I'm annoyed :|

I recently purchased a Q9550 (OC @ 3.8GHz) and Nvidia GTX 295.
Before that I had a Q6600 (OC @ 3.2GHz and Nvidia 8800 GTS.

Before the upgrade:
I was able to run 4-5 instances of LFS (very handy when marshalling races) without too much hassle. 5-6 instances would be too much (less than 30fps). Using other apps (browser, mIRC, MSN etc. was somewhat fair/normal).

After the upgrade:
Running just 2 instances "kills" the PC. Frame rate drops by a lot and programs/windows gets drawn slowly and typically takes 2-5 secs to update/draw the app.

Assigning a core to each LFS instance doesn't help at all.

I've tried different GFX board settings, but nothing helps.

Some benchies (best LFS quality + 16xAA and AF using NVidia software) :

2 instances, windowed @ 1280*800
Frames: 2779 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 92.633 - Min: 30 - Max: 212

1 instance, windowed @ 1280*800
Frames: 4752 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 158.400 - Min: 71 - Max: 300

1 instance, fullscreen @ 2560x1600:
Frames: 4651 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 155.033 - Min: 68 - Max: 302

Benchmarked virtually same thing (+/- 0.2 sec).

It's been ages since I was down at 30fps, and although I was aware of poorer performance on older games due to newer architecture on GTX 295, I didn't expect this.

Any ideas/suggestions?

Why WOULD you run instances of LFS?

Quote from only.one.RydeR :

Why WOULD you run instances of LFS?

Reviewing replays to assess blame in incidents during league races.

Quote :

2 instances, windowed @ 1280*800
Frames: 2779 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 92.633 - Min: 30 - Max: 212

1 instance, windowed @ 1280*800
Frames: 4752 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 158.400 - Min: 71 - Max: 300

seems to me it scales nicely

with twice the workload, it renders, at average, more than half the frames...

try setting a maximum fps of 60.

edit:

^^ and not to forgot, to place a fixed cam on certain turns and pit exit, to see if ppl are making poo poo.

Did some tests on Win 7 64 bit - yaya, 32bit soft running on 64 bit, but:

2 instances, windowed
Frames: 3707 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 123.567 - Min: 51 - Max: 237

1 instance, windowed
Frames: 4455 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 148.500 - Min: 54 - Max: 335

1 instance, fullscreen
Frames: 5054 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 168.467 - Min: 55 - Max: 398

1 instance, fullscreen - compatability mode: XP SP3
Frames: 4983 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 166.100 - Min: 54 - Max: 398

Beside OS, driver version is different, and some Nvidia settings are different (but those shouldn't affect fps).

Running 2 times LFS gives my loads of gfx glitches, but I'm not too concerned about that, as Win 7 build 7100 blows.

Other apps ran perfectly well, unlike on XP.

I posted a FurMark result here - did that on XP 32 bit:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1221832#post1221832

Same test on Win 7: 3639 o3Marks
Executed in XP SP3 compatability mode: 3647 o3Marks

No concrete conclusion can be drawn from this, other than XP should be performing better.

can I just ask what monitor you have, with that resolution?

Quote from george_tsiros :

seems to me it scales nicely

with twice the workload, it renders, at average, more than half the frames...

try setting a maximum fps of 60.

Sure, seems logical, but it isn't from the earlier experiences I have. Would help if I had numbers from back then, but fact still is that I was able to use 4-5 without problems, and now I'm having huge pain in the butt just by running 2 instances - only proof of that I have, is that I was telling DWB some months ago about how cool it is to do so.

FPS limit: 58
Frames: 1245 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 41.500 - Min: 24 - Max: 58

FPS limit: 30:
Frames: 892 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 29.733 - Min: 26 - Max: 31
Frames: 895 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 29.833 - Min: 27 - Max: 31

Quote from CasseBent :

can I just ask what monitor you have, with that resolution?

Sure, I'm using a 30 inch HP LP3065


Edit @ george_tsiros: See, you can do it well. Something is way wrong with my system

Quote from r4ptor :

only proof of that I have, is that I was telling DWB some months ago about how cool it is to do so.

I remember you telling me when I was getting ready to help out with adminning the MoE race from SO4 last season too. You were the first person to tell me you could open the temp.mpr file while you were still connected a server if you opened another instance of LFS. I can't remember the exact number you said you were using but it was at least 3.

I just tried with only 2 instances, and I can't get above 30 fps. Granted, it's not a super system, but E8500@3500 mhz. XP SP3, I don't think I've ever been able to open more than one instance without it being slow.

Longshot. Try this:

1. Start LFS ( here it will be in windowed mode ).
2. Shift-F4 to make it fullscreen.
3. CTRL-ALT-DEL.
4. repeat step 1. to 3. as many times as you want to.
5. Shift-F4 to, one by one, get the games back into windowed mode.

Not sure it will help you issue here but this is the only way to even be able to start LFS more then twice with my PC or, without step 2, I´ll be stuck with a black LFS game, using 100% CPU.

The formation lap of yesterdays IGCT race I´m able to with 10-25 FPS with 3xLFS, CPU load, my limiting factor, is just under 100%, P4M 2.2 Ghz, No AA/AF -Res. 2148x1150 - GF6800. XP.

Do you still get bad fps when you run additional LFS at resized windows?

Like in the attached pic?

SD.

EDIT: After re reading the posts I would suspect an issue with the GTX295 Drivers.

I gave this a go and found something interesting: On my 4870X2 in windowed mode, VSync was enforced, but instead of limiting each window to 60fps (60hz), it kept scaling down. 2 windows á 30 fps, 3 windows á 20 fps, 4 windows á 15 fps and so on, so the cumulative framerate could not be higher than 60 fps. I then switched Aero off (I'm on Win7) and ...
(see attachement)
9 instances running 60-ish fps, only problem then was that I ran low on RAM which caused severe slowdowns and even complete stops occasionally when writing to disk

€: img is a bit too wide ;p

Quote from r4ptor :

Edit @ george_tsiros: See, you can do it well. Something is way wrong with my system

Yeah, you said so already that you have an intel cpu and an nvidia card :P

/flame ON XD
(j/k)

Just drop the graphics requirements man. you really need 1280xwhatever?

It's not lfs's fault, it could be a combination of OS/drivers/hardware that manifests itself as a problem under these circumstances

How do you connect 9 times to one server? You have 9 s2 licences?

Quote from JasonJ :

How do you connect 9 times to one server? You have 9 s2 licences?

You don't have to connect to a server to watch a replay.

Thnx

</doofus>

Thanks for all the replies

Quote from amp88 :

I remember you telling me when I was getting ready to help out with adminning the MoE race from SO4 last season too. You were the first person to tell me you could open the temp.mpr file while you were still connected a server if you opened another instance of LFS. I can't remember the exact number you said you were using but it was at least 3.

Oh wow, really been that long? Time has been flying

Quote from CasseBent :

I just tried with only 2 instances, and I can't get above 30 fps. Granted, it's not a super system, but E8500@3500 mhz. XP SP3, I don't think I've ever been able to open more than one instance without it being slow.

3500 is faster freq pr. core than my previous CPU, so you should be doing better - you wouldn't be able to run as many as on a quad, but 2 really should be nothing for it IMO.

Quote from R.Kolz :

Longshot. Try this:

1. Start LFS ( here it will be in windowed mode ).
2. Shift-F4 to make it fullscreen.
3. CTRL-ALT-DEL.
4. repeat step 1. to 3. as many times as you want to.
5. Shift-F4 to, one by one, get the games back into windowed mode.

Not sure it will help you issue here but this is the only way to even be able to start LFS more then twice with my PC or, without step 2, I´ll be stuck with a black LFS game, using 100% CPU.

The formation lap of yesterdays IGCT race I´m able to with 10-25 FPS with 3xLFS, CPU load, my limiting factor, is just under 100%, P4M 2.2 Ghz, No AA/AF -Res. 2148x1150 - GF6800. XP.

I can't do that. ctrl+alt+del bring up the Windows Security popup, from where you can log off, restart, start task manager etc.

And if I change to desktop (win+d), LFS just minimizes and whenever I click on it, it goes back to fullscreen.

I believe that is the normal behavior, and running it in windowed mode is no problem for me (it was a single or two Windows installations ago, but still not much).

CPU:

See the attached cpu_idle.gif - the graph shows my computer idling for 30 secs. During this time, CPU load ranged between 0 and 0.77%. The 1.15% occurred just when I hit Print Screen button - could be a coincidence. Maybe not. But it's low enough to not really matter. The idling was also performed while all my normal apps were running, meaning: I didn't close any app or service to increase performance. Same is true for all the benchmarking I've done so far.

cpu_4_instances.jpg - this one shows CPU load during the benchmark run with 4 LFS instances running. The load isn't alarmingly high.

Quote from SparkyDave :

Do you still get bad fps when you run additional LFS at resized windows?

Like in the attached pic?

SD.

EDIT: After re reading the posts I would suspect an issue with the GTX295 Drivers.

Running in 640 res windowed mode gives me slightly better performance, but I'd say it's marginal:

2 instances, windowed:
Frames: 2072 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 69.067 - Min: 32 - Max: 137
Frames: 2169 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 72.300 - Min: 32 - Max: 144

I don't know why the second run peaked - my CPU isn't throttling.

4 instances, windowed:
Frames: 814 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 27.133 - Min: 11 - Max: 69
Frames: 847 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 28.233 - Min: 10 - Max: 70

Quote from morpha :

I gave this a go and found something interesting: On my 4870X2 in windowed mode, VSync was enforced, but instead of limiting each window to 60fps (60hz), it kept scaling down. 2 windows á 30 fps, 3 windows á 20 fps, 4 windows á 15 fps and so on, so the cumulative framerate could not be higher than 60 fps. I then switched Aero off (I'm on Win7) and ...
(see attachement)
9 instances running 60-ish fps, only problem then was that I ran low on RAM which caused severe slowdowns and even complete stops occasionally when writing to disk

€: img is a bit too wide ;p

I've noticed something odd with LFS Vsync as well, but haven't looked too much into it, so it could be me really. LFS AA isn't as good as Nvidia AA, and I therefore only use AA and Vsync from Nvidia soft.

Quote from george_tsiros :

Yeah, you said so already that you have an intel cpu and an nvidia card :P

/flame ON XD
(j/k)

Give me your address please, so I can send you a "gift"

Quote from george_tsiros :

Just drop the graphics requirements man. you really need 1280xwhatever?

It's not lfs's fault, it could be a combination of OS/drivers/hardware that manifests itself as a problem under these circumstances

Nah, I don't really need 1280 res, but that was for test purposes. Also, most above-average gfx boards are usually completely oblivious to resolutions that "low". LFS prefers CPU over GPU, so it should matter even less - anyways, my test with 640 res above shows there's not much to gain with lower resolution.


I'm also beginning to suspect my gfx driver to be the cause, even though it doesn't make much sense - I'll try with different driver(s) later. Can't afford doing that kind of experimentation atm.

Quote from JasonJ :

How do you connect 9 times to one server? You have 9 s2 licences?

As zeugnimod said: you don't need multiple licenses to watch a replay - and the really cool thing about that is that LFS saves a temp replay which it then later deletes or saves depending on what you want LFS to do. This temp replay can be watched without ever having to leave the server (but you need to view it from a different LFS instance). In the end you get one full race replay because you didn't have to leave the server, you don't annoy drivers by constantly leaving and joining and it's just overall faster and better to do it like this - or so it should be.

The lack of FPS is the least of my problems - not that is't not any problem at all. the bigger problem is the halt/crawl state my computer enters.

I currently think it's an nvidia driver "issue", I recall illegal saying he can open another instance without problems. I shall summon him at once.

295 is the two-cards-sandwiched-together, right?

not the best behaving card on the market, let's face it.

CasseBent: Yeh, I'll have to see when I have more time to do installs etc.

george_tsiros: yeah, it is - and it is indeed a troublemaker according to interweb people - but I've also read that most/biggest issues occur if you have an i7 CPU as well.

Sometimes so annoying that I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. I mentioned a different problem in this post.

I then went on to do a recording to show what I meant, and guess what... the choppyness disappeared completely while I was recording. It was now so smooooooth that I was like "holy vitamin pills, Batman! :jawdrop:".

I did some benchmarking on XP x64.

2 instances, windowed @ 1280*800:
Frames: 2488 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 82.933 - Min: 26 - Max: 185

1 instance, windowed @ 1280*800:
Frames: 4201 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 140.033 - Min: 58 - Max: 273

1 instance, fullscreen @ 2560x1600:
Frames: 4432 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 147.733 - Min: 61 - Max: 308

Tests are somewhat similar regarding Nvidia settings - LFS settings were the same.

Not too bad as the results are pretty close to each other across OS'. Again.. 32 bit vs. 64, meaning I'm not expecting 100% match.

I also did some Unofficial LFS benchmarks, and my ranking seems to be OK, however I do see some lower speced systems ranked above mine (CasseBent.. what are you doing up there? or how, really)

Overall LFS performance never really bothered me. It's this multiple instances thingy, so I tried to do a bit more controlled tests:

An attemt at compareable benchmarking
XP 32 bit, default Nvidia settings. LFS settings set to max, incl. AA and AF

2 instances, windowed @ 640x480
Frames: 2310 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 77.000 - Min: 34 - Max: 154

1 instance, windowed @ 640x480
Frames: 4524 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 150.800 - Min: 70 - Max: 298

1 instance, fullscreen @ 640x480:
Frames: 4588 - Time: 30000ms - Avg: 152.933 - Min: 74 - Max: 296

I didn't get to do the tests under similar circumstances on XP 64. I unlocked on XP 64, then unlocked same LFS on XP 32, and apparently that ruined my unlock on XP 64.. meh. Doesn't matter too much - the reason i did this was because I would like some of you to give it a try with similar settings - that way it's much much more comparable:

1. reset gfx board settings to default.
2. use the attached LFS config file (remember to rename/backup your own first!)
3. Configure Fraps to do a 30 sec benchmark (you can get Fraps here).
4. run 2 instances of LFS and place them side by side - don't alter any setting/option.
5. use the attached replay.
6. change to the very last car (shift+tab once). Don't change cam angle.
7. let the replay run once on each instance. I don't know if it helps to avoid hick ups, but won't hurt.
8. rewind to the beginning on both instances, and then start them immediately after each other.
9. start the benchmarking when the lights goes green - don't do anything the next 30 secs.

Fraps will stop after 30 seconds - you can check the result in the FRAPSLOG.TXT file, which is located in your Fraps folder.

10. while both LFS instances are still running (but after the benchmarking is done) - try using other apps such as a browser, to see if there are any slowdowns.
11. make sure all LFS instances are closed before you restore your original config file!
12. post your results/findings here, including your basic computer specs such as CPU, frequency, gfx board and OS.

Would be interesting to see the results, but I'm suspecting that my LFS in multi mode are running fine. The replay is much heavier than what I normally see/am used to so I'm probably very biased.

Video guide of how to perform the test.

Few notes about the video:
The video was recorded at 30 FPS, but is lagging. Fraps can do a much better job even at 2560 res, but Fraps can't record non-OpenGL/DirectX stuff.

At the end of the video/benchmark procedure, you see me using 2 apps. Although it may seem that the lagging is a result of the recording, the lag is very much like how it really is.

I then closed one instance and "used" the apps again. This time its much faster - you still see a bit update lag, but this is entirely caused by the recording software. The lag/delay is virtually none under normal circumstances.

There are no slowdown on XP 64. Here I can run 12 instances of LFS, all placed side by side, and although there is a bit of slowdown when running that many, it's still far from what I'm experiencing on XP 32 with just 2 - on XP 32 it can even be worse than what you see in the vid.

Ps. it's fine if you only do the benchmark using 2 instances - thats the one that really matters anyways.

Quote from r4ptor :

...
I also did some Unofficial LFS benchmarks, and my ranking seems to be OK, however I do see some lower speced systems ranked above mine (CasseBent.. what are you doing up there? or how, really)
....

I myself and a few others wondered the same thing and I still don't know. I've nto cheated and I've repeated the benchmark several times, on a completely clean lfs, to make sure. Still end up in that place. I don't have a clue really, but my harddrive is, incidentally, a WD raptor, that's all I can imagine would make a difference, since the rest of my stuff is mediocre.

Must be a combination of the hardware and software playing together in über sync

Must be Just not when multiple LFS's are running.

No one's up for some tests?