GTX 1080 Graphics settings

[mrbrett]

Please dont be offended but i would like to see proof.
I have a very similar set up and get less than 20fps in my park as my CPU hits 100% all the time!

I have a similar setup as well and I get in the 100s as well. 6700K 4.5 GHZ 32GB ddr4 3000 GTX 1080. Here is a crappy quality video I took with the phone so you can see the framerate.
https://youtu.be/bclJyFQS7Mg

There has to be something wrong with your drivers or installation of the game. You should reinstall your drivers and reinstall the game. My old 5 year old PC with a GTX 770 was getting around 25-40 FPS.

 

[Abletudu]

I have a similar setup as well and I get in the 100s as well. 6700K 4.5 GHZ 32GB ddr4 3000 GTX 1080. Here is a crappy quality video I took with the phone so you can see the framerate.

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/bclJyFQS7Mg

There has to be something wrong with your drivers or installation of the game. You should reinstall your drivers and reinstall the game. My old 5 year old PC with a GTX 770 was getting around 25-40 FPS.

Right now you don't have very much on the screen at any one time. Wait until you add more rides, buildings, scenery, and get a whole lot of peeps in your park and your FPS will drop a bunch.

 

[breezerHOG1]

Right now you don't have very much on the screen at any one time. Wait until you add more rides, buildings, scenery, and get a whole lot of peeps in your park and your FPS will drop a bunch.

yea but... its not like he was lying or showing a completely vacant park [tongue]

 

[mrbrett]

Right now you don't have very much on the screen at any one time. Wait until you add more rides, buildings, scenery, and get a whole lot of peeps in your park and your FPS will drop a bunch.

Duh, that wasn't the point of the post. Tilly Tony has similar specs and he has said that he is getting under 20 FPS in his park, which doesn't sound right. I just used one of the default parks (Coaster Plains) as a benchmark so he can test his performance against another computer with similar specs, to see if there is a problem or not.

 

[Abletudu]

Possibly he has a lot more items on screen than you did in your video, that could account for the vast difference, sorry if my comment wasn't clear enough. To really see how many FPS _Tilly-Tony_ is getting, he would have to post a video also.

 

[Bergenia Tanoak]

I have a similar setup as well and I get in the 100s as well. 6700K 4.5 GHZ 32GB ddr4 3000 GTX 1080. Here is a crappy quality video I took with the phone so you can see the framerate.
https://youtu.be/bclJyFQS7Mg

There has to be something wrong with your drivers or installation of the game. You should reinstall your drivers and reinstall the game. My old 5 year old PC with a GTX 770 was getting around 25-40 FPS.

Thanks for making that video.[up]

By chance what is your FPS if you load up that Bit of Mount Rushmore park, and just leave it at the initial opening view? With my setup I'm seeing 57->60 FPS with VSYNC off. Interestingly the FPS doesn't change much in this view if I resize the window to a quarter of the screen or have it fill the whole screen (it does help some in other areas of the park). Not what I was expecting, and goes counter to the recommendations I've made to people to change their resolution and or set the game to a lower resolution.

Edit: I found that park you made the video of "Coaster Plains" on the right side of the globe. I got FPS in the range of 90 to 104 while riding the rollercoaster. When I dip into that underground rock tunnel it bottoms out at 80FPS. Very interesting seeing your FPS 40 higher than mine. I knew from reading reviews that the newest Intel CPU architectures improved on the FPS for games in comparison to older ones at the same GHZ. Didn't believe it was a 30% improvement. Crazy.
Edit2: Closing Chrome gets me into the range of 100 to 120 in that Coaster Plains Rollercoaster, and I even have the window bigger. Interesting. Now I want to do a fresh install of Windows.

 

[Krux1]

This, Heavily CPU based. Does not matter what GPU you have

yeah i dont agree with that, yes these games are very cpu bound, but the phrase "does not matter what GPU you have" is entirely false. just because a game is heavily reliant on CPU processing DOES NOT make the GPU pointless. your still very much so, and even more so in this game, rendering TONS of geometry/texturing which has an effect on frame rate depending on your GPU.

 

[PopeQ]

I have a similar setup as well and I get in the 100s as well. 6700K 4.5 GHZ 32GB ddr4 3000 GTX 1080. Here is a crappy quality video I took with the phone so you can see the framerate.
https://youtu.be/bclJyFQS7Mg

There has to be something wrong with your drivers or installation of the game. You should reinstall your drivers and reinstall the game. My old 5 year old PC with a GTX 770 was getting around 25-40 FPS.

I am sorry to say this but you don't have a lot of scenery in that video. I am running as setup an:
- I7-6700 skylake processor
- GTX 960 (4GB version) it's not a state to art card but it does the thing for me ..

I am getting around 80 FPS when I make a park with only one single coaster in it. When I open my current park with lots of scenery in it I get around 40-50 FPS with a CPU running around 80%.
I would like to see you getting 200 FPS with a full made park .. It will be impossible

Edit: The FPS I am talking about (40-50) is also with discord, skype, firefox and spotify running in the background

yeah i dont agree with that, yes these games are very cpu bound, but the phrase "does not matter what GPU you have" is entirely false. just because a game is heavily reliant on CPU processing DOES NOT make the GPU pointless. your still very much so, and even more so in this game, rendering TONS of geometry/texturing which has an effect on frame rate depending on your GPU.

True, you need a good GPU as well, but if you have a GTX960 or a GTX1080, it will not make that much of a difference, it will make a difference for your bank account balance however

 

[_Tilly-Tony_]

Duh, that wasn't the point of the post. Tilly Tony has similar specs and he has said that he is getting under 20 FPS in his park, which doesn't sound right. I just used one of the default parks (Coaster Plains) as a benchmark so he can test his performance against another computer with similar specs, to see if there is a problem or not.

I have around 6000 guest.
I know i can get 100fps in a new park with 200 guests. All im saying is if people are getting low frames in big parks it nothing to do with their system or their hardware.

 

[mrbrett]

I am sorry to say this but you don't have a lot of scenery in that video. I am running as setup an:
- I7-6700 skylake processor
- GTX 960 (4GB version) it's not a state to art card but it does the thing for me ..

I am getting around 80 FPS when I make a park with only one single coaster in it. When I open my current park with lots of scenery in it I get around 40-50 FPS with a CPU running around 80%.
I would like to see you getting 200 FPS with a full made park .. It will be impossible

I never said I was achieving 200 FPS, that was Jion. I was trying to help Tilly Tony, who said he was getting low FPS with a similar setup to mine. I was just using the default parks as a benchmark.

 

[mrbrett]

Thanks for making that video.[up]

By chance what is your FPS if you load up that Bit of Mount Rushmore park, and just leave it at the initial opening view? With my setup I'm seeing 57->60 FPS with VSYNC off. Interestingly the FPS doesn't change much in this view if I resize the window to a quarter of the screen or have it fill the whole screen (it does help some in other areas of the park). Not what I was expecting, and goes counter to the recommendations I've made to people to change their resolution and or set the game to a lower resolution.

http://adambavier.com/photos/random/AbitofRushmoreFPS-X5670at4GHZandNvidia1080.jpg


Edit: I found that park you made the video of "Coaster Plains" on the right side of the globe. I got FPS in the range of 90 to 104 while riding the rollercoaster. When I dip into that underground rock tunnel it bottoms out at 80FPS. Very interesting seeing your FPS 40 higher than mine. I knew from reading reviews that the newest Intel CPU architectures improved on the FPS for games in comparison to older ones at the same GHZ. Didn't believe it was a 30% improvement. Crazy.
Edit2: Closing Chrome gets me into the range of 100 to 120 in that Coaster Plains Rollercoaster, and I even have the window bigger. Interesting. Now I want to do a fresh install of Windows.

Interesting, especially since you have a 6 core processor! I would expect your FPS higher than mine. I get about 75-82 FPS loading the Rushmore park as you requested, see screenshot. My 1080 is clocked much lower than yours, I'd love to see you settings in Precision OC!?

 

[Krux1]

I am sorry to say this but you don't have a lot of scenery in that video. I am running as setup an:
- I7-6700 skylake processor
- GTX 960 (4GB version) it's not a state to art card but it does the thing for me ..

I am getting around 80 FPS when I make a park with only one single coaster in it. When I open my current park with lots of scenery in it I get around 40-50 FPS with a CPU running around 80%.
I would like to see you getting 200 FPS with a full made park .. It will be impossible

Edit: The FPS I am talking about (40-50) is also with discord, skype, firefox and spotify running in the background



True, you need a good GPU as well, but if you have a GTX960 or a GTX1080, it will not make that much of a difference, it will make a difference for your bank account balance however

which i can confirm, is also not true, i have a GTX 960 and 970, and theres a difference even between those. granted its not large, but its there. your render capability will always effect your rendering ability, you can be CPU bottlenecked however, if your CPU isnt handling the tasks given, but there will still be an improvement between GPUs, and optimization tends to clear this up as well. CPU bottlenecking does not create some permanent line that cant be crossed, it just restricts the ability it could have without the bottleneck, meaning going to a better GPU will be an improvement, but maybe not as large as it should be because of the bottleneck, but to not make a diffference at all, a MASSIVE percentage of this game would have to be CPU bound, which isnt the case. many people think a bottleneck is basically a stop sign, it isnt, a bottleneck with the CPU just means the communication between the GPU and CPU are slowed, as the CPU is being bogged down by other processes, but it isnt halted, and improved architecture will indeed help this as its communication with the CPU is more efficient, which translates to more frames.

in short, buying a 1080 isnt a waste of money. to prove this fact even more, i play my system with the 970 mostly obviously, and i dont get ANYWHERE near what these guys are getting with the 1070 and 1080. oh and i run a i5 4690k at 4.7ghz for my processor.

 

[Bergenia Tanoak]

Interesting, especially since you have a 6 core processor! I would expect your FPS higher than mine. I get about 75-82 FPS loading the Rushmore park as you requested, see screenshot. My 1080 is clocked much lower than yours, I'd love to see you settings in Precision OC!?
http://i.imgur.com/YGvyAZI.jpg

Your clock for clock performance (if both of us were at 4GHz) is higher than mine because your chip is a few models after mine. I think it has been at least 10% better every new generation. Intel does that Tick Tock release thing. The jump between your 6700K and 4790K wasn't as big as some of the older model upgrades.

I only spent a 1/2 hour messing with the OC on my EVGA 1080 FTW Gaming. I had read that the 1080 chips rarely clock to 2.1GHz, but most will fall just under, so I wanted to find a setting that would let it get to the edge of 2GHz. The speculation is that the manufacturers are binning the chips and saving the highest clocked ones for a future Super OC'd models -- only time will tell.

Here is a screenshot of EVGA PrecisionX OC. For whatever reason it wouldn't capture the real-time numbers, but the important things are there. The main change was the Power Target, the GPU Clock Offset, and then the custom Fan Curve. I wanted the fan to spin up higher faster, to keep the temperature down. The ACX 3.0 cooler is quiet enough on my card, don't even hear it under normal use.

I haven't touched the Mem Clock Offset, saving that for another day. I also didn't mess with the voltage adjustment vertical slider on the left. My reading of other peoples efforts lead me to believe that the cards actually do worse with a higher voltage. Now that these cards have been out longer, I really need to read more experiences from people that have time to overclock all day.

 

[Otturo]

If the CPU is so critical, perhaps this is the appropriate thread to ask,
Will this game perform better with a 4 core or 6 core processor? Say for example the i7-6700k vs i7-5820k.

 

[Bergenia Tanoak]

If the CPU is so critical, perhaps this is the appropriate thread to ask,
Will this game perform better with a 4 core or 6 core processor? Say for example the i7-6700k vs i7-5820k.

My own experience with my 6-core processor is that the game uses 70% max. Reading other peoples experiences with 2 core and 4 core processors, is that the game also uses 70% max. It would appear that the game is hard coded in a way not to go over this thresh-hold. The developers have said that the game intelligently scales to the hardware it is given, so it would appear to do so based on these experiences.

Because of the 70% number a 6-core processor would have 4.2 cores used (they all are being used, just not full out). A 4 core would have 2.8 used (all 4 are used just at 70%). The larger problem is that we don't have enough information, nor enough quality adjustment sliders to really know what that loss of 1 core does to our gaming experience (going from 4.2 cores to 2.8 cores used). People were really freaking out when they saw 99% useage on their CPU in Alpha 1, not knowing that it wasn't hurting them, but likely was providing for a better simulation. I would say that a little performance needs to be left so that the CPU can communicate with the GPU etc., but I feel that 30% waste is too much. Please give us a slider so that we can adjust this CPU threshold ourselves -- default it to 70%. Thanks.

I would certainly take a highclocked 6700k vs a lower clocked 6-core processor. The faster Intel processor (6700k) would be snappier and get the CPU tasks done quicker which will likely give higher FPS numbers. I think this can be seen in the comparison above with Mrbrett and myself. He gets higher FPS with 4 cores at 4.5Ghz vs my 6 cores at 4GHz -- part of that is because of the new generation of processors, and the other part is that he has an extra 0.5GHz on me. The 5820k is only 3.3GHz, more cores, but a lot slower, which in Alpha 2 appears like it'll hurt your FPS.

Look into overclocking your CPU. Especially if you are buying all new parts The 5820k can overclock to the same speeds as the 6700k, and you'd gain 2 cores (but as said above we don't know what that gets us). It'll require a motherboard that supports overclocking, and a better heatsink on the CPU. I read a review a few weeks back on the $40 Reeven Justice 120mm CPU Air cooler which was very impressive. Matched the all in one water cooler setups. Excellent option to pair with a overclocking motherboard. Overclocking isn't for everyone, but it can provide a sizeable performance boost. The total overclock amount is not guaranteed, but the current Intel CPUs do clock up well.

Regarding AMD. Anything 4GHz from AMD is no where near the performance of the Intel 4GHz chips. Not at all, and is why the AMD processors are so cheap.

I can look into disabling 2 cores on my computer. I think my motherboard will let me. See if I can detect any visual simulation differences -- I'm guessing I won't be able to.

 

[Otturo]

Thanks so much Bergenia! That's a more way more thorough reply than I could have hoped for

That gives me a lot more to consider as I a debate which route to go. I've never overclocked before, but I think I will take advantage of that for my next build. Thanks for the tip about the cpu cooler too!
[yesnod][up]