Benchmarking framerates between 4.0 and 4.1?

[Scrapper_511]

This post is not a stage for software/hardware complaints. I just remembered the benchmark existed and thought it fun to run it with v4.1 looming. My apologies if this test is somehow obsolete and inappropriate for 4.1, although that's hard for me to imagine.

 

Anyway, if you're curious about how much fps you will gain in v4.1, there's a benchmark scenario you can use to compare your fps in v4.0 and then v4.1 come Monday (hopefully). There are nine(edit) instances you need to record your fps (screenshot) to get your average fps, so just review the instructions carefully. Get used to when and where you're taking your screenshots so that you can accurately take them in the same instances in v4.1.  Of course, make sure you run the same default graphics settings and resolutions between the two versions.

 

I averaged 25fps which has always been categorized as "Low Performance", but in this benchmark and other busy scenarios I've played on my budget rig (specs in sig), 25fps is very, very playable.

 

Alt-F12 enables fps counter

Shift-F12 takes screenshot

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Scrapper_511

[Ssnake]

I suppose I should upload the updated variant. That being said, here are the minimum and averate frame rates for a number of machines that our testers used, all figures at default settings:

 

Full HD (1920x1080)

 

Screen Res	CPU model	CPU clock GHz	CPU cores	Graphics card model	VRAM [GB]	Sys RAM [GB]	min FPS	AVG FPS
Full HD	i7-4770K	3,5	4	GTX980	4	16	45,8	54,3

Full HD

i7-4770K

3,5

4

GTX980

4

16

37,6

52,1

Full HD

i7-2600

3,4

4

GTX1060

6

24

29,8

45,8

Full HD	i7-7700	3,6	4	GTX1070	8	12	30,0	52,2
Full HD	i5-4440	3,1	4	GTX1050Ti	4	16	16,9	34,7
Full HD	i7-7820X	3,6	16	GTX1080Ti	11	64	39,0	54,9
Full HD	i7-7820X	3,6	16	GTX1060	3	64	10,0	28,9

Full HD

i5-4440

3,1

4

GTX1050Ti

4

16

20,0

37,1

 

 

HD (1280x720)

Screen Res

CPU model

CPU clock GHz

CPU cores

Graphics card model

VRAM [GB]

Sys RAM [GB]

min FPS

AVG FPS

HD

i7-4770K

3,5

4

GTX980

4

16

45,6

54,1

HD

i5-4440

3,1

4

GTX1050Ti

4

16

30,0

42,2

HD

i7-8700

4,6

6

GTX1070M

6

16

48,0

59,3

HD

i7-2600

3,4

4

GTX1060

6

24

32,0

47,4

HD

i7-4770K

3,5

4

GTX980

4

16

40,3

53,7

[Ssnake]

Here we go:

 

 

[Scrapper_511]

FYI folks, the new version Ssnake just posted is for v4.1. The scenario will not run on 4.0 or older versions. 🙂

[Ssnake]

Yes... as the title suggests. 

[thewood]

My laptop was doing about 55 fps when looking through the gunsight of the starting M60 into the woods in 4.023.  In 4.157, its 47 fps.  Both of these are without rain.  In rain, they both go to 60.  So its weird that it would be lower in 4.1.

 

On the other hand, the M60 in the city is almost 25% faster in 4.1.  From 28-30 in 4.023 to 40-42 fps in 4.1.  In the Leo 2 unit, it goes from the mid-30s looking back at the support units to over 50 fps.

 

So everything appears faster in 4.1, except that opening view into the woods when its clear.  Everything is at default settings.  Another preliminary conclusion is that smoke doesn't have as negative an effect in 4.1 as it did in 4.023.

 

So great job on optimization.

 

PC:

 

Laptop - i7-9750, GTX1665, 16Gb RAM, Win10, 1Tb SSD

Edited July 29, 2019 by thewood
HW layout

[Ssnake]

I figured we should merge the two threads to keep the reference to the scenario (and the designed scenes for comparison).

 

Also, I edited the thread title for more clarity.

[Rosmarus]

For me the game is completely unplayable. When I start one of the tutorial introduction scenarios I get roughly 5-10 FPS whenever I look into the direction of the enemy. If I look toward the direction where the friendly tanks are coming from I get roughly 20-30 FPS. I can get slightly better results if I put all the terrain details to the lowest possible but only slightly. Funnily enough road rendering seems to be one of the main culprits as turning it from 5 to 1 seems to raise my FPS into double digits but still completely unplayable. 

 

I'm running i7-4790K @ 4Ghz, GTX 970 and 16gb of DDR3 and the game is installed on an SSD. Any ideas?

Edited July 29, 2019 by Rosmarus

[Ssnake]

Hm.

Not yet.

[Rosmarus]

Just did another run, it seems that shadow mapping is taxing FPS the most, not the road rendering. Without shadow mapping at all I get roughly the same performance as before patch, but if I turn it above 1 the FPS completely tanks. 

[Ssnake]

Have you tried anything but the "terrain detail" slider?

(Since it is the only one you mentioned)

 

Alt+D and Alt+G should both be checked;

 

The road projection slider can indeed have a significant effect (I find "3" the best compromise between quality and frames), Ground clutter should no longer be such a massive performance hog (but can still help a bit). Here are my preferred settings:

 

[Rosmarus]

Yes, none of the terrain detail sliders affect the performance much. Well, I'll be getting a new computer at the end of this week so it's not bothering me that much. Most likely has something to do with my setup rather than the game itself as no one else is complaining. I used to play with everything maxed before the update and that worked for me quite well. 

[Sean]

This is probably a obvious question, are your graphics drivers recent?

[Rosmarus]

Updated within the last two months recent. 

[thewood]

Again, an obvious one.  If you reinstalled SB, check that the default video card for SB isn't the Intel one,if you have an Intel CPU.  That has bitten me more than a couple times.

[Ssnake]

Good point.

[Fuchs_Leo1_TC]

I tried to launch the benchmark but it say "map package not found"

[Rosmarus]

Nope, I do not have intel GPU, only a dedicated Nvidia GTX 970. Anyways, I won't be troubleshooting this one as I will be working on a completely new system within a week. 

[Ssnake]

21 minutes ago, Fuchs_Leo1_TC said:

I tried to launch the benchmark but it say "map package not found"

Okay, you could open it and then choose to replace the map with the Hannover-Weserbergland map that is part of the legacy map installer.

[Ssnake]

That's probably easier than any other attempt to solve this.

[EagleMountain_DK]

29 minutes ago, Fuchs_Leo1_TC said:

I tried to launch the benchmark but it say "map package not found"

Mine says the same. Tried the download package but it told me it was not found

[Ssnake]

See above.

[Splash]

2 hours ago, Rosmarus said:

Most likely has something to do with my setup rather than the game itself as no one else is complaining. I used to play with everything maxed before the update and that worked for me quite well. 

Well, you're not the only one.

I just installed, and ran the M1A2 Tutorial Introduction for a quick look. Completely unplayable. Single-digit frames, where, with the same settings in pre-4.1 it ran smoothly (maybe low 30s). Unchanged graphics settings -- which were on the higher side, but not maxed.. No changes to the machine (which is admittedly old).

Off to work now. I'll investigate further later.

[Ssnake]

...which is why we need to investigate this, whether Rosmarus gets a new computer this week or not. It would of course be a big help to have more than just a single reference case. I'd highly appreciate if you could both contact me by email.

[Lusik]

There’s another issue I noticed. The sim either smooth for 30-60 seconds but then frame rates drop significantly. When I alt tab, it gets back to normal but again, only for 30-60 seconds. I still have to check if it’s not hardware related.  I did not have much time to test it today. I’m posting it because somebody has had the same problem.