From Win 98 SE to Win XP... and thence to Win 7 Ultimate x64 (which I really like).
Hardware & Technical Computer Build to run Elite Dangerous
- Thread starter Pazmeister
- Start date
As an experiment I've just gone through some benchmarking with 2 different CPUs. I've updated the spreadsheet however also posting here as people may be interested in whether and what it is worth upgrading.
I only did this as I noticed my motherboard was revision 3.1 which also accepts the FX-8350 CPU as a replacement for my current Phenom II X4 965. I could therefore repeat the tests with the only difference being the CPU. This is also a real scenario that many people are considering i.e. whether to upgrade their 955/965 to an FX or whether to get a new motherboard/CPU and switch to Intel.
PC Spec:
note: I run my PC at 2560x1600 resolution on a 30" monitor
I loaded FRAPS and then the Elite Dangerous Alpha 1.1. I then selected Waste Disposal and then Factions. In both scenarios I just remained unmoving (i.e. throttle to 0%) and watched.
Phenom II 965 with resolution 2560x1600:
Waste Disposal: 59 FPS steady
Factions: starts at 60FPS before dropping to 22-27FPS
FX-8350 with resolution 2560x1600
Waste Disposal: 59 FPS steady
Factions: starts at 70FPS before dropping to 27-33FPS
I then repeated the FX-8350 test with the AMD 7970 graphics card now overclocked to 1000Mhz/1425Mhz.
FX-8350 with overclocked 7970 GPU with resolution 2560x1600
Waste Disposal: 59 FPS steady
Factions: starts at 70FPS before dropping to 29-34FPS
Interestingly when monitoring the CPU and GPU usage on factions I found:
70 FPS when CPU=30%; GPU=80%
50 FPS when CPU=30%; GPU=50%
30 FPS when CPU=66%; GPU=30%
28 FPS when CPU=70%; GPU=28%
i.e. as the battle progressed the FPS dropped and the CPU was having to do more work while the GPU was doing less.
I then repeated the above with a resolution of 1920x1080 which is fairly common for gamers.
FX-8350 with overclocked 7970 GPU and resolution of 1920x1080
Factions: starts at 130FPS before dropping to 36-40FPS and then to 31-35FPS.
Once again as the FPS dropped it was due to the CPU load increasing to 70% - the GPU load at this point was 29% .
The only conclusion I can draw from this at present is that it appears that Factions, in the current 1.1 Alpha build, is CPU intensive rather than the more traditional GPU limited FPS of games.
note: I have not overclocked the CPU. The FX-8350 is running around 10 degrees C cooler than the 965. I will repeat this and edit the post at some point in the next few days to see whether that increases the FPS in Factions.
hth
Commander Wombat
I only did this as I noticed my motherboard was revision 3.1 which also accepts the FX-8350 CPU as a replacement for my current Phenom II X4 965. I could therefore repeat the tests with the only difference being the CPU. This is also a real scenario that many people are considering i.e. whether to upgrade their 955/965 to an FX or whether to get a new motherboard/CPU and switch to Intel.
PC Spec:
- Motherboard - Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 revision 3.1
- RAM - 16GB G.Skill F3-12800CL9-4GBRL - 16GB is overkill, I only have it as I got a good deal in a sale and I also run VM machines which benefit
- CPU - AMD Phenom II X4 965 or AMD FX-8350
- GPU - AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB (925MHz/1375Mhz)
- SSD - OCZ Agility2 128GB
- Case - Corsair 650D
- PSU - Seasonsic M12D 850
- Cooling - Antec 620 water cooler for the CPU
note: I run my PC at 2560x1600 resolution on a 30" monitor
I loaded FRAPS and then the Elite Dangerous Alpha 1.1. I then selected Waste Disposal and then Factions. In both scenarios I just remained unmoving (i.e. throttle to 0%) and watched.
Phenom II 965 with resolution 2560x1600:
Waste Disposal: 59 FPS steady
Factions: starts at 60FPS before dropping to 22-27FPS
FX-8350 with resolution 2560x1600
Waste Disposal: 59 FPS steady
Factions: starts at 70FPS before dropping to 27-33FPS
I then repeated the FX-8350 test with the AMD 7970 graphics card now overclocked to 1000Mhz/1425Mhz.
FX-8350 with overclocked 7970 GPU with resolution 2560x1600
Waste Disposal: 59 FPS steady
Factions: starts at 70FPS before dropping to 29-34FPS
Interestingly when monitoring the CPU and GPU usage on factions I found:
70 FPS when CPU=30%; GPU=80%
50 FPS when CPU=30%; GPU=50%
30 FPS when CPU=66%; GPU=30%
28 FPS when CPU=70%; GPU=28%
i.e. as the battle progressed the FPS dropped and the CPU was having to do more work while the GPU was doing less.
I then repeated the above with a resolution of 1920x1080 which is fairly common for gamers.
FX-8350 with overclocked 7970 GPU and resolution of 1920x1080
Factions: starts at 130FPS before dropping to 36-40FPS and then to 31-35FPS.
Once again as the FPS dropped it was due to the CPU load increasing to 70% - the GPU load at this point was 29% .
The only conclusion I can draw from this at present is that it appears that Factions, in the current 1.1 Alpha build, is CPU intensive rather than the more traditional GPU limited FPS of games.
note: I have not overclocked the CPU. The FX-8350 is running around 10 degrees C cooler than the 965. I will repeat this and edit the post at some point in the next few days to see whether that increases the FPS in Factions.
hth
Commander Wombat
Last edited:
For me from "Win 3.1" (and before MS_DOS 6.22) at "Win XP" ... and "Win 7 pro 64"
:smilie:
Last edited:
That follows the "Alternate Windows Release" theory.
(XP good, Vista bad, Win7 good, Win8 bad, next Windows good)
Almost exactly the same path!
DOS 5.0 (+ Windows 3.1) -> DOS 6.2 (+ Windows 3.11) -> DOS 6.22 / Windows 98 SE dual boot -> Windows XP Pro 32bit -> Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
<grins> I might still have those two on 3.5" floppies - somewhere.
Yep!!
You have a beautiful machine and powerful, also
Interesting data, demonstrating that the CPU is indeed a bottleneck source for advanced GX GPUs.
This is (my guess) probably a result of the physic being done entirely in the CPU, or the CPUs are being bogged down by draw calls - leading to the GPUs sitting idle.
I wonder if this would be similar using an Nvidia card, or if the Cobra engine uses the proprietary physic engine?
If so, I further wonder what kind of improvements could be achieved if FD adopted mantle on the AMD side of the equation?
This is (my guess) probably a result of the physic being done entirely in the CPU, or the CPUs are being bogged down by draw calls - leading to the GPUs sitting idle.
I wonder if this would be similar using an Nvidia card, or if the Cobra engine uses the proprietary physic engine?
If so, I further wonder what kind of improvements could be achieved if FD adopted mantle on the AMD side of the equation?
It does appear that Factions scenario is limited by the CPU, the other scenarios less so. I assume that the Intel i5 will be at an advantage over AMD CPUs here however I'm not able to validate this myself.
I expect we will see some tuning/optimization over the coming weeks/months however my initial thought that the GPU would be the limiting factor is perhaps not correct!
I will not be in a rush to switch the 7970 to a 290x for now!
Commander Wombat
That follows the "Alternate Windows Release" theory.
(XP good, Vista bad, Win7 good, Win8 bad, next Windows good)
It is as for the processors Intel. "Tick" and "Tock" (Finally almost)
I'm not an expert but this has always made sense to me. After all, in a space sim game half the time you are rendering empty space with the odd ship in front of you, or maybe a planet!
Well, it's ordered........... http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/2tXSw.
All apart from a monitor. Any recommended? any to avoid? size, I reckon between 22"-24"?
All apart from a monitor. Any recommended? any to avoid? size, I reckon between 22"-24"?
I'd suggest first thinking about what resolution you could run at, and then from there look at the monitor. I like 27" as a good price point vs resolution. You could either go for a more expensive 27" and view it as an investment, or go for a cheap 27" and use the money saved for Oculus Rift later this year...
Otherwise go 24".
Commander Wombat
I'm not an expert but this has always made sense to me. After all, in a space sim game half the time you are rendering empty space with the odd ship in front of you, or maybe a planet!
Agreed, although somewhat surprising that it is quite so CPU intensive. I'd still like to see the results of an equivalent test on an i5 and i7
Commander Wombat
My i7 4770 was using up to 50% power across all cores during factions during 1.0. I'll check 1.1
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=235917&postcount=374
ie: I would love to hear if there are speed improvements in 1.1...
I'd take - hell, I took (have a z87-g45), a Killer NIC over a Realtek any time of the day
, and probably even over Intel one (Intel NICs are rock solid and perform well, but Killer NICs can be superior for gaming, but may be more temperamental).But Z87 motherboards for non extreme uses (e.g subzero OC) is a matter of features and price. Performance wise unless something is wrong they all stay within a few percentage points, as the critical functions are now done by the CPU/chipset (memory controller, PCIe lanes; Sata).
So what you buy depends on what features you really value/prefer and price. Sticking to the mainstream segment, you have single or or dual NICs, sound solution (personally irrelevant to me due because I have an external soundcard, but maybe interesting to those less keen on audio).
Manufacturer wise, MSI, Gigabyte, Asus and ASRock usually produce mobos.
Anecdotally, I would say yes. I made a factions video that got down to below 30 fps in 1.0, while I've not seen it go below 45 fps in 1.1 with identical settings. There could be other factors at play though, since one video is not a good sample.