What that means is that it takes double the size of world economy/ships etc simulation to hit 5600X simulation fps with this GPU.

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Imperial Good » Tue, 24. May 22, 08:52

Perkel wrote:
Tue, 24. May 22, 00:17
What that means is that it takes double the size of world economy/ships etc simulation to hit 5600X simulation fps with this GPU.
That is not quite how computers work. There exists a complexity point for each of the 5600X and 5800X3D which is the largest complexity obtainable before significant cache misses start to occur. If complexity is raised beyond this point performance (instructions per cycle) starts to decrease rapidly as cache misses start to increase. Logically for the 5800X3D this complexity point is exactly 3x bigger than the 5600X as it has exactly 3x as much L3 cache. At this point for the 5600X both the 5600X and 5800X3D will be largely frequency, core count or power bottlenecked and so perform very similarly due to the low utilisation of multithreading in X4 and the similar boost frequencies of the CPUs. Any game where the 5800X3D does not show significant performance gains is at or below this point in complexity.

A typical playthrough of X4 on the 5600X is obviously well past this optimal complexity point. However on a 5800X3D it is either significantly less past the complexity point or even before it allowing the CPU to maintain high IPC. The entire performance offering of the 5800X3D is this higher IPC at higher state complexity levels. Anything below such complexity levels will be run better by a 5900X or 5950X as those have higher boost frequencies and more cores.

Now of course this is all about complexity with regard to IPC performance. Complexity is already at best linear with frame time as the more complex something is, the more cycles the CPU needs to process through it all. As such at the complexity limit described for the 5800X3D it will already be running at most at ~1/3 the FPS of the complexity limit of the 5600X. In reality due to underlying data structures it is possible for performance to scale worse than linearly with complexity, as such values like 1/4 or 1/5 of the FPS could be observed.

This logic applies to all cache tiers, not just L3. Each time complexity exceeds one of the cache levels a large IPC decrease occurs as it starts to fall back to the slower, higher level. With this regard memory is little more than another tier of cache with page file being yet beyond that still.

As such for your statement at the very best it could handle roughly twice the complexity. In reality it is likely to fall short of that due to data structure scaling. If the cache size of the 5800X3D is exceeded before this complexity then it will likely fall short significantly due to the massive decrease in IPC that starts to occur.

Socratatus
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue, 11. May 04, 15:34
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x included and now 12900k!

Post by Socratatus » Mon, 30. May 22, 15:58

Metran wrote:
Sun, 27. Feb 22, 20:18
I issue with X games is that they are not optimised, to my knowledge at least, for multicore or multi-thread utilisation. To achieve that would require almost a complete redesign of the code.

I would hope that if, or more likely when, Egosoft decides to make X5 they'll invest the time to redesign the game code to fully utilise current CPU's capabilities.
Is it me or is computer gaming, hardware buying a con?
I remember years ago how having multiple cores was going to revolutionise gaming we just need to wait for Devs to utilise. Get to today and the number of games that actually make use of more than a couple of cores are few, and I suspect catering to all cores is not going to happen until we're all very old and our kids finally do it in 30 years, if maybe, as they aren't getting smarter. Same with vaunted GPUs, the hailed 'Holy Grail' 3090 still can't run most top games at their max even with the greatest cpus and T&L is a cop out just to hype sell stuff. I can't tell the difference from normal game lighting.

I think the last time I remember anything that actually had an impact I remember was Unreal Engine that introduced actual rag dolling from scripted. It was a bit rubbish at first, but got better quickly so now, nobody even marvels at how ragdolling works flawlessly in games where people fall over!

And don't even talk to me about AI in games! Not really any better than some of the great sims of 20 years ago!

Sorry for the rant... just got a 3090 and right now, not supremely impressed.
"If you`re looking for that one person who can change your life, take a look in the mirror."
"No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking."
"Don`t raise your voice. improve your argument."
"Some men are morally opposed to violence. They are protected by men who are not."

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Imperial Good » Mon, 30. May 22, 20:39

Socratatus wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 15:58
Get to today and the number of games that actually make use of more than a couple of cores are few, and I suspect catering to all cores is not going to happen until we're all very old and our kids finally do it in 30 years, if maybe, as they aren't getting smarter.
Part of the issue is due to the nature of PC hardware being so varied. As a game developer you would be really stupid to require people need 8 cores or more to play your game. This requirement alone is eliminating well over half the potential players you could have had. It is even a bad idea to require desktop processors, as a lot of gamers use laptops. As such the optimum CPU to target is considerably weaker both in per core performance and core count than the best available.

These processors might only have 4 cores so you design your game to perform well with that many cores. Having more cores beyond this cannot really help in such a situation as you cannot really invent stuff for them to do as everyone must be able to play. The pool of tasks to execute per game time frame must remain reasonable for even weaker processors.

A lot of modern games do use all available processing cores. However the amount of work available might be so little that high core count CPUs sit mostly idle. It will always be the critical path that will limit performance and that will always be single thread performance limited.
Socratatus wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 15:58
just got a 3090 and right now, not supremely impressed.
RTX 3090 is intended for workloads that require additional video memory such as some productivity work and high resolution gaming (8K or multiple high resolution displays). Being the fastest/best binned GPU it also sees use for extreme overclocking. As practically every reviewer has pointed out the RTX 3090 has an extremely bad value proposition as far as overall price to performance goes. If all you want is high end gaming performance then the RTX 3080/ti are about the best that makes sense. Even then their value proposition is questionable, especially when they were subject to scalping.

This is very much like the Core i9 12900KS. It is technically the best CPU available from Intel but it offers so little performance improvement for a huge cost increase over a 12900K there really is no reason a normal person should be buying it. Its intended use is pretty much limited to extreme overclocking or high refresh rate professional gaming.

Socratatus
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue, 11. May 04, 15:34
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Socratatus » Mon, 30. May 22, 21:18

Thanks for your reply. I'll make my response, I guess.
Imperial Good wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 20:39
Socratatus wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 15:58
Get to today and the number of games that actually make use of more than a couple of cores are few, and I suspect catering to all cores is not going to happen until we're all very old and our kids finally do it in 30 years, if maybe, as they aren't getting smarter.
Part of the issue is due to the nature of PC hardware being so varied. As a game developer you would be really stupid to require people need 8 cores or more to play your game. This requirement alone is eliminating well over half the potential players you could have had. It is even a bad idea to require desktop processors, as a lot of gamers use laptops. As such the optimum CPU to target is considerably weaker both in per core performance and core count than the best available.
Right, I thought of that, but couldn't they SCALE their software so it'll run as many cores as the pc whether top-of-the-range or a potatoe?
Imperial Good wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 20:39
These processors might only have 4 cores so you design your game to perform well with that many cores. Having more cores beyond this cannot really help in such a situation as you cannot really invent stuff for them to do as everyone must be able to play. The pool of tasks to execute per game time frame must remain reasonable for even weaker processors.
You're telling me they can't find things for the cores to do? I don't agree.
Imperial Good wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 20:39
A lot of modern games do use all available processing cores. However the amount of work available might be so little that high core count CPUs sit mostly idle.
Ok... But at least they're there in case they need to take up the slack. What's the point getting a multiple core cpus if they're never used? I mean we were hyped this. So it was a con after all then?
Socratatus wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 15:58
just got a 3090 and right now, not supremely impressed.
Imperial Good wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 20:39
RTX 3090 is intended for workloads that require additional video memory such as some productivity work and high resolution gaming (8K or multiple high resolution displays). Being the fastest/best binned GPU it also sees use for extreme overclocking. As practically every reviewer has pointed out the RTX 3090 has an extremely bad value proposition as far as overall price to performance goes. If all you want is high end gaming performance then the RTX 3080/ti are about the best that makes sense. Even then their value proposition is questionable, especially when they were subject to scalping.

This is very much like the Core i9 12900KS. It is technically the best CPU available from Intel but it offers so little performance improvement for a huge cost increase over a 12900K there really is no reason a normal person should be buying it. Its intended use is pretty much limited to extreme overclocking or high refresh rate professional gaming.
Yes, yes. Well I also work in Illustration and computer art so it's good there for my art/illustration programs. But that said, it still isn't good enough for the hype or the price. It was only due to a bit of fortune and I just wanted to end the questions that I had about it. Normally I wouldn't be so ridiculously extravagant, but for once in my life I just did it. Now I know. I mean it blows away my previous gpus and is at least 100 fps better than what I had in my benchmark testing, but in games it still can't run some of them at their best smoothly- and for the cost, it really should.

Maybe I'll refund it back. Dunno. Thinking about it.
"If you`re looking for that one person who can change your life, take a look in the mirror."
"No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking."
"Don`t raise your voice. improve your argument."
"Some men are morally opposed to violence. They are protected by men who are not."

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Imperial Good » Tue, 31. May 22, 08:53

Socratatus wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 21:18
Right, I thought of that, but couldn't they SCALE their software so it'll run as many cores as the pc whether top-of-the-range or a potatoe?
Most games like X4 do this already. Just the amount of work to run on all these cores remains pretty much the same and so proportionately they get loaded less as core count increases until the point where there are generally fewer tasks at any given time than processing cores.
Socratatus wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 21:18
You're telling me they can't find things for the cores to do? I don't agree.
Such as?

The entire universe is already being updated in real time. Assuming it were possible to make updating the universe run on more threads what would happen is a few cores would be loaded less and the rest loaded more. High core count processors would still show the same low utilisation. In theory this would let the engine scale more and support more complex simulations, assuming bottleneck is the compute. However it still has to support players with comparatively low core count CPUs so developers could not really take advantage of any of this scalability by making the universe more complicated. Of course if this is even possible to do is another question due to complex data dependencies.

User avatar
SphinxofBlackQuartz
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri, 14. Aug 20, 23:28
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by SphinxofBlackQuartz » Tue, 7. Jun 22, 00:46

Socratatus wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 21:18
Right, I thought of that, but couldn't they SCALE their software so it'll run as many cores as the pc whether top-of-the-range or a potatoe?
Socratatus wrote:
Mon, 30. May 22, 21:18
You're telling me they can't find things for the cores to do? I don't agree.
Sooo... multithread development is complicated, and other people could probably explain it better than I could (concurrency isn't my specific area of expertise) but it's not remotely as easy as "just find things for all the cores to do." "How do I keep n cores busy at all times, even when n can vary wildly from platform to platform" is a thorny problem in computer science, and there aren't yet any simple, elegant, widely-applicable solutions.
THE HAPPINESS OF SEEING AGAIN THE SLIGHTLY DISGUSTING ALIEN FRIENDS. EXTREME DELIGHTFUL.

YorkRoss
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon, 21. Feb 11, 02:30
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by YorkRoss » Wed, 22. Jun 22, 00:18

Im late to this party but this week im switching to a 5800X3D from a 5800X (long story, i'm giving my 5800X to my brother) + increased/faster RAM (32GB 3600Mhz CL14) and using X4 for direct comparison, so i'm also including 1% lows and 0.1% lows in my post

CPU: 5800X (+150Mhz Offset PBO2 and Core Optimizer at -20 for all cores except Core 2 at -15)
GPU: RTX 3070 (+1000Mhz Mem OC 925mV)
Ram: 16GB 3600 cl 16-19-19-36-56 1T (OC'ed from 3200Mhz CL16)
Settings: 2560x1440 LOW, no Vsync/FSR

Game ver: 5.10 with all DLC
Young Gun Empty: 135 Instant, 50 min, 131 avg, 135 max, 93 1% low, 58 0.1% low
Dense Empire: 21 instant, 2 min, 19 avg, 23 max, 1 1% low, 1 0.1% low
Dense Empire Empty: 60 instant, 50 min, 67 avg, 79 max, 34 1% low, 11 0.1% low

Dense Empire Empty is weird as in my version of the game if you stand still then the game only goes at 5fps, as soon as you move - even if only by a tiny bit- the FPS goes back to similar numbers like what other people get so the save seems a bit broken somewhere.

UPDATE: Reran the bench saves using 3.3 and 4.0 SV DLC only (the 4.0 saves were before COH's release since they were in the betas) in order to match other people's benches more closely. 3.1 isnt possible without downloading it from another source since the earliest i can go to is 3.2 using steam beta system. 4.2 i didnt want to do since the one guy that posted a bench for it that's in the first post said that it was heavily modded and im running vanilla atm.

Game ver: 3.3 SV
Young Gun Empty: 157 Instant, 151 min, 157 avg, 160 max, 127 1% low, 102 0.1% low
Dense Empire: 21 instant, 19 min, 23 avg, 25 max, 8 1% low, 5 0.1% low
Dense Empire Empty: 157 instant, 149 min, 157 avg, 161 max, 111 1% low, 65 0.1% low

Game ver: 4.0 SV/no COH
Young Gun Empty: 156 Instant, 140 min, 151 avg, 156 max, 124 1% low, 90 0.1% low
Dense Empire: 26 instant, 19 min, 26 avg, 28 max, 7 1% low, 5 0.1% low
Dense Empire Empty: 155 instant, 129 min, 148 avg, 157 max, 95 1% low, 79 0.1% low
Last edited by YorkRoss on Wed, 22. Jun 22, 16:50, edited 2 times in total.

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Imperial Good » Wed, 22. Jun 22, 11:41

YorkRoss wrote:
Wed, 22. Jun 22, 00:18
Dense Empire Empty is weird as in my version of the game if you stand still then the game only goes at 5fps, as soon as you move - even if only by a tiny bit- the FPS goes back to similar numbers like what other people get so the save seems a bit broken somewhere.
As mentioned further above the saves require specific versions and DLC configurations of X4 to be fairly compared. Recent DLC and patches have impacted performance making measurements with them not comparable with the original measurements.

You will either need to use the version of X4 that the saves were designed for, or you will need to make up your own test cases for a relative comparison of 5800X vs 5800X3D that is unrelated to the previous test results.

YorkRoss
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon, 21. Feb 11, 02:30
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by YorkRoss » Wed, 22. Jun 22, 16:31

Imperial Good wrote:
Wed, 22. Jun 22, 11:41
YorkRoss wrote:
Wed, 22. Jun 22, 00:18
Dense Empire Empty is weird as in my version of the game if you stand still then the game only goes at 5fps, as soon as you move - even if only by a tiny bit- the FPS goes back to similar numbers like what other people get so the save seems a bit broken somewhere.
As mentioned further above the saves require specific versions and DLC configurations of X4 to be fairly compared. Recent DLC and patches have impacted performance making measurements with them not comparable with the original measurements.

You will either need to use the version of X4 that the saves were designed for, or you will need to make up your own test cases for a relative comparison of 5800X vs 5800X3D that is unrelated to the previous test results.
I ended up rerunning the benches for 3.3 and 4.0 using only SV like the ones in the first post did. I cant go back to 3.1 since Steam betas only go back to 3.2. I posted them in an edit to my previous post

I dont think i have the time to make up my own bench since i only have until tomorrow before the 5800X3D arrives and i have other games i want to bench before then.

Cruis.In
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue, 28. Jun 05, 02:24
x3

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Cruis.In » Wed, 22. Jun 22, 21:25

ok. I didnt download the games but looking threough the results they are consistent and consistent with my game. I am running on SSD/16gb ram/5600x/3080 gpu. Now with a crowded universe 3 days in, i am hovering between 29-35 frames on the sector map. During heavy combat (all settings ultra everything turned up @ 1440p) i get 40fps. I call heavy combat 70 ships. I do wonder if i turned down graphcis settings during heavy combat, how much it would save. because outside of combat it hovers at 70fps and turning off or down any graphics settings doesnt improve it. so why would it improve it if i turned them down during heavy combat?
offensive signature removed

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: Post your FPS & CPU's scores - instructions how to measure included - 5950x + 12900k + now 5800x3D!!

Post by Imperial Good » Thu, 23. Jun 22, 00:54

Cruis.In wrote:
Wed, 22. Jun 22, 21:25
i am hovering between 29-35 frames on the sector map
Map performance can be improved by turning off some of the overlays. For example turning off friendly orders and player orders so it only shows order lines for selected ships can drastically improve map performance.

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”