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

[Hoborific]

Okay my final results, as I am now clearly at the edge of my hardware's capabilities

4.0 beta 4, 1080p windowed, low preset

Code: Select all

8700k@OC - 3400mhz C16-21-21-39 //9.41ns, 51.2ns total latency(aida64)
young 148-151
dense 31-32
empty 144-149

by closing iCUE software which was monitoring temps and causing system latency, I was able to reduce my overall latency from 50.3(ran twice, used average) to 47.1ns(ran twice, exact result) which is a total decrease of system latency by 6.3%

I realised while doing my last benchmark that my native resolution may be a factor in my scores while running in windowed mode as my desktop is 32:9 1440p, I opted to use fullscreen for the first time in these benchmarks as indicated below, for fairness to the controls I placed on myself previously I have also done the same test twice at my original resolution for comparisons to my previous benchmarks and one at half size resolution (1440p) to show performance uplift.

Code: Select all

8700k@5ghz - 3400mhz C16-21-21-39 //9.41ns, 47.1ns total latency (aida64)

4.0 beta 4, 1080p, fullscreen, low preset
benchmark)
young 142-144
dense 35-37
empire 150-153

4.0 beta 4, 1080p, fullscreen, low preset // run#2 to sanity check, young/empire felt inverted
young 142-144
dense 35-37
empire 148-150

Code: Select all

8700k@5ghz - 3400mhz C16-21-21-39 //9.41ns, 47.1ns total latency (aida64)

4.0 beta 4, 1080p, windowed mode, low preset // native desktop resolution
young 150-152
dense 32-33
empire 144-148

4.0 beta 4, 1080p, windowed mode, low preset // half native desktop resolution of 2560x1440
young 143-145
dense 34-36
empire 143-149

perhaps the test itself should specify fullscreen use as to reduce variance between systems as there are a lot of different resolutions available which can apparently make a real impact on the scores.

2x8gb single rank on a dual channel motherboard = single rank (right?)

Yeah (had a chat over discord, sorted out my confusion)

[Hoborific]

CPU: 10900K (no overclock) Version: 4.0 Beta 4
Mem: VENGEANCE® LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 DRAM 3200MHz (XMP enabled)
GPU: EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 FTW3 ULTRA (High Default, no anti aliasing, 5120x1440)
Young Gun : 136 - 139 fps
Dense Emp : 38 - 51 fps
Dense Emp / Empty : Appears to crash beta 4

Could I bother you for some additional information about your RAM, RAM System latency and how you ran the tests? you're the only one who got above 35 fps on dense and I'm wondering how good your system latency is as that's clearly the big factor

[Gavrushka]

@hoborific, your results with an I7 8700 are better than my I7 10700 with decent components to match.

Mind, I'm not overclocked, but core speed is still, in theory, higher than yours.

And one thing I've noticed is the I7 (and I9) seem to have the edge in the Dense Empire scenario.

[pref]

perhaps the test itself should specify fullscreen use as to reduce variance between systems as there are a lot of different resolutions available which can apparently make a real impact on the scores.

The saves were originally created to test how much resources background tasks take away from rendering, was just trying to show that even a relatively bigger empire costs only small amount of frame loss so it's well optimised.
So only the difference between the 2 empty saves matters.

The dense save was added to see which HW can render that on acceptable (30+) fps.

To make a HW test out of this not only resolution but all render speed affecting params should be fixed for the test. If CPU tests are desired then gfx options should be tuned down to eliminate that bottleneck, and for GPUs the other way around (with intensive scenes showcasing as many gfx features as available, and without high amount of background tasks).

[MSterling]

The Linux version of X4 has been known to perform better than the Windows one when people compared it on the same system. There are many possible reasons for this ranging from Linux being inherently faster all the way down to the Windows build possibly being less optimized for the platform. In any case comparing actual frame rates between the two does not accurately represent if the hardware of one system is faster than the other.

X4 is also quite demanding on the GPU. I use a GTX 760 and it really caps the frame rate.

Windows is terrible at forking processes, too, and one reason why Sun made Java (intended to kill Microsoft Windows as a platform) thread rather than fork. This can free up all sorts of resources in new CPU architectures, because a forked process doesn't bother moving anything to the new process (which could be scheduled onto a new core) when it isn't currently being used or changed, but multithreading you can theoretically change any value, dirtying the MLB and data cache and requiring every other thread to be informed of the dirtied registers and memory. Forking can result in a lot of extra memory use, but this is less of a problem when the L3 cache is 32MB... You should therefore also see better speed on the 5000 series and better for the single CCD 5600/5800 because there is no dirty cache at L3 to tell the other CCDs about.

[Imperial Good]

Windows is terrible at forking processes, too, and one reason why Sun made Java (intended to kill Microsoft Windows as a platform) thread rather than fork. This can free up all sorts of resources in new CPU architectures, because a forked process doesn't bother moving anything to the new process (which could be scheduled onto a new core) when it isn't currently being used or changed, but multithreading you can theoretically change any value, dirtying the MLB and data cache and requiring every other thread to be informed of the dirtied registers and memory. Forking can result in a lot of extra memory use, but this is less of a problem when the L3 cache is 32MB... You should therefore also see better speed on the 5000 series and better for the single CCD 5600/5800 because there is no dirty cache at L3 to tell the other CCDs about.

As far as I am aware X4 does not fork the application process and uses conventional multi-threading on all platforms. Data is only synchronized between cores implicitly by executing specific instruction sequences. Without running these instruction sequences it is possible for the same area of memory to be modified inconsistently by 2 cores due to the local caching that occurs, a race condition that usually has bad results. Examples that use such instruction sequences are implementations of mutex, barrier and atomic operations.

[Falcrack]

After tweaking the bios to get some minor gains last night, and having a scare where thought I had bricked my computer, and only managed to get it working again after about an hour with no CPU overclocking but with XMP enabled, I solemnly pledge never to try to overclock my CPU again!

[Roeleveld]

After tweaking the bios to get some minor gains last night, and having a scare where thought I had bricked my computer, and only managed to get it working again after about an hour with no CPU overclocking but with XMP enabled, I solemnly pledge never to try to overclock my CPU again!

Did you apply the latest BIOS?
I had to do that to get XMP (or whatever it's called on AMD) enabled on this system.

[Falcrack]

After tweaking the bios to get some minor gains last night, and having a scare where thought I had bricked my computer, and only managed to get it working again after about an hour with no CPU overclocking but with XMP enabled, I solemnly pledge never to try to overclock my CPU again!

Did you apply the latest BIOS?
I had to do that to get XMP (or whatever it's called on AMD) enabled on this system.

After the nightmare that was last night, I don't ever want to open up the bios screen again, unless compelled to by a hardware change! My bios was recently updated though.

The madness started when I had applied the "performance" setting, which gave a 9% overclock. But then I notice in the task manager that my ram was now running at 2933 instead of 3600. So I went into bios and saw that xmp had become disable after applying the "performance" setting. So when I reenabled xmp and restarted, then I had a multitude of errors, hanging up in bios, unable to start, windows not starting and telling me I needed pc repair, and me thinking I had bricked one or more components.

Eventually, after removing the cmos battery, and setting everything back to default, I was able to restart. I turned xmp back on, without any overclocking, and it still worked, and that's how I plan to leave it!

[BigBANGtheory]

CPU : 5800x version 4.0 beta 4 (PBO and Curve Optimised to allow for 5GHz boosts across all cores)
RAM : 3600 MHz cl 14 / 32 gb single rank (quad 8GB) low latencies
Young Gun : 155-170 fps (fluctuates a lot)
Dense Emp : 27 - 34 fps

[Max Bain]

CPU : 5800x version 4.0 beta 4 (PBO and Curve Optimised to allow for 5GHz boosts)
RAM : 3600 MHz cl 14 / 32 gb single rank (quad 8GB) low latencies
Young Gun : 155-170 fps (fluctuates a lot)
Dense Emp : 27 - 34 fps

What graphics settings are you playing? Low or Ultra? And what resolution?

[BigBANGtheory]

CPU : 5800x version 4.0 beta 4 (PBO and Curve Optimised to allow for 5GHz boosts)
RAM : 3600 MHz cl 14 / 32 gb single rank (quad 8GB) low latencies
Young Gun : 155-170 fps (fluctuates a lot)
Dense Emp : 27 - 34 fps

What graphics settings are you playing? Low or Ultra? And what resolution?

normally I play at 4K ultra with low FXAA, but for the tests I think I dropped it down to 1980 x 1200 low settings. Tbh cos I have a 3080 GPU all the resolutions below 4k never stress the GPU load even during the dense test

also before I upgraded to the 5800x CPU and low latency RAM I was running an i7 4700k with DDR3 and with the 3080 I saw no performance increase or drop cycling between 1080p and 4k resolutions due to the CPU/mem bottleneck

[Max Bain]

If you set the graphics on ultra, do you have lower fps in the dense empire? Because I made my tests all with ultra settings until I noticed that when I set them to low I got 25% more fps in dense empire. But I have only a 1070.
Edit: not speaking about aa or vsync

[Gavrushka]

If you set the graphics on ultra, do you have lower fps in the dense empire? Because I made my tests all with ultra settings until I noticed that when I set them to low I got 25% more fps in dense empire. But I have only a 1070.
Edit: not speaking about aa or vsync

Earlier in the thread, I posted a video of the dense empire game, starting at low settings, then upping it to ultra, then adding MSAAx4, and there was no discernible difference (I flew through the megastation to give a better idea of jerkiness, but apart from asset loading stutters, it was pretty decent.)

Mind, I use a 3070, not a 3080. I think you have to chip the ice of a 3080 if you're not at Ultra in 4k!

[Max Bain]

If you set the graphics on ultra, do you have lower fps in the dense empire? Because I made my tests all with ultra settings until I noticed that when I set them to low I got 25% more fps in dense empire. But I have only a 1070.
Edit: not speaking about aa or vsync

Earlier in the thread, I posted a video of the dense empire game, starting at low settings, then upping it to ultra, then adding MSAAx4, and there was no discernible difference (I flew through the megastation to give a better idea of jerkiness, but apart from asset loading stutters, it was pretty decent.)

Mind, I use a 3070, not a 3080. I think you have to chip the ice of a 3080 if you're not at Ultra in 4k!

Ehm.. I watched your video now, but I can not see any fps, so how can I know that there is no difference between low and ultra?

Btw does anyone else got a lot of flickering and graphical glitches when entering the map in the dense empire (and when you are next to the station)? I am wondering if thats my GPU or if thats the game engine that simply is at its limitations there.

[BigBANGtheory]

If you set the graphics on ultra, do you have lower fps in the dense empire? Because I made my tests all with ultra settings until I noticed that when I set them to low I got 25% more fps in dense empire. But I have only a 1070.
Edit: not speaking about aa or vsync

very little change if at all noticeable tbh

[BigBANGtheory]

Mind, I use a 3070, not a 3080. I think you have to chip the ice of a 3080 if you're not at Ultra in 4k!

To give you some idea at 1440p resolution the 3080 GPU utilisation is something like 60%, at 1080p its barely 30%.... You need 4k ultra to be GPU limited.

[Max Bain]

If you set the graphics on ultra, do you have lower fps in the dense empire? Because I made my tests all with ultra settings until I noticed that when I set them to low I got 25% more fps in dense empire. But I have only a 1070.
Edit: not speaking about aa or vsync

very little change if at all noticeable tbh

Would you be so kind to make a test for me with ultra vs low graphics settings?
The reason why I ask is that I have a 5600x with 32GB ram (low timings) and when I set my details on low I have 33-34 fps but on ultra I got 26-28 fps. So my question is, is this because of my old GPU or is it still the CPU that is limiting. The GPU load is not a clear reference because even my 1070 is never on maximum (while some CPU cores always are) but when you say that you have still about the same fps with ultra settings then it seems that a new GPU would help me improve my performance. Playing on WQHD here...

[BigBANGtheory]

If you set the graphics on ultra, do you have lower fps in the dense empire? Because I made my tests all with ultra settings until I noticed that when I set them to low I got 25% more fps in dense empire. But I have only a 1070.
Edit: not speaking about aa or vsync

very little change if at all noticeable tbh

Would you be so kind to make a test for me with ultra vs low graphics settings?
The reason why I ask is that I have a 5600x with 32GB ram (low timings) and when I set my details on low I have 33-34 fps but on ultra I got 26-28 fps. So my question is, is this because of my old GPU or is it still the CPU that is limiting. The GPU load is not a clear reference because even my 1070 is never on maximum (while some CPU cores always are) but when you say that you have still about the same fps with ultra settings then it seems that a new GPU would help me improve my performance. Playing on WQHD here...

I would suggest the difference is more likely to be between your 5600x and my 5800x with PBO boosting to 4.95GHz on the cores under load not to mention CL14 3600 RAM, basically its quite a small difference that feels CPU related

[Max Bain]

This would not explain the difference between low and ultra settings on my end if others dont have any difference depending on the low and ultra settings.
My 5600x goes up to 4.8 Ghz (precision boost) and my 3600Mhz Ram has a latency of CL 14 as well.