High End PC and FPS problems VR

[killo98]

Hi guys,

I recently updated my PC triying to enjoy Assetto Corsa even more, these are the specs:

Seasonic Focus+ 850W 80 Plus Gold Modular
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080
MSI X470 Gaming Plus
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X @ 4ghz
Noctua NH-U12S
Corsair Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB, DDR4, 3000 MHz, C15)

Samsung Oddyssey + VR
Fanatec CSL Elite bundle

Well, I don´t know where the problem is, but I can´t get 90 stable fps... There you have some pics to ilustrate the problem...

As you can see, CPU cores and GPU are not working enough at all to make 90 fps...

My presets - Very low:



Performance:

f


Some details:

- Fps even drops to 45/50 fps
- Chipset and gpu drivers are up to date
- 150 supersampling on SteamVR
- Ram is on fine presets (3000mhz CL15)
- V-Sync off
- Energy plan: Max performance (cpu limit 100%)
- Nvidia Control Panel by default presets

On the other hand, only to show you and example, in Project Cars 2, you can see how same gear are be able to get 90 fps easily, even all presets max:



I dont like PC2, Im in love with AC....

I hope you could help me because I´m totally frustrated, I spent a lot of money on this, and I have a terrible performance... Pain on my heart watching 50fps


Any advice will be very thankful.

 

[Terry Rock]

View attachment 284023
For comparison, here's the score on my MSI X470 Gaming Plus and Ryzen 2600X with 32GB of DDR4-3000.

 

[killo98]

Hi guys!

Well, first of all, I want to say thank you again for your effort, I really appreciatte it.

As you know, I was doing all the tests with AI and was very bad for me... But, if I do the tests at online servers, with 24 rivals its running nearly fine, 90fps almost constant no matter what. Even I have the chance to raise various video settings.

For me, this was the changes we have make more noticiable (maybe someone could help):

- SMT off

- Custom shaders fonts pack

Now, RTX 2080 is working barely 50/60% and I can get 90 fps constant at almost sittuations...

THANK YOU guys, for me, problem solved far enough!!

 

[vegaguy5555]

Thanks for the informative read guys.

 

[Fernando Deutsch]

Hi guys!
- SMT off

- Custom shaders fonts pack

Thanks for sharing, just two questions. What is SMT and where can it be set to off and did you just applied the custom shaders fonts pack using Content Manager?

Same scenario for me. Testing the headset with AI is not a go. Viewing replays, solo driving and multiplayer are way better scenarios. Seems VR is more bound to CPU (and probably memory speed?) than GPU.

 

[RasmusP]

Thanks for sharing, just two questions. What is SMT and where can it be set to off and did you just applied the custom shaders fonts pack using Content Manager?

Same scenario for me. Testing the headset with AI is not a go. Viewing replays, solo driving and multiplayer are way better scenarios. Seems VR is more bound to CPU (and probably memory speed?) than GPU.

Smt afaik is similar to hyperthreading but for amd CPUs. So it's to disable in the bios!
Custom fonts rendering is a setting of the custom shader patch pack when you use content manager.

VR always adds some cpu load, sadly not on separate threads and AI in assetto corsa is extremely cpu intensive due to it being the only sim where the AI cars don't use simplified physics. They run on the same physics we real drivers do and therefore it's a lot to calculate with all the inputs etc.
During multiplayer all the physics + inputs are done on each driver's pc and then bundled and sent to you.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Physics calculations was never a problem for me, it is the same load flat screen of VR and is on own thread. Rendering thread on the other hand is the first to tank when moving to VR, load on it essentially doubles.
You can easily monitor that using Kunos Rendering App, they have separate metrics for rendering thread (MAIN_T) and physic (PHYS_T or something like that).

 

[RasmusP]

I did a lot of testing and watching with the Kunos developer apps but although nothing was showing any limits or going high, my fps started to drop, definitely cpu limited.
It's nice to monitor things and as you say, seeing what does what, like VR tanking one of the stats, reflections another part but in the end it wasn't really useful to see details about what to do for me.
Only process Explorer does that by showing the actual threads of applications.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Forgot to add, the performance exponentially drops with more opponents but this is mostly because of additional objects to render, not physics calculations. And usually you can get back into comfortable 90fps after grid spreads out. Beginning of the race is tough even for overclocked i9-9900K.

 

[killo98]

Forgot to add, the performance exponentially drops with more opponents but this is mostly because of additional objects to render, not physics calculations. And usually you can get back into comfortable 90fps after grid spreads out. Beginning of the race is tough even for overclocked i9-9900K.

In @Andrew_WOT we trust ;-)

Thank you guys

 

[Karolinis]

Hey guys,

I recently got Oculus Rift myself and I am very happy with the immersion I get. The only problem for me is the performance. While I was never super happy with my Ryzen 1700x performance with stutters here and there, I was still thinking I would be able to get 90fps with Oculus. It is not the case though. I understand that it requires way more performance, but it seems to be much more than I imagined. Could someone with more knoledge explain why? Here is my thought on the performance requirements:

For CV1 resolution, the GPU should render 2592000 pixels per frame (1080*1200*2), right? Which is higher than 2304000 needed for full hd. Not by much but still higher. When you add super sampling into account it gets to higher numbers 2592000*1.4=3628800 which gets closer to 2560x1440 single screen resolution of 3686400 pixels per frame. When I run AC benchmark with this resolution and all the details, shadows, effects on max, I get ~120fps average, while in VR with detail settings turned way down I am anywhere between 45-90 frames.. Can't get my head around it, so an explanation from someone who understands more would be very welcome.. )

 

[Insert Coin]

The image must be rendered twice: one for your left eye and one for your right eye (seen from a slightly different perspective). It's not a single screen. And both images need to be post processed to compensate for the curvature of the lenses (barrel distortion). So a lot more work has to be done for each frame.

 

[RasmusP]

Hey guys,

I recently got Oculus Rift myself and I am very happy with the immersion I get. The only problem for me is the performance. While I was never super happy with my Ryzen 1700x performance with stutters here and there, I was still thinking I would be able to get 90fps with Oculus. It is not the case though. I understand that it requires way more performance, but it seems to be much more than I imagined. Could someone with more knoledge explain why? Here is my thought on the performance requirements:

For CV1 resolution, the GPU should render 2592000 pixels per frame (1080*1200*2), right? Which is higher than 2304000 needed for full hd. Not by much but still higher. When you add super sampling into account it gets to higher numbers 2592000*1.4=3628800 which gets closer to 2560x1440 single screen resolution of 3686400 pixels per frame. When I run AC benchmark with this resolution and all the details, shadows, effects on max, I get ~120fps average, while in VR with detail settings turned way down I am anywhere between 45-90 frames.. Can't get my head around it, so an explanation from someone who understands more would be very welcome.. )

The explanation is that resolution and graphic settings barely matter for CPU limitations. The Benchmark isn't really comparable to real races, CPU wise!
For Assetto Corsa and CPU relations it's basically just:
- Physics
- Draw calls (not resolution dependent, only object numbers)
- HUD Apps
- Reflections, especially the "faces per frame"/fluidity
- Shadows (off gains a lot, quality differences not so much)
- VR or not VR

Your graphics card probably could run 90 fps with a few settings turned down but your Ryzen 1700x is just not the perfect processor vor racing simulations in VR.
As written above Assetto Corsa more or less only uses 1-2 CPU threads to the maximum so it's close to "single thread performance" and not to "multi thread performance". VR adds a lot to one of these two CPU threads and therefore directly eats FPS.

Here's your 1700x on average vs an i7 8700k on average clocks.
Look at single thread comparison and then to multi thread comparison. You'll see that for modern games with nice multithreading the AMD is very competitive but for single thread performance like Assetto Corsa in VR is, it's miles of difference.

That's 1883 to 2702 points or 100% to 143% or in FPS: 63 fps for the 1700x and 90 fps for the 8700k.

Now for full on multithreading:

That's only 100% to 108% or 83 fps to 90 fps.

The real world performance lies somewhere between these two cases. For AC it's like 80% close to the single thread performance while for games like the latest Assassin's Creed it's like 80% close to the multi thread performance.
That's why my old i7 2600k has to hold up as long as it can. The AMD's are not yet good enough for simracing but I won't throw any more money at Intel after what they're doing lately...

 

[jlnprssnr]

With Ryzen 1 make sure to update your Bios, set your RAM to the correct speed and apply the special Ryzen Windows power profile, that's what I read before anyways, I'm sure google might help

 

[Karolinis]

Thanks alot for RasmusP for comprehensive reply.

Regarding this pic:

Here's your 1700x on average vs an i7 8700k on average clocks.
Look at single thread comparison and then to multi thread comparison. You'll see that for modern games with nice multithreading the AMD is very competitive but for single thread performance like Assetto Corsa in VR is, it's miles of difference.
View attachment 284275

Is Ryzen 1700x here is at stock clock? I have mine overclocked to 3,8Ghz.

With Ryzen 1 make sure to update your Bios, set your RAM to the correct speed and apply the special Ryzen Windows power profile, that's what I read before anyways, I'm sure google might help

I have the latest bios, and RAM set to 3000Mhz.. I can't push it to its stock 3200 clock as it gives me instability. Maybe I will try to play a bit more with it in the future.

 

[RasmusP]

Is Ryzen 1700x here is at stock clock? I have mine overclocked to 3,8Ghz.

I used this Link to get the info:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-vs-Intel-i7-8700K/2969vs3098

Passmark won't show minimum and maximum performance sadly. Just "average" of all benchmarks ever done. So if you overclocked your CPU, you'll get higher values. You can download and install the testversion of passmark which will give you 30 days to benchmark your personal CPU
Here's the average from the website and my personal 2600k for example:

And my personal one:

Compared to the 8700k the overall score is far behind but the single thread performance received a nice boost due to my 4.4 GHz on all cores + 2133 MHz DDR3

 

[Karolinis]

Here's my results:

Seriously lags behind your's in single thread..

 

[RasmusP]

Here's my results:

View attachment 284451

Seriously lags behind your's in single thread..

And blows it out of the water at everything else hehe.
In the end it results in basically the same performance for not-so-great-multithreading games like AC. Once you compare other games like Assassin's Creed, Battlefield or even Project Cars 2 your Ryzen beats my old i7 by miles.
This makes the 8700k the ultimate overall processor. No throttling like the i9's have problems with, still hyperthreading for awesome rendering performance and a reasonable price before it went crazy.
But Intel is just a no go for me after they raised the price of the 8700k to a crazy amount and now the i5 9600k costs the same the 8700k did once. But it got no hyperthreading and seriously lacks overall performance due to it.
So you get a newer CPU for the same price with a worse performance. Only if you invest more than before you'll get a slightly better performance with the i7 9700k. Which got 2 more cores but still no hyperthreading... And the i9 9900k is crazily expensive and has throttling problems without heavy watercooling. No thanks Intel!
I really hope the Ryzen 3xxx will give us 8700k like single thread performance for a reasonable price. It'll be an insta-buy for me

If you wanna know more about price per fps etc read my detailed post here:
https://www.racedepartment.com/threads/intel-9th-gen-cpus-revealed.160339/page-3#post-2851955

 

[Karolinis]

I am waiting for Ryzen 3xxx as well for the upgrade. I hope the newest rumors are true and we will get 4.2ghz base with 5ghz boost clocks on 3700x. Not sure how my Asus Prime x-370a will handle extra four cores though..

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Kids

 

[RasmusP]

Kids
View attachment 284494

That looks kinda like a non throttling 9900k... Am I right?