Triples w/single GTX980 - possible?

[William Wester]

Sorry if this has been beat to death but I did search and didn't find anything discussing this in the past 3-4 months. Is it reasonable to think RF2 can be run on triples with a single GTX 980 (super clocked)?

I have been running the demo's over the past year and never could get good looking graphics with a single card (was running a GTX780, recent upgrade to GTX980) but I'm not familiar with all of the settings - what works well or what is the most demanding.
Note, I can run AC and GSCE at most every thing maxed, R3E high to max, and pCARS medium to high, and still get a pretty good looking game. The only thing holding me back is buying RF2 is getting it to run decent at 5860x1080 vSynced at 60. Each game seems to have a setting or two that drains the frame-rate and in some cases the bang-for-the-look isn't worth it as the difference is minimal.
Thanks in advance...

 

[aerobaticrug]

Hi mate - easily, thats the setup I run. It has no issues whatsoever. In fact I ran a GTX970 before the GTX980 and it had no issues either.

Have a play around with the settings to get the best framerate - but with almost everything maxed out I get about 80 - 90fps with the GTX980 (MSI Gaming edition)

Do bear in mind that rf2 is not going to look anywhere near as good as AC and R3E (I have both). They look much better (not starting a war, but that's just how it is!)

 

[William Wester]

Hi mate - easily, thats the setup I run. It has no issues whatsoever. In fact I ran a GTX970 before the GTX980 and it had no issues either.

Have a play around with the settings to get the best framerate - but with almost everything maxed out I get about 80 - 90fps with the GTX980 (MSI Gaming edition)

Do bear in mind that rf2 is not going to look anywhere near as good as AC and R3E (I have both). They look much better (not starting a war, but that's just how it is!)

That sounds encouraging @aerobaticrug, any chance you could post your rf2 graphics settings?
Thanks

 

[William Wester]

I have been doing addition graphics settings testing and while I can get decent performance "most" of the time there is a large swing in frame rate. Of course my testing is only on Silverstone but I may get a FPS range of 50 to 90. Is there particular settings that have a big impact on FPS, and are not worth the cost?

Is Silverstone a good gage of rFactor 2 performance or can I expect better or worst performance with the other tracks?

5860x1080 w/single GTX980, i7 @ 4GHz, 16GB ram.

 

[William Wester]

Tough crowd.

 

[aerobaticrug]

Sorry! Forgot to check this thread! - Ok, Silverstone is one of the heaviest tracks on graphics so if it works well there you are good to go.

On the frame jump - sync your GPU in the video mode settings - I have mine synced to GPU, you can try software as well, its a preference thing.

I tried to upload the images of my graphics settings but the uploader here won't let me - might need to be a premium member? Happy to email them to you if you PM me an address.

 

[Vargs]

Yes easily my i 7-3770 with evga superclocked can run everything on as high as it will go on triple screens and it stays at constant 59-60 fps my only problem is outside the car everything is so bright compared with AC or i racing and sloppy steering with my v2 but thats for a different forum.

 

[Cosimo]

I heard that problem is going to be addressed specifically in the next build of rF2.

 

[Emery]

Is Silverstone a good gage of rFactor 2 performance or can I expect better or worst performance with the other tracks?

Silverstone, near start/finish, hits framerates pretty hard, so it is a good test. If you get acceptable framerates there, then you're golden.

Reducing antialiasing makes the biggest improvement in framerates. Unfortunately, for visual quality, that is probably the last thing one is willing to adjust. Reducing shadows and reflections one notch is the least painless way to gain a few percent in framerate.

If you're really aiming for minimum 60 fps at Silverstone if you're only getting 50 fps, I'd probably see if dropping antialiasing one notch is acceptable and it should bring you into the ballpark, then tweak with reflections/shadows.

 

[William Wester]

Thanks @Emery, for the most part I think I have things set to maintain a decent frame rate with decent quality, it's good to know that Silverstone is a good benchmark for what can be expected with other content. Graphically rf2 is not a stunner but then again I have accepted this fact with GSCE (one of my favorites).

 

[Cosimo]

Well, build 946 might just have changed all that, both graphics-wise and CPU/performance-wise. Give it a go!

 

[William Wester]

[QUOTEI'm Cosimo, post: 1975003, member: 150679"]Well, build 946 might just have changed all that, both graphics-wise and CPU/performance-wise. Give it a go![/QUOTE]
Yeah, I am running build 946.

 

[JeffL]

Try this
http://www.softth.net/

 

[Calum McLure]

Only tried the VLN Nurburgring & Interlagos so far but with

I5-3570K @ 4.4Ghz
GTX 970 OC
16GB 1600Mhz

I get between 75-90 frames using triple screens with nearly all settings at their highest and AA at level 2.

 

[William Wester]

I finally broke down and bought rFactor2 after running the demo on and off for the past year. More than anything, I needed to purchase to support the sim developers and I like to tinker with all of the different sims.
As I mentioned in a earlier post, I had things running OK for the most part (5860x1080, single GTX980, holding 60FPS 95% of the time) UNTIL I tried a couple track mods. I was looking forward to Sebring but this runs like crap - 30-50 FPS. I understand the performance of mods can vary but I don't find quite the wide performance disparity in mods for AC, or GSCE - must be hard to optimize content for rFactor 2.
Very discouraging as I can't even throw money at rFactor 2 to get it to run better as all of the thread on SLI seems to indicate it isn't a good option.
Not trying to start an argument but just for reference pCARS runs and looks as good as you want it to - yes, more money needed for all the eye candy but it works (SLI). This is 2015 for crying out loud.
Don't get me wrong, I will try to enjoy rFactor 2 for it's strengths, its' just a graphical let down. Nothings perfect I guess.

Edit: turned shadows and reflections low, blur off, track/car details high - can now maintain reasonable FPS (4xAA). It is what it is...

 

[Emery]

Performance depends on many factors. If you're running AI, then it will suffer more. If you're online, then it will be quite reasonable.

With my 970 & triples, I use the in-game AA at level 2 on most tracks and level 1 on Sebring. That is the single biggest gain for framerate. Reducing reflections & shadows one notch is fine-tuning and what allows level 2 AA on most tracks. First lap with 20-30 AI will be low on fps, but subsequent laps are all above 60 fps.
***
P.S. You really don't want to go back to rF1, GTL, GTR2, Race07, RaceOn. Everytime I fire those up, I cringe at the graphics now.

 

[Azfalt Raser]

Try this
http://www.softth.net/

Would I have to uninstall my AMD eyefinity software before installing this?

 

[JeffL]

Sorry I don't know. A friend saw much improvement over eyefinity though.

 

[Spinelli]

Run RF2 at what just-about looks like maxed graphics while enjoying a large framerate boost

http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.p...ate-Boost-w-Practically-No-Image-Quality-Loss

http://www.racedepartment.com/threa...st-w-practically-no-image-quality-loss.97303/

Same thread, one is official ISI RF2 forum, one is RD forum

 

[Steven Andrew]

I used to run Soft TH, a great tool, but that was when I only had a 550ti and some other low end card like a 9600gt. Now I have one single r9 280x running triples with eyefinity on very close to maximum settings with shadows and special effects dropped 1 click, road reflection off. rF2 runs perfectly at 80 to 100 fps, but I normally cap it to 60.

Would I have to uninstall my AMD eyefinity software before installing this?