2600K OC and trying to achieve 90 fps with Oculus

[Xebec]

Hey folks,

I have a now ancient 2600K@ 4.5 GHz (wont' go higher anymore), 1080Ti, 24GB RAM, SSD, and Oculus Rift that cannot achieve 90 fps in stations even in Solo mode, and probably elsewhere in Elite. (The CPU will do 90 fps in space..)

Are there any other settings/tricks for freeing up additional CPU power? Even if I run VR Low on the 1080Ti, the GPU usage will run around 25-32% (clearly a lot of room left) but i'm stuck at 45 fps in dock. I've closed all other software running on the system, tried playing around with CPU affinity to use only non-SMT cores.. thought i haven't tried 'game mode' yet in win 10.

I haven't played in a while (1+ year), and I remember as Elite gained more features it was a little harder for the CPU to do 90 fps each upgrade. I'm eyeing an 8700K (which I assume with DDR4-3200) will maintain 90 fps in stations with a fast enough GPU, but was also hoping to wait to see what Zen 2 had to offer. Project Cars 1/2 also want a faster CPU in VR.

Thanks!
o7 CMDR Xebec

EDIT - P.S. Just to add - CPU is running no higher than 65C under 8-threaded Wprime stress tests (custom water); I did double check so thanks for the suggestion.

 

[RikonGB]

CPU may be running too hot, my desktop runs a 2600K at standard 3.4GHz and on restart the BIOS is constantly saying CPU is overheating,

Never have problem in Windows though, but I do run on standard 7200 hard drive and 16GB Ram.
Not tried playing with VR yet, its on my to list one day.

I have a 1080 (non ti) usually get 60+ in station and anything up to 200+ flying around.

Also do you have Vsync turned in the settings on that may be why your framerate is limited especially in VR.

I mainly play on my laptop though which only has an GTX850 should try that for fun planetside lucky to get 10FPS while buggying around, in space not to bad 30 in station, and 60 out and about.

 

[Gortron]

Hey folks,

I have a now ancient 2600K@ 4.5 GHz (wont' go higher anymore), 1080Ti, 24GB RAM, SSD, and Oculus Rift that cannot achieve 90 fps in stations even in Solo mode, and probably elsewhere in Elite. (The CPU will do 90 fps in space..)

Are there any other settings/tricks for freeing up additional CPU power? Even if I run VR Low on the 1080Ti, the GPU usage will run around 25-32% (clearly a lot of room left) but i'm stuck at 45 fps in dock. I've closed all other software running on the system, tried playing around with CPU affinity to use only non-SMT cores.. thought i haven't tried 'game mode' yet in win 10.

I haven't played in a while (1+ year), and I remember as Elite gained more features it was a little harder for the CPU to do 90 fps each upgrade. I'm eyeing an 8700K (which I assume with DDR4-3200) will maintain 90 fps in stations with a fast enough GPU, but was also hoping to wait to see what Zen 2 had to offer. Project Cars 1/2 also want a faster CPU in VR.

Thanks!
o7 CMDR Xebec

I had the same problem with an i5 4670K with a GTX 1080. I could get 90FPS in places other than space sometimes but it would normally bounce around at less than that with ASW off.

I bit the bullet and got an 8700K and the difference was very dramatic. Far, far better performance. Others have noticed significant improvements doing the same from i7 4770k cpus.

I think you will just have bite the bullet, your fighting a losing battle with your current CPU.

 

[erbse-1]

As far as I know, an 8700k doesn't bring any plus in performance compared to a much cheaper 8600k in most games with the same clock speed.

I will buy an 8600k as soon as the price has dropped to about 170 Euro, plus a cheap board for 100 Euro. Then overclock to 5 GHZ.

 

[Morbad]

Try turning "threaded optimization" off or on in the NVIDIA driver settings for the game. Off will eliminate an extra render thread at the cost of more load on the main ones, which usually hurts performance if you have many cores, but can help on some quad core setups.

Play with the number of worker threads in the AppConfig.xml. Try lower first.

 

[dape]

As far as I know, an 8700k doesn't bring any plus in performance compared to a much cheaper 8600k in most games with the same clock speed.

I will buy an 8600k as soon as the price has dropped to about 170 Euro, plus a cheap board for 100 Euro. Then overclock to 5 GHZ.

i think the 8600k will never hit 200€ or less and if you want to OC you need a decent Z series board in the 150€+ range.

 

[erbse-1]

i think the 8600k will never hit 200€ or less and if you want to OC you need a decent Z series board in the 150€+ range.

The 8600k had fallen twice in June and November this year to about 172/182 Euro (mydealz). There are many cases in oc forums where people with an asrock z370 pro4 have reached 5ghz. By using price search engines and having the patience to wait 2-3 months, you can save a lot of money.

 

[Xebec]

As far as I know, an 8700k doesn't bring any plus in performance compared to a much cheaper 8600k in most games with the same clock speed.

I will buy an 8600k as soon as the price has dropped to about 170 Euro, plus a cheap board for 100 Euro. Then overclock to 5 GHZ.

I was eyeing the 8600K -- a local store has it for $219 USD now here on sale; but i also saw the 8700K for $299..

Looking here -
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8600k-cpu,5264-12.html

I see a 8700K @ 4.9 is ~ 8% ahead of 8600K/7700K@4.9 GHz for 99% minimum fps -- not a huge difference.. but some difference. Similar gaps according to digital foundry/eurogamer. It's not a lot, but it's something at least.

 

[erbse-1]

Thanks for the link. Doesn't the 8700k run in the linked test @ stock only? As far as I can see, only the 8600k and 7600k are overclocked. This makes a comparison with the same clock rate difficult. Here in Germany the prices are unfortunately much higher at the moment. But as a pimax baker I am used to waiting

 

[Xebec]

Try turning "threaded optimization" off or on in the NVIDIA driver settings for the game. Off will eliminate an extra render thread at the cost of more load on the main ones, which usually hurts performance if you have many cores, but can help on some quad core setups.

Play with the number of worker threads in the AppConfig.xml. Try lower first.

Hey thanks Morbad! Repped! --

I did try AppConfig.xml with 4 threads instead of the default 6, and also on and off each (vs. "auto") for the Nvidia drivers. I think I did get a slight improvement of "occasionally 90 fps" in station in the end, but still not more than a few % of the time. The buggy at least became mostly (~ 85% of the time) 90 fps on planets in VR Low. I also tried different ships just to see if it mattered - and it didn't.

The game will still do 90 fps in most space scenarios, so it's not "unusable", just I'd like the 90 fps more often .

I guess it's finally time to bite the bullet and retire this rig/replace with an 8700K. Bought this 2600K on launch day..

Thanks again!

 

[Xebec]

Thanks for the link. Doesn't the 8700k run in the linked test @ stock only? As far as I can see, only the 8600k and 7600k are overclocked. This makes a comparison with the same clock rate difficult. Here in Germany the prices are unfortunately much higher at the moment. But as a pimax baker I am used to waiting

The Toms link shows both stock 8600K/8700K and also both chips overclocked to all cores at 4.9 GHz. The differences I mentioned were based on both being OC at 4.9 GHz.

I also recommend checking out Digital Foundry's video on YT for 8600K/8700K - you'll see some differences in minimum FPS when both are OC'd visually.. (they show nice charts showing real time and "minimum fps average over time"). It's not a massive difference but it's there.. Up to you if the price diff. is worth it.

Here's part of the DF video:
https://youtu.be/9f5JQrnOwTE?t=803

(Earlier in the video it shows chips at stock, then later OC'd)

 

[erbse-1]

Thanks again, I'll take a look

 

[Gortron]

As far as I know, an 8700k doesn't bring any plus in performance compared to a much cheaper 8600k in most games with the same clock speed.

I will buy an 8600k as soon as the price has dropped to about 170 Euro, plus a cheap board for 100 Euro. Then overclock to 5 GHZ.

In most games you are absolutely right but ED is different in that it fully supports muti-core/mulit-threads and VR. I suspect that the 6 core i5 CPU's will be fine with ED and VR at 90FPS but 4 cores without hyperthreading really struggle in some situations as do some with 4 cores and hyperthreading.

One day I'm gonna properly test all this stuff and do a big write up or video because it keeps coming up. VR is so different to normal gaming and pretty much nobody benchmarks for VR when testing.

 

[Xebec]

In most games you are absolutely right but ED is different in that it fully supports muti-core/mulit-threads and VR. I suspect that the 6 core i5 CPU's will be fine with ED and VR at 90FPS but 4 cores without hyperthreading really struggle in some situations as do 4 cores with hyperthreading.

One day I'm gonna properly test all this stuff and do a big write up or video because it keeps coming up. VR is so different to normal gaming and pretty much nobody benchmarks for VR when testing.

The closest thing I saw to "doing it right" is this (now older) review from HardOCP:

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/5

Shows charts of frametimes, the average latency per frame comparing CPUs, and also in enthusiast conditions (fast RAM, OC CPUs). First page has the configs. Unfortunately it doesnt' add graphics card scaling but it's at least a start. I also wish they re-did this with Zen+ to see what effect the cache latency fixes had on VR.

That said would I'd be happy to lend a hand testing/providing data if you put something together.

It would also be nice to conduct these tests with each major release of Elite. I'd have to dig it up but as the main game loop has gotten larger, I saw my 2600K from being 'good enough at stock' (or even 3.0 GHz in most cases), to needing ~ 4.2-4.3 GHz to maintain 90 fps.. Now it's not enough even at 4.5 GHz. Yes, RAM, CPU, and age of OS..

 

[Gortron]

The closest thing I saw to "doing it right" is this (now older) review from HardOCP:

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review/5

Shows charts of frametimes, the average latency per frame comparing CPUs, and also in enthusiast conditions (fast RAM, OC CPUs). First page has the configs. Unfortunately it doesnt' add graphics card scaling but it's at least a start. I also wish they re-did this with Zen+ to see what effect the cache latency fixes had on VR.

That said would I'd be happy to lend a hand testing/providing data if you put something together.

It would also be nice to conduct these tests with each major release of Elite. I'd have to dig it up but as the main game loop has gotten larger, I saw my 2600K from being 'good enough at stock' (or even 3.0 GHz in most cases), to needing ~ 4.2-4.3 GHz to maintain 90 fps.. Now it's not enough even at 4.5 GHz. Yes, RAM, CPU, and age of OS..

I followed that link earlier in the week and was really impressed (it might have been you that posted it before but I couldn't rep as I was using the mobile forum version). Digital foundry does amazing tests but I've never seen them test VR.


I think it would be really good if some of us could work together and come up with a sort of repeatable benchmarking system and work out and demonstrate what parts a computer affect VR and how. I was thinking of having a control or standard PC (build) and then making each component under perform by down clocking then see the effect on a system that was just about doing 90FPS in VR. The more help the better!

For example, what would happen if XMP was turned off here?....

[video=youtube_share;CsmhijQzvbs]https://youtu.be/CsmhijQzvbs[/video]

 

[dape]

The 8600k had fallen twice in June and November this year to about 172/182 Euro (mydealz). There are many cases in oc forums where people with an asrock z370 pro4 have reached 5ghz. By using price search engines and having the patience to wait 2-3 months, you can save a lot of money.

guess i need to check mydealz more often. i mostly check idealo.de and my „old“ 7700k costs more now than a year ago.

 

[Xebec]

Just to add - I OC'd my RAM from 1600 to 1866 to see if it would help -- and it did reduce 45 fps drops a bit but they still occur on the open beta in Solo.

I went back to the current version of Elite (3.2) and I get 90 fps a lot more often than the beta - so it looks like CPU demand will be going up.

Anyway, new RAM ordered (16GB DDR4-3000 for $85USD), and CPU/board next week once my local Microcenter restocks.

 

[Xebec]

I followed that link earlier in the week and was really impressed (it might have been you that posted it before but I couldn't rep as I was using the mobile forum version). Digital foundry does amazing tests but I've never seen them test VR.


I think it would be really good if some of us could work together and come up with a sort of repeatable benchmarking system and work out and demonstrate what parts a computer affect VR and how. I was thinking of having a control or standard PC (build) and then making each component under perform by down clocking then see the effect on a system that was just about doing 90FPS in VR. The more help the better!

For example, what would happen if XMP was turned off here?....

Here's something I did a while ago:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...600K-2-0-4-5GHz-in-VR?highlight=2600k+4.0+ghz

At the time I tested my 2600K at 3 different speeds - 2.0, 3.0, and 4.5 GHz. Tested sitting at the main menu, roving on a planet, roving on ap lanet + recall ship, supercruising from one planet to another (landing on a base), and finally flying and docking at a ground base. I used an imperial clipper since I'd guess the ship complexity matters, and this seemed like a good medium complexity ship.

TL;DR 2.0 ghz was enough CPU for 90 fps at the main menu, Roving on a planet - 3.0 ghz was good enough, supercruise, docking, other scenarios wanted > 4 GHz.

This was only one dimension, one system, 980 Ti, etc.. but I had VR graphics low enough that the GPU wasn't being taxed..

It's unfortunate we can't have multiple saves without buying another copy of the game.. that would make benchmarking much easier..

 

[Gortron]

Here's something I did a while ago:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...600K-2-0-4-5GHz-in-VR?highlight=2600k+4.0+ghz

At the time I tested my 2600K at 3 different speeds - 2.0, 3.0, and 4.5 GHz. Tested sitting at the main menu, roving on a planet, roving on ap lanet + recall ship, supercruising from one planet to another (landing on a base), and finally flying and docking at a ground base. I used an imperial clipper since I'd guess the ship complexity matters, and this seemed like a good medium complexity ship.

TL;DR 2.0 ghz was enough CPU for 90 fps at the main menu, Roving on a planet - 3.0 ghz was good enough, supercruise, docking, other scenarios wanted > 4 GHz.

This was only one dimension, one system, 980 Ti, etc.. but I had VR graphics low enough that the GPU wasn't being taxed..

It's unfortunate we can't have multiple saves without buying another copy of the game.. that would make benchmarking much easier..

Nice work! It’s a such a shame FDEV hasn’t created a benchmark for Elite. It has the potential to be the definitive VR benchmark and then everyone could use it and it would promote the game.

ED in VR isn’t perfectly optimised but it is way ahead of most complicated VR capable games. I really think they are missing an opportunity.

 

[matemaster]

I use i7 2700K @ 4.5ghz & GTX 1080 in stations I have around 45fps. The 1080 is runing around 94% load, CPU around 65%
Enabling hyperthreading does absolutely nothing with FPS.