Benchmark Result Discussion

[geo_gan]

get anything but not the 4080. Its the worst. I have a 4090 now and did use a 3080 with reverb g2. No big difference in VAM cos of cpu bottleneck anyway. So either get a used 30xx or w8 for amds 7900 or get a 4090 if u are insane like the rest here.

No big difference going from 3080 to 4090? That’s not what benchmarks here show. But maybe that’s because they all use the fastest CPUs possible.

Anyway too late for me. Already had ordered 4080 and on its way already. Couldn’t get a 4090 I wanted. No stock. And other reasons (doesn’t fit, not big enough power supply etc). So will see what 4080 does for now. I know my 5950X will be a big bottleneck anyway for now.

I don’t expect to see anywhere near these 13900K/4090 numbers.

 

[keycode]

I guess I should tell to my good old girlfriend that she can also use a 4090 backplate for ironing. Maybe so I get one fantastic handmaid-gpu next christmas.

 

[trety]

get anything but not the 4080. Its the worst.

Not sure about that the worst part. According to most benchmarks it somewhere between 3090ti and 4090. Like exactly between them, 5-15% faster in raw power comparing to 3090ti, and slower by the same than 4090.
Ofc 4080 has less CUDA cores and VRAM than 3090ti, but in terms of VaM, it should perform a bit better

 

[dio]

No big difference going from 3080 to 4090? That’s not what benchmarks here show. But maybe that’s because they all use the fastest CPUs possible.

Anyway too late for me. Already had ordered 4080 and on its way already. Couldn’t get a 4090 I wanted. No stock. And other reasons (doesn’t fit, not big enough power supply etc). So will see what 4080 does for now. I know my 5950X will be a big bottleneck anyway for now.

I don’t expect to see anywhere near these 13900K/4090 numbers.

It depends on the scene. The gpu can make a difference by having allot of point lights on. Allot of hair sim on and so on but these are just badly made scenes, which can be fixed without a new gpu! But u cannot fix having low fps cos of more than one person. The 4080 is bad cos it does not make any sense. Its performance is a bit better than a 3090ti but its far away from a 4090. There price of the 4080 is very close to a 4090... so id do go for the 4090 or the 7900xtx or used 3090/3080 instead of a 4080.

 

[stylesi]

Using OpenXR + vrperfkit:

I used FFR (Fixed foveated rendering) and upscaling (in this case FSR).
I found that it is required to set fixed rendering resolution in you headset settings as well as to set proper renderScale in upscaling config. When renderScale was set to wrong fraction I couldn't run the game. The engine was unable to allocate rendering buffer.

I used Release 3 and unpacked files in the same folder as VaM.exe (should be the same location as VaM_Updater.exe)

It gave me additional fps boost:

• about + 35 FPS on average from baseline
• in most scenes it was more like + 60 FPS from baseline

There is one drawback, with my current upscaling settings most of the text is unreadable. The gameplay is fine though. I'm pretty sure it can be better with proper calibration of renderScale and sharpness.

Hi, could you still explain better how you got vrperfkit working with Q2 in VaM without it crashing? What settings and rez you used in headset? I would appreciate your help, big thanks!

 

[geo_gan]

It depends on the scene. The gpu can make a difference by having allot of point lights on. Allot of hair sim on and so on but these are just badly made scenes, which can be fixed without a new gpu! But u cannot fix having low fps cos of more than one person. The 4080 is bad cos it does not make any sense. Its performance is a bit better than a 3090ti but its far away from a 4090. There price of the 4080 is very close to a 4090... so id do go for the 4090 or the 7900xtx or used 3090/3080 instead of a 4080.

Sure, I would have preferred 4090, but couldn’t do reasons already stated. Anyway I will see how 4080 does compared to my current 3070 when it arrives in a few days - I don’t expect much in terms of frame rates given my CPU. And yes it was crazy price - €1,675. But the Aorus 4090 I did have in basket would have been around €2,500 so when people say they are nearly same price it’s not exactly true - nearly €1000 difference. Of course the highest end 4080 vs the lowest end 4090 may be closer in price, but I wouldn’t trust or live with a lowest end 4090 model. Only asking for trouble with cheapest components.

To be honest if I had option of paying a few hundred more now and upgrading to 4090 before I even get the 4080 I probably would.

 

[keycode]

but (BUT!) is it not enough? custom benchmark with my messed vam install, NO overclock! with my "normal" custom setting, just without my standard setting about max frames (FPS > faps per second) per second, option that besides this benchmark test (for detecting my new hardware max temperature after a last fans reset) I keep at 90fps max, for energy and noise saving motivations.

See you all when the 9090ti comes out (with an optional nuclear fusion generator, just for vam)

 

[geo_gan]

5950X, Gigabyte Aorus 3070, Hero VIII X570, EK AIO Elite 360, Rift S headset (no idea why it always says Rift CV1 on report) no overclocking. Just wanted to get updated version 3 benchmarks to compare to the crazy numbers from the lucky 4090 owners here!

Rift S
View attachment 177575

Desktop
View attachment 177578

Following on from my previous 3070 benchmarks...

Here is results of upgraded machine with Gigabyte 4080 Gaming OC in desktop test.

Seems to be completely CPU limited. In the Baseline 3 physics test the GPU never went over about 44% utilization, and in "Simpler Physics" it only went to about 70%. Nothing more I can do here. I did use MSI Afterburner to increase power limit to 117% but that obviously made no difference when it wasn't anywhere near 100% to begin with. This is how bad and bottlenecked VAM 1.x is with single core physics.

DELETED THIS OBSOLETE BENCHMARK - WAS FROM NON CLEAN INSTALL AND GIVING 50FPS LESS IN PHYSICS TESTS!

p.s. I still have no idea what "Physics Update Cap" means or does... but I just notice the official benchmark sets this to 20 while in game I thought it only has option of 1, 2 or 3.. eh???

 

[trety]

Thanks for 4080 test!
So, it's what i thought it would be. Seems like 4080 is ~10-15% better than 3090 [no Ti] in Vam.
Almost 30fps [average] difference in mirrors test comparing to my run in 1440p

And ~20 [average again] diff for hairs. Damn i'm so tempted rn

 

[geo_gan]

Thanks for 4080 test!
So, it's what i thought it would be. Seems like 4080 is ~10-15% better than 3090 [no Ti] in Vam.
Almost 30fps [average] difference in mirrors test comparing to my run in 1440p

And ~20 [average again] diff for hairs. Damn i'm so tempted rn

It seems you have a 13900K do you? If so, your results would be way faster than what I got with a 4080 there with my 5950X - that Intel CPU appears to be able to really run single core physics much better than my AMD CPU for some reason, looking at other results. As I said the 4080 was only about 70% used in any test there, and only to about 44% in heavy physics test. Stuck "waiting" on CPU to finish physics for every frame.

 

[mostvanvege]

It seems you have a 13900K do you? If so, your results would be way faster than what I got with a 4080 there with my 5950X - that Intel CPU appears to be able to really run single core physics much better than my AMD CPU for some reason, looking at other results. As I said the 4080 was only about 70% used in any test there, and only to about 44% in heavy physics test. Stuck "waiting" on CPU to finish physics for every frame.

I would not suggest to take much conclusion from your run. That cpu is seriously underperforming for some reason. A zen3 should be near 4 ms avr physicstime and under 7 ms 1% low in baseline3. X3D is a bit faster, ADL or RPL can be much faster, but the scores are all over the place.

I have tested my 5600x in a custom - cpu heavy - scene changing thread allocations on the fly with process lasso and it seemed that 3-4 core is optimal. Dont know how exactly AMD handles thread load, but a physics heavy scene is best if you see your cores just
not maxing out. To be honest I am not sure if its the engine that utilizeses only 3-4 optimally, or my cpu is running out of the 5600x ppt limit.
I do get 4,5ms avr and 7ms 1% low for physicstime in baseline3. So its definitly possible with any zen3…

 

[Ged366]

Coming from a R5 3600 to a R7 5800X 3D, same GPU/RAM (6800XT / 3600MHz cl16)

Do you think these results seems coherent?
I'm mitigated

3600X


5800X3D

 

[mostvanvege]

View attachment 170002

May I ask the setup details? P core, ram type and oc settings etc. Is it a ddr4 low latency build with high P core clocks? Temps, tdp can be handled on air? Thanks!

 

[Lytanshade]

Coming from a R5 3600 to a R7 5800X 3D, same GPU/RAM (6800XT / 3600MHz cl16)

Do you think these results seems coherent?
I'm mitigated

The only numbers I really care about in these benchmarks are in Baseline 3, and especially the Physics Time. The overall average min/max is basically meaningless. So you're seeing a big improvement from the CPU upgrade.

 

[Lytanshade]

Following on from my previous 3070 benchmarks...

Here is results of upgraded machine with Gigabyte 4080 Gaming OC in desktop test.

Is your VAM install horribly bloated? You're well below where you should be for CPU performance. Using the 1440p Baseline 3 results tables for comparison:

Hardware Performance comparison tables

The following tables are sorted results from MacGrubers VAM Benchmark collected here. Updated - 22.April.2022 - I try to avoid my opinion or hardware recommendations here - there is already to much 'brand XY is better'-fanboyism on the internet. It should be clear that one can be happy with...

hub.virtamate.com

And comparing to this 1440p 5950x/3090 result:

Benchmark Result Discussion

hub.virtamate.com

I'm seriously considering picking up a 4080 atm... i don't get the rabid hatred for them either. In my local currency I can get a 4080 for $2300, compared to $3500 for the 4090 and $2000 for the 3090ti. The prices are all awful, but the 4080 is priced appropriately compared to other options. Also, I'd have to buy a new PSU to run a 3090ti so making it more expensive than the 4080. And Nvidia's CUDA superiority means AMD cards come with a productivity (especially AI tools) disadvantage that i have to consider. The 4090 is priced too high for me to even consider.

And the 4080 has refreshingly low power usage and runs cool and quiet, it's pretty damn tempting.

I'm very interested in seeing more 4080 results though. Especially in 1080p to compare Baseline 3 results more easily.

 

[BStarG2]

Anyone waiting for that extra 'oomph' of performance I think should just wait for the next 3D Vcache AMD CPUs, like the 7800X3D before doing any upgrades. And the AMD 7900XTX GPU should also bring down the prices for the RTX 4080. I really don't think that right now is the best time to do any upgrade if all it brings is an extra 15 to 20 fps. I'd just use the "Give Me FPS" plugin in the meantime and/or reduce the Render Scale quality in VAM.

VAM is mostly CPU-dependent, and the 3D Vcache AMD CPUs will provide the best results over almost any other upgrades would right now.

 

[XHIRN]

im new here, literally just got my pc built few days ago,
is 13600k bottlenecking rtx 3090?
i feel like my results are lower than most results plus i tried mmd 4 characters and the fps are only 10-18 at most
ssd samsung ssd 980 pro 1tb
ram 32gb (16x2) gskill 6000mhz
motherboard msi torpedo z690

 

[mostvanvege]

im new here, literally just got my pc built few days ago,
is 13600k bottlenecking rtx 3090?
i feel like my results are lower than most results plus i tried mmd 4 characters and the fps are only 10-18 at most
ssd samsung ssd 980 pro 1tb
ram 32gb (16x2) gskill 6000mhz
motherboard msi torpedo z690

Its not bad at all. However if its not a fresh vam install might be misleading. Also Raptor Lake’s true potential is in high clocks, which can be achived only with oc. If its stock, then you still have room for improvement. Also if your ram is 6000mhz by default xmp, then its probably a hynix m or a die, which is also a very rewarding oc chip.

 

[Ged366]

The only numbers I really care about in these benchmarks are in Baseline 3, and especially the Physics Time. The overall average min/max is basically meaningless. So you're seeing a big improvement from the CPU upgrade.

Yes maybe, it's true that all "ms" looks better everywhere, but I'm not used to check at this, more used to rely on FPS with other benchmarks.

Will take a closer look to what all these data are meaning before start to investigate if there something wrong on driver/software side.

 

[geo_gan]

Following on from my previous 3070 benchmarks...

Here is results of upgraded machine with Gigabyte 4080 Gaming OC in desktop test.

Seems to be completely CPU limited. In the Baseline 3 physics test the GPU never went over about 44% utilization, and in "Simpler Physics" it only went to about 70%. Nothing more I can do here. I did use MSI Afterburner to increase power limit to 117% but that obviously made no difference when it wasn't anywhere near 100% to begin with. This is how bad and bottlenecked VAM 1.x is with single core physics.

DELETED THIS OBSOLETE BENCHMARK - WAS FROM NON CLEAN INSTALL AND GIVING 50FPS LESS IN PHYSICS TESTS!

p.s. I still have no idea what "Physics Update Cap" means or does... but I just notice the official benchmark sets this to 20 while in game I thought it only has option of 1, 2 or 3.. eh???

Just did a new clean install of latest VAM 1.2 and re-ran benchmarks and did some optimisations on system. Getting much better physics results now - double my previous results from older big install - no idea what is wrong with old install that slows physics so much. This is stock 4080 and 5950X. No overclocking at all. I did try setting power and heat limits higher in Afterburner but it made no difference.

GPU temp never went over about 55C and in some tests was staying at 50C and fans didn't even bother to spin up until a minute into the tests!

Also getting same results at 1440P and 1080P. Can't run a 4K test as I don't have 4K monitor and doing a virtual upscale is not the same I think.

Specs: 5950X, Gigabyte 4080 Gaming OC, ASUS Hero VIII X570, EK AIO Elite 360, 32GB T-Force Xtreme 8Pack DDR4-4000, Cooler-Master HAF 700 EVO

@Sally Whitemane I appear to be hitting that 309.3 max1% limit you were talking about, I downloaded your unlimitTargetFrameRate.cs script and put in \Custom\Scripts but I have no idea how or where or when to run this script. EDIT: not hitting 309 limit any more I think with new machine settings but getting much higher average.

NOTE: Deleting DDR4-3200 CL14 results for now... they are obsolete as there was a problem with CPU boost lowering scores.

Memory running at DDR4-3800 CL16

 

[geo_gan]

Is your VAM install horribly bloated? You're well below where you should be for CPU performance. Using the 1440p Baseline 3 results tables for comparison:

Hardware Performance comparison tables

The following tables are sorted results from MacGrubers VAM Benchmark collected here. Updated - 22.April.2022 - I try to avoid my opinion or hardware recommendations here - there is already to much 'brand XY is better'-fanboyism on the internet. It should be clear that one can be happy with...

hub.virtamate.com

And comparing to this 1440p 5950x/3090 result:

Benchmark Result Discussion

hub.virtamate.com

I'm seriously considering picking up a 4080 atm... i don't get the rabid hatred for them either. In my local currency I can get a 4080 for $2300, compared to $3500 for the 4090 and $2000 for the 3090ti. The prices are all awful, but the 4080 is priced appropriately compared to other options. Also, I'd have to buy a new PSU to run a 3090ti so making it more expensive than the 4080. And Nvidia's CUDA superiority means AMD cards come with a productivity (especially AI tools) disadvantage that i have to consider. The 4090 is priced too high for me to even consider.

And the 4080 has refreshingly low power usage and runs cool and quiet, it's pretty damn tempting.

I'm very interested in seeing more 4080 results though. Especially in 1080p to compare Baseline 3 results more easily.

Yes it was old install - didn't think it made any difference. New results above. Double Baseline 3 physics. Still not as good as 13900K gets there though - that seems to get 3-4ms. Yes I paid something stupid like €1,726 (inc VAT) for the 4080.

 

[XHIRN]

Its not bad at all. However if its not a fresh vam install might be misleading. Also Raptor Lake’s true potential is in high clocks, which can be achived only with oc. If its stock, then you still have room for improvement. Also if your ram is 6000mhz by default xmp, then its probably a hynix m or a die, which is also a very rewarding oc chip.

im still confuse why do i get like 10-25 fps with 4 character loaded in
ps: its dnaddr characters even loading 1 and play them on mmd(vmd motion) giving me 30-40 fps

oh and the 6000mhz is actually b-die type by g.skill
the price of 4000mhz and 6000mhz is the same in where i am thats why i decided to spend a bit more on motherboard z690

 

[Kosmosx]

It's crazy how some think you can handle this by pushing more Hardware into it that gets fully wrong utilized

@ the time VAM came to existence and now even more so

Bruteforcing wont help

 

[keycode]

It's crazy how some think you can handle this by pushing more Hardware into it that gets fully wrong utilized

@ the time VAM came to existence and now even more so

Bruteforcing wont help

if you have EASY tips or simple tutorial about how to keep that "hardware" at human power values without loosing too much performance, don't be egoist and share please. It is IMHO a lot more important than to read just some faps per second gain. Tips about those damned fucking settings in nvidia control panel (3d custom settings) would be appreciated too.

 

[Kosmosx]

Lets wait for 2.0 and see how much Unity really improved tough lot of wins will also come from Genesis 3/8 lighter UDIM Data structure and the usability win not needing so much overhead anymore exchanging those data structures.