Yes just to make clear, this "500fps test" had nothing to do with actual gaming settings.. was just for a laugh 
PS. I don't even use this pc to play LFS
PS. I don't even use this pc to play LFS
:headbang: 500 FPS eh?
Had to test what it takes to reach that magic number..
4.5ghz E8600 with highly overclocked 4870..
All settings max + 1680x1050 with 4xAA 8xAF
Went to westhill hotlap alone with MRT and FPS was jumping between 330-480, but never went up to 500 in normal driving condition with cockpit view.. But shift+u helped and if you weren't too close to your car, FPS actually jumped to 500+
Conculsion, you need mucho power to reach 500!
PS. screenie included
Had to test what it takes to reach that magic number..
4.5ghz E8600 with highly overclocked 4870..
All settings max + 1680x1050 with 4xAA 8xAF
Went to westhill hotlap alone with MRT and FPS was jumping between 330-480, but never went up to 500 in normal driving condition with cockpit view.. But shift+u helped and if you weren't too close to your car, FPS actually jumped to 500+
Conculsion, you need mucho power to reach 500!
PS. screenie included
Yep, 32x is only because of SLI. Single card can do 16x, two card's SLI does 32x and quad SLI can do up to 64x AA
EDIT: autopilot, what mhz you can get outta i7?
And what cooling, mobo, ram?[email protected] + oc'ed 9800GX2 gave average ~62fps in benchmark and when cpu was running 3.6ghz, fps jumps between 30-60 in game.
With E8600 minimum fps was around 20 and that's only difference comparing to quad. Just average fps was 5-10 lower.
I play with:
1920x1080
texture detail: medium
render quality: highest
view distance: 40
detail distance: 100
vehicle density: 100
shadow density: 16
I let vari know on irc
And here's my example about high-end dual loop built-in custom kit 
At first I had cpu, gpu, nb, sb and ram cooled, but cooling sb and ram didn't make much difference so they are cooled by air again
All blocks are made by EK
And no, this wasn't cheapest way to do it
EDIT: and to comparing temps.. my other pc has TRUE BLACK like rc10racer's, load temps are only thing which differs. [email protected], under water: idle 20, load 35.. and under TRUE: idle 24, load 40... however 9800GX2 had quite nice impact, with stock air cooler it ran sometimes even at 80C under heavy load.. nowdays it doesn't get over 40C in anything, no matter how much overclocked or whatever
At first I had cpu, gpu, nb, sb and ram cooled, but cooling sb and ram didn't make much difference so they are cooled by air again
All blocks are made by EK
And no, this wasn't cheapest way to do it
EDIT: and to comparing temps.. my other pc has TRUE BLACK like rc10racer's, load temps are only thing which differs. [email protected], under water: idle 20, load 35.. and under TRUE: idle 24, load 40... however 9800GX2 had quite nice impact, with stock air cooler it ran sometimes even at 80C under heavy load.. nowdays it doesn't get over 40C in anything, no matter how much overclocked or whatever
Last edited by (FIN)Eza, .
In cache run, all CPU's were working only at 2.4GhZ while in CPU chart E8600 is working at 3.33GhZ (stock speed)
about GPU part, I will run SO4 tests with hardware listed here:
AMD Athlon XP 2800+ with ATI Radeon 800XT 256MB and Nvidia GeForce 4 MX 440
E8600 at stock gets benched with:
ATI Radeon X1950 Pro 256MB
ATI Radeon X1950 XT 256MB
And to see how slow GPU can be before it starts to affect into FPS, we underclock 4870 as low as it takes before FPS decrease.
Dunno how much that helps with anything, but it at least will show how much LFS really depends on GPU
Also testing laptop with 32bit Vista Home Premium with specs like:
Intel T9300 2.5GhZ 6MB L2
4096MB RAM
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2700 512MB
I will run tests after this Xmas madness is over so stay tuned!
4. SO4 replay's results
Due the hardware problems with Athlon XP system, I couldn't run tests with Radeon X800XT nor GeForce 4 MX440. :thumbsdow
But I had go with laptop and Radeon's. Basically these results just shows what hardware combo runs what FPS as nothing new found here.
First I ran tests with laptop:
Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo Xi 2550-31P
CPU: Intel T9300
GPU: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2700 256MB
RAM: 4GB of 667Mhz 5-5-5-15
OS: Windows Vista 32bit Home Premium
Here's results with different resolutions:
And next we go for GPU benchmark.
I only had 2 slower cards after problems with AGP system and were almost dropping this test out already, but decided to run it after all.
Results doesn't show much difference between cards except, X1950 Pro was only card to start showing slight slowing down when resolution was increased. :magnify:
CPU used in tests was [email protected] and ram was running at 1066Mhz.
Here's results:
Now after all tests are done, I hope this thread is informative for many people who are looking for information what to upgrade to get better FPS in LFS.
When we get major update to 3D engine, I will make another big test then. Hopefully I have much more hardware to get my hands on then to get wider results
Thanks to http://lfsbench.iron.eu.org for making benchmarking real with LFS
Due the hardware problems with Athlon XP system, I couldn't run tests with Radeon X800XT nor GeForce 4 MX440. :thumbsdow
But I had go with laptop and Radeon's. Basically these results just shows what hardware combo runs what FPS as nothing new found here.
First I ran tests with laptop:
Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo Xi 2550-31P
CPU: Intel T9300
GPU: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2700 256MB
RAM: 4GB of 667Mhz 5-5-5-15
OS: Windows Vista 32bit Home Premium
Here's results with different resolutions:
And next we go for GPU benchmark.
I only had 2 slower cards after problems with AGP system and were almost dropping this test out already, but decided to run it after all.
Results doesn't show much difference between cards except, X1950 Pro was only card to start showing slight slowing down when resolution was increased. :magnify:
CPU used in tests was [email protected] and ram was running at 1066Mhz.
Here's results:
Now after all tests are done, I hope this thread is informative for many people who are looking for information what to upgrade to get better FPS in LFS.
When we get major update to 3D engine, I will make another big test then. Hopefully I have much more hardware to get my hands on then to get wider results
Thanks to http://lfsbench.iron.eu.org for making benchmarking real with LFS
Last edited by (FIN)Eza, .
3. GPU, does it make difference?
As we already saw big FPS differences in CPU chapter.. Will we see same in GPU chapter?
Answer is cold no :geezer: LFS won't care less whatever you try to tickle it with :smash3d:
For some reason LFS has always liked ATI's cards better and so happens here again also..
All tests done with [email protected]. But Nv's cards ran on X48 mobo.
4870 results:
As might see, resolution makes no difference at all.
However slightly less FPS with Nv's cards:
8800GTS aka single card mode in 9800GX2:
And 9800GX2 results:
So conculsion, does GPU make difference? It does little bit, but don't go buy uber high-end 600$ card if you want just more FPS in LFS
Only thing what 9800GX2 could do better than 8800GTS was just better performance with AA and AF turned on
Also notice 4870 giving better FPS than 8800/9800 combo CPU limiting both cards really bad.
So what is best for LFS then after all this.. I would start from ATI's GPU and more you can get MhZ outta your CPU, better.
However if LFS one day becomes multithreaded, CPU's MhZ won't matter that much
As we already saw big FPS differences in CPU chapter.. Will we see same in GPU chapter?
Answer is cold no :geezer: LFS won't care less whatever you try to tickle it with :smash3d:
For some reason LFS has always liked ATI's cards better and so happens here again also..
All tests done with [email protected]. But Nv's cards ran on X48 mobo.
4870 results:
As might see, resolution makes no difference at all.
However slightly less FPS with Nv's cards:
8800GTS aka single card mode in 9800GX2:
And 9800GX2 results:
So conculsion, does GPU make difference? It does little bit, but don't go buy uber high-end 600$ card if you want just more FPS in LFS
Only thing what 9800GX2 could do better than 8800GTS was just better performance with AA and AF turned on
Also notice 4870 giving better FPS than 8800/9800 combo
CPU limiting both cards really bad.So what is best for LFS then after all this.. I would start from ATI's GPU and more you can get MhZ outta your CPU, better.
However if LFS one day becomes multithreaded, CPU's MhZ won't matter that much
2. CPU, dual or quad?
This is the part where all the magic starts to happen :wizard:
I didn't want to go in normal routine here and benchmark only the MhZ alone.. I also cover the usually ignored and forgotten topic, size of cache.
Which is actually the test where we start.
Each CPU ran at 2.4GhZ with 300x8 settings and RAM was at 800MhZ with 5-5-5-15 timings.
As can seen here, even the bigger cache can make major impact to FPS. More.. better
Next comes the question, which one is better for LFS, dual or quad?
As LFS isn't multithreaded yet, the conculsion already at this point is.. quad makes no difference in FPS. But I give you more reasons to get quad after these charts:
Dual cores in Intel's E8000-series:
And quad cores in Intel's Q9000-series
Now you probably notice already that the Q9300 is missing from the list :magnify:
Reason behind that is.. All the Q9xxx quads have 12MB L2 (cache) except Q9300, which has only 6MB.
So I could run Q9300 test, but it wouldn't show real speed as my QX9650 has 12MB L2.
If someone has Q9300 with 4870 512MB here, yell hard and you might be able to get your score up there
Then back to reasons why to get quad over dual. I have said for a year to people to take dual over quad if it comes just to gaming.
But it finally slowly starts to show that games starts to support quads more and more. GTA 4 for example.
Also if you do rendering or photoshop stuff, quad gives big gain in matter of speed. However as long as the software supports it.
But I'm not saying that dual cores are gone already either..
They run cooler, eats less wattage and if you happen to do overclocking.. you get higher clocks way easier than with quads
So the overall conclusion in this matter is even still.. it all depends what you do with your pc.
Actually.. the numbers tells the difference between dual and quad better than my words
This is what you can expect if you rendering with dual/quad:
Even higher clocked dual can't keep up with quad when software is multithreaded
This is the part where all the magic starts to happen :wizard:
I didn't want to go in normal routine here and benchmark only the MhZ alone.. I also cover the usually ignored and forgotten topic, size of cache.
Which is actually the test where we start.
Each CPU ran at 2.4GhZ with 300x8 settings and RAM was at 800MhZ with 5-5-5-15 timings.
As can seen here, even the bigger cache can make major impact to FPS. More.. better
Next comes the question, which one is better for LFS, dual or quad?
As LFS isn't multithreaded yet, the conculsion already at this point is.. quad makes no difference in FPS. But I give you more reasons to get quad after these charts:
Dual cores in Intel's E8000-series:
And quad cores in Intel's Q9000-series
Now you probably notice already that the Q9300 is missing from the list :magnify:
Reason behind that is.. All the Q9xxx quads have 12MB L2 (cache) except Q9300, which has only 6MB.
So I could run Q9300 test, but it wouldn't show real speed as my QX9650 has 12MB L2.
If someone has Q9300 with 4870 512MB here, yell hard and you might be able to get your score up there
Then back to reasons why to get quad over dual. I have said for a year to people to take dual over quad if it comes just to gaming.
But it finally slowly starts to show that games starts to support quads more and more. GTA 4 for example.
Also if you do rendering or photoshop stuff, quad gives big gain in matter of speed. However as long as the software supports it.
But I'm not saying that dual cores are gone already either..
They run cooler, eats less wattage and if you happen to do overclocking.. you get higher clocks way easier than with quads
So the overall conclusion in this matter is even still.. it all depends what you do with your pc.
Actually.. the numbers tells the difference between dual and quad better than my words
This is what you can expect if you rendering with dual/quad:
Even higher clocked dual can't keep up with quad when software is multithreaded
More or Faster (LFS performance review)
Helloe
There is always people saying how high or low FPS their systems gets and other people asking how much this or that small upgrade would make things better.
So I wanted to show you guys what to upgrade and what really makes difference in LFS.
Remember these numbers are just giving you image how much the differences are in real life and they can differ with different OS's and chipsets in different systems.
Hardware I used for these tests:
Mobo: Asus Maximus II Formula P45 | Asus Rampage Formula X48
CPU: Intel E2140, E6600, E8600, QX9650
Ram: Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
GPU: ATI Radeon 4870 512MB, Nvidia 9800GX2 1GB (in single card mode it becomes 8800GTS 512MB)
Cooling: Thermalright Ultra-120 TRUE Black with single 120mm 1200rpm fan
OS: 32bit Windows XP Professional
LFS version: 0.5Z
However I used P45 mobo and 4870 in every test except tests for Nvidia's cards as I'm running that system watercooled and can't really take it apart 100 times in one day
So GPU tests with nv8800/9800 cards also runs on X48 mobo. But as I didn't compare GPU's against each other, it makes no difference
For benchmarking I used old BL1 FBM replay with 'max' cfg from http://lfsbench.iron.eu.org/ which has replaced with SO4 replay while ago.
However SO4 results coming bit later once I get it done
If you want to see some exact MhZ result with it, post here.
I split these tests to different chapters in different posts so it's easier to people link these if needed.
Here's list:
1. RAM, more or faster?
2. CPU, dual or quad?
3. GPU, does it make difference?
4. SO4 replay's results
And then to numbers
1. RAM, more or faster?
For first, I compared different latencies.
CPU used here was [email protected].
As it shows, latency makes no difference here.
Next I tested different MhZ's. For this test I had to use [email protected] to get higher RAM speeds than what E2140 supports. Will that extra bandwidth in RAM give any extra FPS?
No. Only at high speeds like 1066MhZ, there was 1-3 FPS difference.
Then the everlasting question.. Would more of RAM to get you higher with FPS?
CPU used here was again [email protected].
And answer is still no. Whatever you do with your memory, it makes no difference in LFS. At least, yet. However, I don't recommend you to run anything under 2GB nowdays
There is always people saying how high or low FPS their systems gets and other people asking how much this or that small upgrade would make things better.
So I wanted to show you guys what to upgrade and what really makes difference in LFS.
Remember these numbers are just giving you image how much the differences are in real life and they can differ with different OS's and chipsets in different systems.
Hardware I used for these tests:
Mobo: Asus Maximus II Formula P45 | Asus Rampage Formula X48
CPU: Intel E2140, E6600, E8600, QX9650
Ram: Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
GPU: ATI Radeon 4870 512MB, Nvidia 9800GX2 1GB (in single card mode it becomes 8800GTS 512MB)
Cooling: Thermalright Ultra-120 TRUE Black with single 120mm 1200rpm fan
OS: 32bit Windows XP Professional
LFS version: 0.5Z
However I used P45 mobo and 4870 in every test except tests for Nvidia's cards as I'm running that system watercooled and can't really take it apart 100 times in one day
So GPU tests with nv8800/9800 cards also runs on X48 mobo. But as I didn't compare GPU's against each other, it makes no difference
For benchmarking I used old BL1 FBM replay with 'max' cfg from http://lfsbench.iron.eu.org/ which has replaced with SO4 replay while ago.
However SO4 results coming bit later once I get it done
If you want to see some exact MhZ result with it, post here.
I split these tests to different chapters in different posts so it's easier to people link these if needed.
Here's list:
1. RAM, more or faster?
2. CPU, dual or quad?
3. GPU, does it make difference?
4. SO4 replay's results
And then to numbers
1. RAM, more or faster?
For first, I compared different latencies.
CPU used here was [email protected].
As it shows, latency makes no difference here.
Next I tested different MhZ's. For this test I had to use [email protected] to get higher RAM speeds than what E2140 supports. Will that extra bandwidth in RAM give any extra FPS?
No. Only at high speeds like 1066MhZ, there was 1-3 FPS difference.
Then the everlasting question.. Would more of RAM to get you higher with FPS?
CPU used here was again [email protected].
And answer is still no. Whatever you do with your memory, it makes no difference in LFS. At least, yet. However, I don't recommend you to run anything under 2GB nowdays
Last edited by (FIN)Eza, .
Yep 280&4870 wasn't available by the time
And April is real buying month, May was just when that gallery opened.
Processor: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 4000Mhz
Ram: 4x1GB Corsair Dominator XMS2-8500 1066Mhz
Videocard: Nvidia GeForce 9800GX2 1GB
Motherboard: Asus Rampage Formula X48
Power Supply: BeQuiet Straight-serie 600W Quad-rail
HDD: 3.5TB
Case: Antec P180B
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Audigy
Headphones: Sennheiser HD 595
Monitor: Samsung F86LE46BDX FullHD 46¨ LCD television
Raceframe: Playseats Evolution Solberg Edition White
Wheel: ECCI Trackstar 6006 F1 with HDUSB & FLDS cooling
Pedals: ECCI Trackstar 6000 GTS with Progressive Brake Kit
Keyboard: Logitech Media Elite (rev 1)
Mouse: Logitech G3
Cooling: Custom build dual loop watercooling, loop 1: CPU+NB, loop 2: GPU
Pics
Early xmas 07 version
Upgraded summer 08 version
Rest of the pc pics
Ram: 4x1GB Corsair Dominator XMS2-8500 1066Mhz
Videocard: Nvidia GeForce 9800GX2 1GB
Motherboard: Asus Rampage Formula X48
Power Supply: BeQuiet Straight-serie 600W Quad-rail
HDD: 3.5TB
Case: Antec P180B
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Audigy
Headphones: Sennheiser HD 595
Monitor: Samsung F86LE46BDX FullHD 46¨ LCD television
Raceframe: Playseats Evolution Solberg Edition White
Wheel: ECCI Trackstar 6006 F1 with HDUSB & FLDS cooling
Pedals: ECCI Trackstar 6000 GTS with Progressive Brake Kit
Keyboard: Logitech Media Elite (rev 1)
Mouse: Logitech G3
Cooling: Custom build dual loop watercooling, loop 1: CPU+NB, loop 2: GPU
Pics
Early xmas 07 version
Upgraded summer 08 version
Rest of the pc pics
Little bump to this thread..
Setup got quite a big upgrade in past 6 months..
PC specs now:
CPU: Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @3.6GhZ 24/7 (benched at 4.18GhZ)
Mobo: Asus Rambage Formula X48
RAM: 4GB Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
GFX: Nvidia GeForce 9800GX2
Cooling: custom build dual loop watercooling
Pics there
Also the wheel and pedals got updated to ECCI Trackstar 6006 F1 system.
Pics there
I would like to know, how many other ECCI drivers out there is?
And has anyone bought Frex's SimWheel yet?
Setup got quite a big upgrade in past 6 months..
PC specs now:
CPU: Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @3.6GhZ 24/7 (benched at 4.18GhZ)
Mobo: Asus Rambage Formula X48
RAM: 4GB Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
GFX: Nvidia GeForce 9800GX2
Cooling: custom build dual loop watercooling
Pics there
Also the wheel and pedals got updated to ECCI Trackstar 6006 F1 system.
Pics there
I would like to know, how many other ECCI drivers out there is?
And has anyone bought Frex's SimWheel yet?
This is what people always thinking first, what is their maximum fps in game.. While only thing which really matters is actually the absolute lowest fps. Think this, you say you get 200 fps.. That is the max what you get, but in real your fps jumps between 40-200 depending what happens on your screen.
What happens there is your driving environment is changing constantly. The best possible point is when your fps stays always same, no matter do you have 40 cars on your screen nor driving alone.
If your monitor can show 60Hz, 75Hz or 100Hz.. You just don't simply need the higher fps. My screen (LCD television) can't show more than 60Hz and I have vsync enabled + fps limited to 60. And pc has enough raw power to keep it there no matter what happens on screen. That's how, no matter what I do on track, I always have same driving environment.
And yes, it does make difference if your fps jumps between 30-500 vs stable 60 fps
What happens there is your driving environment is changing constantly. The best possible point is when your fps stays always same, no matter do you have 40 cars on your screen nor driving alone.
If your monitor can show 60Hz, 75Hz or 100Hz.. You just don't simply need the higher fps. My screen (LCD television) can't show more than 60Hz and I have vsync enabled + fps limited to 60. And pc has enough raw power to keep it there no matter what happens on screen. That's how, no matter what I do on track, I always have same driving environment.
And yes, it does make difference if your fps jumps between 30-500 vs stable 60 fps
The very first "arrechee fanboy"?
nm, couldn't resist..Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas for editing..
StaxRip or VirtualDub for encoding..
All you will ever need
StaxRip or VirtualDub for encoding..
All you will ever need
Ok, cool, thx
Fair enough
Not bad your lap either, just needs to be much more aggressive on corners :smash3d:
Happened again..
This time two new "unable to load raf"'s from my laps. FE4 RB4 wr and KY2 RB4 wr. Didn't do anything "special", just uploaded laps to LFSW and seems can't load raf's.
XP SP3 + Firefox 3.0.1
This time two new "unable to load raf"'s from my laps. FE4 RB4 wr and KY2 RB4 wr. Didn't do anything "special", just uploaded laps to LFSW and seems can't load raf's.
XP SP3 + Firefox 3.0.1
scipy.. button clutch in LFS means, you have one button for clutch and one button for each gear changing (up/down).. so you need to press two buttons to change gear. It becomes cheat when you use 3rd party app outside of LFS to make script which makes this happen with just one button. I hope you understand it bit better now
Whatever happens only and just inside LFS.. is ok, but if you need 3rd party app to change something and run LFS differently what it's made to run.. It's not something you call "fair" or "normal"
Hmm it sure does look different clutch acting than auto-clutch..
Guess it's time to push FE2 bit further.. and yes, with good old auto-clutch
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG