AI Grid performance?

[Richard Eriksson]

So, the possibility of finally testing a full grid has arrived. For me this is the real performance bechmark, and what will really tell you if you are in for a sweet 60fps. ride in final, or a stuttering sub-par mess.

So, with a grid size of 20+ vehicles, starting at the back (all visible), what FPS are you getting and what is your hardware? Settings? GPU/CPU usage?

This will really tell how far the engine is in performance...

Personally i run it on a single GTX680 (since my SLI setup refuses to work) factory OC with a 4.2GHz. I5 CPU.

Runs smooth 60 with settings at the higher ranges.

And no, it is not playable below 60fps. No simulation is.

 

[Jan-Olov Johansson]

I have not tested with a modded setup for more AI cars but with the default of 12 cars there is very little impact on fps what I can see.

That is on a i7 4770K @ 3.5, GTX780Ti, 16GB RAM and all graphic settings on max, HDR on and motion blur off. It never drops below 80+ (usually around 90-110fps)
1920x1080@60

 

[Simon Roberts]

GTX780 running at 1050Mhz, 3570K@4.8Ghz

Full grid at Monza and locked solid at 60fps, very slight drop for 3 -4 seconds when lots of smoke, this is on triples.

 

[Paul Lock]

I'll check later on with a full grid and update this post.

Rig: i7 730 @ stock, GTX770, 6gb DDR3
Monitor: 1920x1080 @ 60hz

That is on a i7 4770K @ 3.5, GTX680Ti, 16GB RAM and all graphic settings on max, HDR on and motion blur off. It never drops below 80+ (usually around 90-110fps)

You told me it was a 780Ti

 

[Simon Roberts]

I'll check later on with a full grid and update this post.





You told me it was a 780Ti

Prob typo, there is not 680Ti,

 

[Jan-Olov Johansson]

I'll check later on with a full grid and update this post.

Rig: i7 730 @ stock, GTX770, 6gb DDR3
Monitor: 1920x1080 @ 60hz



You told me it was a 780Ti

Oops...typical , when I finally get to boast about my nice gfx card I get the name wrong of course it is a GTX 780Ti, corrected now.

 

[ENDR]

Phenom II X6 @ 2,7 GHz, Radeon HD7870, 8 GB DDR3
Highish settings in FullHD - haven't noticed any performance drops with the AI.

 

[Stereo]

GTX460 and Phenom II X6 @ 2.6GHz, the 12-car grid slows me down to 40fps and the full grid is hovering a bit over 30. GPU usage sits around 60%, CPU at 35%.

I do have it set for only ~70 fps alone though, might be able to drop some settings.

 

[Bernd Graf]

AMD XFX 7770 Ultra OC...full medium settings c. high world detail, and I'm getting 75-80 fps per hotlap. Full grid around the first chicane of Monza drops me to around 60...I hope they improve this because every other sim I've raced doesn't drop me that much.

 

[Raig Strehlow]

Firstly they improve the AI and secondly the performance, so atm we cant have both

I play with 50 FPS locked and its playable in my opinion:

PC: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 650 @ 3.20GHz (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz up to 3.46GHz, 6GB, RAM ATI Radeon HD 5750, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit --> maximum are 12-14 cars on medium settings, i think my driver are totally outdated, so 30-45 FPS

Toshiba Qosmio X870: Intel Core i7-3630QM (2,40 / Turbo: 3,40 GHz, 8GB RAM, NVIDIA GTX 670M 3 GB VRAM, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit --> maximum are 18 cars on high settings, i archieve mostly 50 FPS, but in replays its jumping down to about 40-45 for a while.

 

[Jorge Alves]

i did run some tests to see what is bottlenecking what in my system

amd fx-6300 x 6 @ 4.5Ghz
4GB DDR3
Sapphire 7850 1 GB (1050/1450)
1980 x 1050 60Hz

with 11 AI's eveything runs just perfect with good fps
as soon as i start to increase AI's GPU load starts dropping with no reason: CPU, RAM and Graphic RAM are not at maximum use ... GPU just starts dropping the load (not making use of its full capabilities)

first i thought the problem was the graphic RAM but there is no relation cause sometimes using the 1GB available the GPU loads more then using only 950 MB so i cant say that graphic Ram is bottlenecking GPU

with full grid @ Monza: GPU load is only around 60%, RAM @ 80%, GDDR RAM @ 100% and CPU 6 cores goes bettween 40%-90% ... i can get around 60 FPS but it drops many times and its not so fun ... with 22 cars i can get stable 60 FPS

My conclusion is: no conclusion

or AC is not yet optimized for more then 11 AI's or for some reason that i cant detect my GPU load just start dropping
im curiouse to see how it will perform when kunos officially unlock more AI's

 

[Simon Roberts]

My GPU does exactly the same with more AI.

 

[Kris Migut]

Intel Core i3 3220 @3,5 Ghz, GF GTX 650Ti 1GB, 8 GB RAM, Windows 7 x64, Full HD, World Detail=Max, Anizox4, AAx2, Shadow Res=Medium, HDR=off, Reflections=Low, Faces per frame=1

No reason to complain, everything runs very smoothly, with 21-23 AI cars on the grid I get 50 FPS on average at the start, then it gets better, no slowdowns or other hiccups, jus keep on drivin', man
When I'm alone I usually get over 120 FPS.

 

[Ted]

So, with a grid size of 20+ vehicles, starting at the back (all visible), what FPS are you getting and what is your hardware? Settings? GPU/CPU usage?

Everything on max locked at 60 FPS, single screen with SLI Titans - never seen any framerate drop under any circumstance.

Hopefully that'll hold true for triple screens as well, I'm supposed to get the other screens next week - yay!

 

[Nobby76]

And no, it is not playable below 60fps. No simulation is.

Im sorry but that is the biggest load of horse bunkum ive ever heard.
YES sims (along with any other game or video source) are perfectly viewable at less than 60fps. If your eyes and brain can process 60fps then you my son need to go to a university and be studied, coz you are a medical marvel, you have a gift NOBODY else in the world has ever had Not even Walt disney, the massive racist, himself could see see at that speed, and he could see single frames in his cartoons.

What you are getting confused over is the difference between a CONSTANT frame rate and a variable/changing frame rate. The average human will NOT see faster than about 25 fps. so 60fps, you are just wasting 35frames.
Movies do not stutter, tv does not stutter. but yet they are done in 24,25,29.9 fps so why dont they stutter? because they run CONSTANTLY at that speed.. When you see a stutter in a game, thats not because its dropped below some magic number, its because its dropped, that simple. Generally speaking, you are not seeing slowness you are just seeing a speed change (either up or down it doesnt matter). Even if the game was running at 90fps, if it suddenly changed its speed even by 2 fps, then went back up to 90fps right after, you would still see a stutter. becuase its just dumped 2 frames out, so you see the game suddenly go from here.................to here, in an instant, which looks like a jump in the footage.

But no the old myth of games MUST be run at 60fps or better is just that, its a myth. If you can make the game run faster than say 30fps (and this is the important bit) and stay at that speed then you will NOT see a speed problem. its only when you are at say 40fps and you drop to 37 fps for a split second before coming back up to 40fps that you notice things. It will do it the other way as well. If you are running at 60fps ad it goes up to 64 then drops back to 60 for a fraction of a second, again you will see a stutter.

So no... 60FPS is not some magic number you should all be trying to reach, it is a number some person came up with to make everybody else try and reach, years ago..But it means absolutely nothing.
The only time this is not true is when the FPS is below about 25 because thats the speed you see things, so slower than that you see the tiny gaps between frames. Anything above that, as long as its constant, is perfectly fine..

 

[Bernd Graf]

Im sorry but that is the biggest load of horse bunkum ive ever heard.
YES sims (along with any other game or video source) are perfectly viewable at less than 60fps. If your eyes and brain can process 60fps then you my son need to go to a university and be studied, coz you are a medical marvel, you have a gift NOBODY else in the world has ever had Not even Walt disney, the massive racist, himself could see see at that speed, and he could see single frames in his cartoons.

What you are getting confused over is the difference between a CONSTANT frame rate and a variable/changing frame rate. The average human will NOT see faster than about 25 fps. so 60fps, you are just wasting 35frames.
Movies do not stutter, tv does not stutter. but yet they are done in 24,25,29.9 fps so why dont they stutter? because they run CONSTANTLY at that speed.. When you see a stutter in a game, thats not because its dropped below some magic number, its because its dropped, that simple. Generally speaking, you are not seeing slowness you are just seeing a speed change (either up or down it doesnt matter). Even if the game was running at 90fps, if it suddenly changed its speed even by 2 fps, then went back up to 90fps right after, you would still see a stutter. becuase its just dumped 2 frames out, so you see the game suddenly go from here.................to here, in an instant, which looks like a jump in the footage.

But no the old myth of games MUST be run at 60fps or better is just that, its a myth. If you can make the game run faster than say 30fps (and this is the important bit) and stay at that speed then you will NOT see a speed problem. its only when you are at say 40fps and you drop to 37 fps for a split second before coming back up to 40fps that you notice things. It will do it the other way as well. If you are running at 60fps ad it goes up to 64 then drops back to 60 for a fraction of a second, again you will see a stutter.

So no... 60FPS is not some magic number you should all be trying to reach, it is a number some person came up with to make everybody else try and reach, years ago..But it means absolutely nothing.
The only time this is not true is when the FPS is below about 25 because thats the speed you see things, so slower than that you see the tiny gaps between frames. Anything above that, as long as its constant, is perfectly fine..

Well, when I first read the bit about 60fps, I chose not to say anything...but after reading the above I have to say I agree. If anyone can actually tell the difference between 50 and 60 fps, they have too much time on their hands.

In theory, we would all like to be getting 200 fps. The reason? Psychological comfort. Knowing that we are getting that much makes us think we can drive better, the game will run faster, etc. Not true! Out of curiosity, I set all settings in AC off just to see what driving at 200+ fps was like...I couldn't tell the difference between that and 55+. There may have been a slightly smoother cycling of certain portions of the track environment through the car windshield...but that was all.

I find it very interesting that the people typically making statements like "nothing under 60 works" have high end/latest gen graphics cards...coincidence? Maybe. I just know that making sweeping judgments about the performance specs, even if they are intended innocuously, divide the field of gamers from each other.

Sometimes one does not have to be getting the absolute maximum from a game to thoroughly enjoy it.

 

[Metla]

Your eyes don't work in fps, they just register whats in their field of view and pass it back to your brain.

The statement that your eyes can't view over 25fps is just misguided, 25 fps is just an old technological limit, similar to how 60fps is being branded about currently as that's what a lot of flat screens are locked in at.

Your eyes can certainly register the data being presented, even at hundreds of frames per second.

 

[Metla]

The other point, is your eyes get used to whatever your running and your brain accepts it as the norm, There is no way I could find 30 fps (as an example) as acceptable, No matter how low someone elses standard happens to be.

 

[Tomaz Selcan]

Our eyes are not machines to work on some frequenz. Difference between 30fps and 60fps is huge and you can easily see it. If there is no difference, how can you explain that Battlefield 4 players are better with 100fps+ then just 60fps(i find it a lot easier to play and more controlable). Soo don't give me bulls**t about stuff like 30fps is enough.
Here is app which let you choose between different fps up to 120. Play with it and find out how wrong you are. If you can't see the difference i must dissapoint you..your brains are slow.
http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

[Jan-Olov Johansson]

Just don't mix up your screens refresh rate with your fps...