1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Performance issues? Read more here

Discussion in 'rFactor 2' started by Brian Clancy, Jan 13, 2012.

  1. Okay, its pretty general knowledge that rF2 is heavy on resources, with even killer PC's having some pretty low FPS. I wanted to add a few details and put together a little info on the whys and what if's ;)


    Firstly, rF2 does NOT need or use the +Fullproc command anymore as rF1 did, it currently makes use of 2 cores. However, this is an issue for many people who run multicore (3-4-6 or more cores). Many people think that really good frame rates are almost totally down to the GPU (gfx card) but in reality, the CPU does handle a massive amount of the data/work for the GPU so the current limitation of 2 cores will and does effect some PC's performance :( The good news is that ISI may well increase this number later :)


    Next up is GPU Drivers, this is something else that can have a dramatic impact on the performance of your PC. ATI/Radeon cards have proven to show big increases in FPS in rF2 by using the newest Preview Drivers (you can find the article Here http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/threads/rf2-fixes-and-adjustments-list.45695/) and you can be sure that newer drivers later will further improve performance on most cards.

    The next thing to consider is that this is very much a BETA, the code has yet to be optimised for performance and little tweeks that can add to FPS rates have not been made yet. I did some testing today on my rig:

    Intel Q8200 quad core 2.33Mhz O/Clocked to 3.5+ Mhz
    Asus P5QB Deluxe MoBo
    XFX HD6970 (Overclocked) running 3 screens in Eyefinity ( 3840 x 1024)
    8Gig Corsair Dominator Ram

    Now, this rig, running rF2 with all setting at Max/Full with 16xAA (No HDR) at Mills with the Megane averaged around 120 FPS. Very playable and really quite nice looking, but well below par compared to other games. Once I had finished my tests, it was apparent the GPU peaked at a VERY LOW 62% occupancy, leaving almost 40% of the cards capability unused. This will improve as the software is improved, but added to the 50% of cores unused, its not too hard to see that we can expect some very good increases in performance in the future before the gold edition.

    I hope this helps to make users a bit more aware of the reasons for the current FPS issues..... At the end of the day, this is a BETA test and its really too easy to forget that with all the excitement ;)


    We will continue to add new fixes/updates and improved settings etc as we get them in the 'Fixes and adjustments list' sticky thread here: http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/threads/rf2-fixes-and-adjustments-list.45695/ :)
    • Like Like x 6
  2. Looks like my PC isn't that bad considering the bad optimisation !

    Running about 30-45 FPS at Spa on Medium-Low graphics :p

    Windows Vista Family Edition Premium 32bits
    Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz
    3GB of RAM
    GeForce 9500GT
  3. Thats not bad :D And it should improve a bit yet too
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Im just amazed how you get 120fps with that high res, i have core i5 2500K @ 4.7Ghz, 8Gb 1600MHz ram and GTX 580 and im only getting like 80-100fps with max settings and im using single 1920x1080 monitor.
  5. Bram

    Roaring Pipes Maniacs | #27 Staff Premium Member

    Only? Lol I think many will be jealous on such high FPS John :)
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Its strange how some people are getting very different results, that said, drivers, background progs running, and other things can all add up to the effect. I have to say, before I optimised my setup, 80-100 fps was nearer the mark, but a fresh win7 install and some messing about got me the 120fps I have now ;)

    Also remember I dont use widescreen monitors, so I run quite a few less pixels than most eyefinity users (that was always why I did this, great Fps)
  7. I dont want to be a downer, but ISI needs to hire some real software engineers... Using 2 cores in todays age is like ridding a horse to work instead of your car... very noob IMO.. (sorry for being a little negative about the subject)
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Again, we really have to remember a couple of things.......First (I must be boring people with this but...) It's a BETA! LOL :D and secondly and probably more importantly, we all think of it as rFactor TWO and it is, but its a development of rF1, infact Gjon often refers to it, saying its really rFactor 1.5 or 1.9 etc, not a NEW rFactor :) When you consider this, a lot of the current issues make sense and you begin to see the steps of improvements already made and still yet to come :)

    Patience Grass Hopper ;)
  9. Hehe, well obviously it isnt as low that it would give any problems, but with hardware like this would really expect more. Afterall game doest really look that much better than rf1 and still basicly using same 10 years old game engine as its base. At rf1 im getting like 400fps+ maxed out so really expected atleast 200 in this one too.

    In many modern DX11 titles im getting similar or even better framerate than in rf2 as its current state so that only tells me that something is still not really as it should be.

    E; One thing i noticed tho is that HDR lowers fps a lot, when i disable it i get like 50fps more.
  10. I have a quad core, maybe that's why FPS is down, it's only using half the CPU. Hopefully with new drivers and rF2 updates, it will improve.
  11. Whoooooa 50FPS! I loose maybe 5-10 depending on the track/time of day set :O
  12. No mark it is not using half the CPU... it is using half of the CPUs (you have 4) :)
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Brian I dont buy that. They have been developing rF2 (or 1.5) for 2+ years (I saw the first interview+video with Gjon in '09). It is not beta software but alpha from what I am hearing... They have good ideas, but clearly they are not working with various performance teams from Intel, ATI or Nvidia to develop proper software (the core thing is a killer!! today you can write CUDA code to use 300+ cpus for various NON graphical computations).
  14. There is another point that I think is being lost here also......

    DX9 or DX11 really wont make a HUGE impact on fps, some, yes, but not masses, I see maybe a 10-15% loss in DX11 in pCars against DX9. The thing is, rF2 is quite highly detailed textures (that is an FPS hit) look at the image below, untouched.


    The thing we forget (or just take for granted) is that rFactor 2 is a very good simulator, so much so, it works out physics and many other data/simulations that other sims dont, this does have an impact on CPU usage and as I have said before, this impacts on GPU and FPS rates also. Compared to many sims, it has a very complex Tire model, Green Track physics, and engine/environment model that can be as accurate as to formulate 'hot air' in your radiators if you closely follow or get a tow from another car etc..... This all eats CPU resources :)
  15. And that's why they should be using all the CPUs and not just 2 :)
    • Like Like x 2
  16. You may be right, infact I'm pretty sure Intel/Nvidia/ATI may not be that interested in a less than mainstream sim.... But I have been told directly, that it is a dev of rF1 rather than a whole new package and the 'feel' of it makes me believe that :) Maybe they should have held back another 6 months or a year to get further ahead or personally, I think just enlarge the 'closed Beta', but they didnt:)

    Im a fan of this software, but not a fanboy lol. But for all its issues, I do see a great deal of improvements and some really good innovations that could make massive changes to how we race for the better :D
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Cant argue with pure Logic........ Not Fair....... Foul :p

    • Like Like x 1
  18. See I have a system with 32 cores in it... imagine what they could do as far as physics were concerned if they used all the cores :) it would be like driving a real car..
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Knut Omdal Tveito

    Knut Omdal Tveito
    Premium Member

    That would have been very nice! But easier said than done unfortunately. For some physical simulations it is not too difficult to make a parallelized code and use >1000 cpu cores on a supercomputer. However for the kind of real time simulations you have in a racing sim it is very difficult in my experience. I have tried it and many times it takes longer time to run a calculation with 4 cores than 1 core:) Its just not suited for parallelizing.

    But of course it would be fantastic if they worked out a way to use more cores.

    @Brian did they actually say they would increase the number of cpu cores in the future?
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Yes, Tim Wheatley did state
    • Like Like x 1