• Hello Guest!

    We have recently updated our Site Policies regarding the use of Non Commercial content within Paid Content posts. Please read the new policy here.

    An offical announcement about this new policy can be read on our Discord.

    ~The VaMHub Moderation Team
  • Hello Guest!

    We posted an announcment regarding upcoming changes to Paid Content submissions.

    Please see this thread for more information.

Benchmark Result Discussion

MacGruber

Invaluable member
Developer
Featured Contributor
Messages
1,534
Reactions
3,004
Points
143
This thread is intended to share and discuss result from the MacGruber Benchmark plugin.

As a side project, I was looking at PC components for upgrading my old machine. That made me browse through various forum threads on the Hub discussing FPS in VaM. Everyone is posting random FPS values, but barely anybody shares which exact settings and scene was used. But those differences can make huge difference, if they are not identical comparing performance is really pointless. Being half a meter further back or using a different FoV may give you 10 more FPS. Especially resolution makes a big difference. It would be really helpful when deciding whether you want to spend some extra 100€ on that faster RAM module, different CPU, etc. Does it make sense to sink money in an RTX3080....or is an 3070 enough?

So, to help solve this problem, I'm presenting you the MacGruber Benchmark! Its a series of scripted scenes that measure performance of different aspects in VaM. In the end you are a presented with a nice result screen which shows you an overall average FPS value for quick comparison, detailed results and time measurements for each individual scene, the VaM settings that were used and of course some basic system stats like CPU, graphics card, VR headset used, etc. It does not know about things like overclocking or undervolting, so you should mention it in your post here.

The plugin does also ensure that unknowing users can't accidentally produce invalid results. There are various integrity checks, like checking all dependencies are present, all plugins were allowed to run, the scenes weren't modified, etc. In VR the plugin does also lock your head movement to make sure everyone sees exactly the same.
 
My system is using DDR4-3200 CL14 memory, which should in theory be roughly 16/14 = 14% faster than the usual cheaper CL16 memory. Also the CPU is undervolted which gave me about 10°C less with some 1-2% more performance in 3DMark. The graphics card is an MSI GeForce RTX 3070 GAMING Z, so slightly overclocked like most third-party cards. It's noteworthy that apparently resolution scale in VR does not make a difference on my machine. The mirror scene seems to lock to 45fps in VR, probably because Oculus forces VSync, so that sub-result may not be useful.
Benchmark-20211020-172117.png

Benchmark-20211020-171038.png
Benchmark-20211020-162031.png
 
Last edited:
I just realized one thing while reading your screenshots. Should we also include the data of (average) percentage usage of CPU and GPU? For example, is your 7.9 GB of VRAM fully used when running VaM? I feel like that would make a big difference... (The following screenshot is taken from task manager of WIN 10.)
Screenshot 2021-10-20 170946.png
 
Last edited:
Great work MacGruber
Im running an overclocked CPU i7-9700k @5Ghz default graphics card settigns 3080 ROG Strix

Updated with Desktop mode benchmark
 

Attachments

  • Benchmark-20211020-211936.png
    Benchmark-20211020-211936.png
    707.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Benchmark-20211021-065614.png
    Benchmark-20211021-065614.png
    707.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
For example, is your 7.9 GB of VRAM fully used when running VaM?
No, that's just the amount of memory the card has. Unity engine reports it as 7.9 for some reason instead of 8GB.

CPU/GPU utilization may be helpful, but its not easy to measure as its not a single value...it may change during the benchmark. Also note that having other applications open may affect the results. This scene should not use that much memory, its just a single character. My GPU shows as 99-100% utilized though when running this benchmark while using a bit more than half the memory.
 
NICE! I was literally just wondering if you were still working on this. I will test my system asap. It will be good for people to do tests when they upgrade. If you replace just one component, a before and after test will show the performance boost and give valuable information.
Oh, I meant to ask. This changes settings to make sure they match.
Does it record the previous settings and put things back when done?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for taking the time to develop this tool. Here are my results:

Valve Index
Benchmark-20211020-225607.png
Desktop (for some reason on Desktop version all my scenes load MacGruber Breathing, Audio Attenuation, Diver Breathing, and one more plugin, I think MacGruber Life; I had the feeling I heard the diver breathing at some point during this benchmark, don't think it has a major impact, but wanted to point that out since it might've skewed the conditions)
Benchmark-20211020-231234.png
 
OK, so my system performs pretty poorly compared to others!
I should be getting more/faster ram soon but that's all I can upgrade at this point.
Benchmark-20211020-234030.png
 
Awesome utility! Ran desktop only first then ran VR on Quest 2 over wireless with USBC cable plugged in for power straight from wall. Then did Desktop again at 4k
Benchmark-20211021-021508.png
Benchmark-20211021-014422.png
Benchmark-20211021-033112.png
 
Last edited:
Sorry, don't wanna turn this into a "problems" thread but I can't make it work. I always get the error message saying this and that when trying to run the official benchmark. I downloaded it from here, put it in my addonpackages folder, reloaded the missing stuff from the hub. Version 1.20.77.9. No modificatios at all. Don't know what the problem is.

//EDIT
Found out what the problem was: "apply official settings" ... :rolleyes:

You should mention in the instructions ;)

These are my specs:
i7-9700K stock
ASUS TUF RTX3080 stock
4x8GB GSkill Ripjaws V 3200Mhz CL16 stock
NVMe SSD (if that matters)
VALVE Index

Here are my results:

DESKTOP
desktop.png


VR
VR.png


Thanks for your work @MacGruber !
 
Last edited:
Nice work! I was looking forward to you releasing this. Best looking benchmark I have experienced:)

No CPU OC. Just a note for anyone running fan or OC programs such as Precision X1 to make sure you don't have the Framerate Limit option checked. I was having BSOD crashes with some OC trials and forgot I limited my fps in trying to sort the issue.


Benchmark-20211021-025651.png

Benchmark-20211021-035602.png

Benchmark-20211021-040640.png
 
Last edited:
Oh, I meant to ask. This changes settings to make sure they match.
Does it record the previous settings and put things back when done?
Only the "official" mode changes settings, but yes, it resets them later when done. All settings that differ from my "official" settings will show highlighted as red in the result screen. Some things like Resolution and ResolutionScale will always show as red as they will be different for most.

If you want to experiment based on the official settings, use the Apply button in the main menu.
 
Desktop (for some reason on Desktop version all my scenes load MacGruber Breathing, Audio Attenuation, Diver Breathing, and one more plugin, I think MacGruber Life; I had the feeling I heard the diver breathing at some point during this benchmark, don't think it has a major impact, but wanted to point that out since it might've skewed the conditions)
The Benchmark runs a special deterministic version of my Life plugin. It was specially made for this purpose. Basically it runs a pre-determined list of breath audio instead of deciding randomly. However, both Gaze and Glance plugins run with some random factors, but these do not affect large scale morphs like breathing does. However, since I'm getting reproducable results on my machine I think their impact on noise is negetible. There is a performance impact of course, but the noise averages out over the entire test. I felt it important to include breathing, gaze and glance as most scenes will run some plugin for that.
 
Thanks MacGruber, edited my post above, works fine. Seems like I need a new CPU looking at iLikeSoups results. Finally! We can compare :D(y)

//EDIT
Maybe not, 3080ti is like 13% faster than 3080, would be 65fps instead of 58 for me. Difference to iLikeSoups result from 72fps is 7fps ... that should be the 11900K. Not worth it. 9700K is still a beast! :)
 
Last edited:
@PBFake Interesting that cloth-sim is so much slower than on my machine, despite the RTX3080. Could you run in Desktop mode 1080p to see if MotionSmoothing/Vsync is interfering in VR?
I have updated my original post with desktop mode results. they look better I think? (I have a super ultra wide monitor so that may also change the results?
 
I was running this on a i5-2500 with a 980ti before I upgraded. I thought the Ryzen5-5600X and 3060 would be "high end" for VaM. Looking at your results I can see it's entry level now! I wish I'd had this benchmark to compare with my old PC results :)
There seems to be a HUGE difference in FPS for VR and Desktop modes but looking at iLikeSoup's results it's mostly related to the stupid high resolution for VR as his high res Desktop results are only a smaller amount faster. This bodes well for plugins like the AMD FidelityFX, especially if the VirtualDesktop guy gets it integrated into the Quest2 headset so it runs entirely off PC, it basically becomes a dual GPU setup which should boost VaM a lot.
 
Like discussed in the past in several threads: VaM 1.x does not profit from GPU performance only, CPU single core performance is probably equally important. It depends on how much physics calculation is needed at the very moment. If you have low physics-action you'll get more FPS with a good GPU. If you have a lot of physics-action (and that's in most cases in VaM, I guess ... :sneaky:) than you'll need a very high single core frequenzy.

That is the one point I have to critize about this benchmark: there's not enough physics-action going on. Some hair fluttering around or one dress moving a bit from left to right is not what is the typical use-case is. If there's action, then there's action. I mean a lot of body movement combined with hair plus (!) colliding objects AND clothing. So, if I may suggest an optimization to this benchmark: add a scene where 2 people collide with each other (don't have to be having sex) again and again for one minute, one with simulated clothes and hair and one without. That would be my benchmark. Of course what we have now is good for comparison, but bad for a real "stresstest".
 
That is the one point I have to critize about this benchmark: there's not enough physics-action going on. Some hair fluttering around or one dress moving a bit from left to right is not what is the typical use-case is. If there's action, then there's action. I mean a lot of body movement combined with hair plus (!) colliding objects AND clothing. So, if I may suggest an optimization to this benchmark: add a scene where 2 people collide with each other (don't have to be having sex) again and again for one minute, one with simulated clothes and hair and one without. That would be my benchmark. Of course what we have now is good for comparison, but bad for a real "stresstest".
Due to the fullbody mocap there is a lot of physics going on, but I agree a 2-3 character scene is needed. However, I worked on this benchmark for 3 months and wanted to get it out there eventually....so I took some shortcuts ;) There will probably be an update at some point in the next weeks introducing more scenes. Note that the point is not a stress test, though, its providing a point of comparison. Main difficulty is finding a suitable (!) scene I can use or convert. I may end up using a variation of my Life/Cybernight-Demo. However, even that simple scene requires extensive work to make it suitable to produce stable results every time you run it.
 
Where my budget bros at?
Benchmark-20211021-105212.png

Benchmark-20211021-111212.png


Here is a result with more reasonable settings:
Benchmark-20211021-112517.png
I am comfortably having threesomes with softbody physics enabled, as long as I keep the lighting and asset load low and use ASW.
 
MacGruber,

My results.

Question/suggestion: are you considering adding the capability to output results in JSON or XML format?

Best regards and thank you for your community contributions.

1634818813918.png
 
Here is a result with more reasonable settings:
(...)
I am comfortably having threesomes with softbody physics enabled, as long as I keep the lighting and asset load low and use ASW.
Note that at these settings physics/animation will run in slow motion and desync from real time. A scene that depends on real time, like anything with voice-over audio might break.
 
Back
Top Bottom