Finding out whether your FPS are CPU or graphics card limited

[dud]

Do just take the "unreal is cpu intensive" unmeasured blah-blah statements.

Do this:

• get framerate in a reproducible way that you like
• go into the BIOS and downclock your CPU by 1/3rd, repeat benchmark
• download an overclocking utility for your graphics card and use it to downclock your GPU by 1/3rd, repeat benchmark
• for added fidelity, do same for:
• RAM
• graphic card RAM

I don't have time right now but I'll post mine later.

We need a reference thread about hardware-to-fps anyway.

 

[Case_]

Early access or not, it seems clear a mid range PC is insufficient to run this at a steady 60 FPS at max settings.

If you expect to run a 2019 (basically) title at maximum settings with 1060 at 60 fps, it's not the title's fault you are disappointed.

The GPU is maxed out almost constantly. It would be easy to play the game at solid 60 with that setup just by lowering some settings.

Also, who does performance tests with vsync enabled?

 

[Deleted member 197115]

If you expect to run a 2019 (basically) title at maximum settings with 1060 at 60 fps, it's not the title's fault you are disappointed.

The GPU is maxed out almost constantly. It would be easy to play the game at solid 60 with that setup just by lowering some settings.

Also, who does performance tests with vsync enabled?

FH4 is 2019 title, right? Demo is free, try it out and see how it surpasses ACC in visuals and performance.
The only titles that performed that badly on my system were Mass Effect Andromeda and Ghost Recon Wildlands, ACC would be easily number three.
I really hope the things will improve, as we are dealing with R1 EA, but stating that this performance is normal and expected for "modern" title is ridiculous. Sorry.

 

[Case_]

FH4 is 2019 title, right? Demo is free, try it out and see how it surpasses ACC in visuals and performance.

It is a 2018 title, comes out in two weeks or so. I've tried the demo and loved it (in fact I've even mentioned on Twitter how the FFB in FH4 might actually be more informative than the one in ACC, despite obviously being nowhere close to realistic). And yes, it looks great. Runs very close to ACC both CPU and GPU wise on my PC, except maybe slightly better. Which isn't something I would hold in its favor (or against ACC), because there's certainly a hell of a lot more going on under the hood in ACC. Even in terms of graphics - FH4 might look nice at a glance, but if you look at it more closely, you'll realize it's mostly some clever tricks to make it look (and perform) better while hopefully maintaining the illusion. And certainly nothing surpassing ACC there when it comes to visuals, unless you get fooled by that illusion.

 

[Justin]

That drop at sub 50 FPS at night:

Early access or not, it seems clear a mid range PC is insufficient to run this at a steady 60 FPS at max settings. Bad news for those of us on a budget. I think i'll wait to see what AMD does next year. The Ryzen 3000 and their 7mm GPUs ought to come out by then, hopefully as early as possible though i have a feeling we'll probably have to wait for late 2019.

This video kinda proves my last post about optimisation quite well. A 2600x/1060 combo struggling to hold 60 fps at night at medium settings at 1080p doesn't seem right, especially when it holds up in daytime in both dry and wet quite well at high settings, more so at medium for rain, but rain optimisation also does need a bit of work)

Not to mention to the night/wet test showed up the same symptoms as me, CPU not maxing out any thread at all and GPU never locking to 99% usage. The 3rd thread was pushing some pretty high numbers which could have had an impact but I can't say for sure. That could well be the sole physics and AI thread for now, which might eventually be distributed out further into early access. A solo test to compare thread loads would be handy here and a similar test on an 8700k would be perfect to eliminate any potential CPU bottlenecks, even though the 2600x is the current recommended spec for AMD CPUs so in theory it should be handling ACC fine.

As for settings, Epic settings I can understand as being a bit of a future option as the increase you get in fps when you drop shadows from epic to high is huge, and is also a big drop again when you put them at medium. The game still looks fine for a UE4 game in 2018 at high settings.

It is annoying they ran these tests using vsync when you should never do that while benchmarking, but he says he may do a re-upload with it off soon in the comments.

All in all, I still believe there is vasts amounts of room for optimisation to occur both on CPU and GPU side, so don't start building new rigs solely in the pursuit of ACC 0.1 performance. Kunos have given us the option to run AI races outside of dry day conditions but judging by their special event choices, they probably know such races aren't at a performance level they're happy with just yet.

 

[Case_]

A 2600x/1060 combo struggling to hold 60 fps at night at medium settings at 1080p doesn't seem right

It's not medium settings. It's everything to the max.

 

[Justin]

It's not medium settings. It's everything to the max.

Check the last third of the video when he runs the same four tests, day dry, day wet, night dry and night wet at medium settings. He still gets frame drops there at night.

 

[Case_]

@Justin Yes, he does, here and there, to around 55 fps, because he's still GPU limited. Which is no surprise as he's running 1060.

But whatever.

 

[Justin]

@Justin Yes, he does, here and there, to around 55 fps, because he's still GPU limited. Which is no surprise as he's running 1060.

But whatever.

Oh yeah in the night dry test there is a GPU bottleneck happening, no doubt, but 1080p medium settings at night requiring more GPU power than epic settings in the day tells me night performance needs some work. The performance gap between times of day has never been this huge in any racing sim with these features, it's big in PC2 but not to this degree. Even the optimisation mess that was pCARS 1 at 1.0 launch wasn't this bad.

I'd love to see some footage of the frames an 8700k/1080Ti combo are getting at night/wet at 1080p and 1440p. Would make for some interesting data.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

@Justin Yes, he does, here and there, to around 55 fps, because he's still GPU limited. Which is no surprise as he's running 1060.

But whatever.

At 1080p, it's like 10 year old resolution standard. 1060 should at least do 1440, with ease.

 

[Case_]

1080p is a 10 year old resolution standard? Well, I guess if you're used to running 1080Ti in 4K or something along those lines, then I guess it is. I thought we were talking about mid range PCs, and if we are, then 1080p 60 is the very definition of mid range IMO, and so is 1060 (some would probably even argue it is actually below mid range). Maybe for some 1080p is a 10 year old dinosaur of a resolution, but for plenty of people, it is all there is and will be for a long time.

And let's not forget consoles are struggling even with that, and usually have to resort to some resolution trickery to be able to keep up.

I'll say it again - the problem here isn't bad optimization (that is not to say optimization couldn't be improved, and I'm hopeful it will be), but people having unreasonable expectations of their hardware. If there's one thing repeating itself in all the years I've been a PC gamer, it's people not being able to set their games according to what hardware they are running and then complaining that they run too slow and are badly optimized. And if you are expecting to be running upcoming titles on a 1060 in solid 60 fps in 1440p and above...well, good luck with that.

 

[metaDp]

I'll say it again - the problem here isn't bad optimization (that is not to say optimization couldn't be improved, and I'm hopeful it will be), but people having unreasonable expectations of their hardware. If there's one thing repeating itself in all the years I've been a PC gamer, it's people not being able to set their games according to what hardware they are running and then complaining that they run too slow and are badly optimized. And if you are expecting to be running upcoming titles on a 1060 in solid 60 fps in 1440p and above...well, good luck with that.

Nothing to add, I totally agree with you. But meh, you will always find people complaining for nothing...

 

[Deleted member 197115]

We all have systems we can afford, points of references, and expectations based on all that.
Yes, I am using 1080Ti and 4K, before that 980 Classified and 1440p. It is my standard for high and mid range.
Any modern, reasonably optimized game should run just fine using flagship card on 4k/60fp and ACC struggles to hit that mark.
Why all that "unreasonable expectations" talk? ACC does not exist in the vacuum, and we are not born yesterday, there are other titles that provide similar or better level of graphics and runs much better, including few good performing UE4 based like GW4 and now dead UT4.

 

[Case_]

Edit: nevermind.

 

[Opus131]

At 1080p, it's like 10 year old resolution standard. 1060 should at least do 1440, with ease.

The 1060 was always meant for 1080p. The 1070 is for 1440, while the 2080 is for 4k.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

The 1060 was always meant for 1080p. The 1070 is for 1440, while the 2080 is for 4k.

What "meant' means, meant by whom, could never understand that claim.
1080Ti FE (weakest trim) can handle the most demanding titles at 4k/60fps just fine
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-benchmarks,review-4241.html

And again, this is not from just reading internet articles and looking into some charts
4k AC benchmark with everything at max yields me 140fps average, and this is with aging i7-5930K.
DOOM, BO3, IW, BF1, WWII, Destiny 2, FM7, FH3, FH4, Wreckfest, all recent titles I've played hit consistent 4k/60fps mark, again with everything maxed out.
Division, FC5 needed very little adjustment to shadows and particles to get there, but Ubisoft is notorious for bad optimization, Wildlands was perhaps the worst.
But these games esp shooters render a lot of quickly changing scenes, now compare that to mostly static cockpit and slowly changing scenery in the window.
Anyway, not trying to convince anyone, it's a futile exercise on the Internet, just sharing some real life numbers.
Of course Mr. Huang always says in his presentations that this year card will give you 4k experience, this time for sure, well, and then he says the same thing the next year...

And BTW, 2080 shows either same or even worse results in performance benchmarks against 1080Ti, +-5%.

Which raises the question, what system do I need to play ACC at 4K Epic settings.

 

[2stains]

Even 2080Ti wont do 4k 60 in everything !
I wish all game had a resolution slider , playing at 4k with resolution slider down to 90 makes a huge difference in GRW and FC5 with next to no visual difference to me . I hope ACC keeps its resolution slider when VR releases !

 

[Metla]

Reminds me of back in the day when MCM2 was released and it took a big hit in the reviews because their wasn't a system on the market that could run it at full visuals with a steady frame rate.

New (cutting edge) games should bring current systems to their knees(especially ones running mid-range cards such as the 1060), that said, This one has a long way to go before its market ready.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Even 2080Ti wont do 4k 60 in everything !
I wish all game had a resolution slider , playing at 4k with resolution slider down to 90 makes a huge difference in GRW and FC5 with next to no visual difference to me . I hope ACC keeps its resolution slider when VR releases !

Speaking of Ghost Recon, what gen cards they created that game, 2080Ti still cannot run it at 4k/60
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nvidia-rtx-2080-and-2080-ti-review-can-these-video/1100-6461889/

Dear Kunos, please don't follow the suit.

 

[RaceWasGood]

It looks like even the shareholders are in for a bit of disappointment: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/20/nvi...nley-calls-new-gaming-card-disappointing.html

 

[Kek700]

Forgive me for hi jacking this forum, just seemed the most obvious place to ask after reading this forum.
I have i5 6600k in mini itx. Running triples 5760
x 1080 144hz ( run at 100 FPS ) and the common online apps.
The system was built from advice from race department forum and it has served me very well, covering cost for performance perfectly.
It is time to upgrade mainly for ACC.
Life is somewhat more complicated nowadays
with 6 core 12 thread or the i5 6 core 6 thread.
I could stick with my motherboard and go for the 7700k. To make a decision I need an understanding of the relevance of cores and threads and how they relate to future and present games and I just don’t.
Cost unfortunately is an consideration as I obviously need a new motherboard for the 8 series processors. Already have ddr4.
I only play assetto corsa so that is all the question really relates to.

Any help would be most appreciated before
I splash the cash.