Probably it has not to do with your monitor res. (and you can set it manually at the "official res." or even to 60Hz) ps: I had an half intention to change my poor old 1440p monitor for a 4k ... but considering the "limited" power of my (new!) 3080.. I guess I should resist to the temptation.With my new 4090. I couldn't get it to do the 'official' benchmark, my guess is that is because I'm running at 4k. (I don't have a 1080p monitor anymore.) In any case, here are my results in 4k with my MSI 4090 liquid cooled and my 7900x liquid cooled.
Seems like Ur'e the very first Ryzen user paired with DDR5 + 4090 in this thread.With my new 4090. I couldn't get it to do the 'official' benchmark, my guess is that is because I'm running at 4k. (I don't have a 1080p monitor anymore.) In any case, here are my results in 4k with my MSI 4090 liquid cooled and my 7900x liquid cooled.
Next month, get the 7800X3d. It will be better than 13900k in single core performance, and do not have to worry about core scheduling, since all cores are the same. Or get 7950X3d if you also need more cores for other types of applications; But then you will need to make sure the cpu scheduler uses only the 8 3d cache cores fore your games.My question is, in order to handle soft body physics computation for 3-5 people (with a maximum of 15 people), I'd like to upgrade my i7-8700 CPU to an AMD R9 7950, an AMD Threadripper TR 3960X, or a WRX80 series CPU like the TR PRO 5975 WX be more suitable for my computational needs?
Here are the previous post screenshot.
Next month, get the 7800X3d. It will be better than 13900k in single core performance, and do not have to worry about core scheduling, since all cores are the same. Or get 7950X3d if you also need more cores for other types of applications; But then you will need to make sure the cpu scheduler uses only the 8 3d cache cores fore your games.
I'm planning on getting a 7900x3D once they launch. I currently have the 7900x, but I've got a buddy who wants it, so, gives me the excuseAs i do agree with 'wait to see what AMD would bring', i'm not sure about theirs single core scores tho.
AMD still haven't show ANY single core perfomance graphs for incoming x3d chips.
And last gen x3d were actually worse in that matter than 'base' [non 3d cache] versions.
Sure they're were better with multi-thread and newer games in general, thanks for that bigger cache, but even low-end Intel [for example i3 12300T beats up 5800x3D] crushed them up in single core.
PassMark CPU Benchmarks - Single Thread Performance
Benchmarks of the single thread performance of CPUs. This chart comparing CPUs single thread performance is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily.www.cpubenchmark.net
You have to look up gaming benchmarks. 13-50% faster than non 3d cache chip. You can even see the difference on posted vam benchmarks on here. Synthetic benchmarks do not utilize the 3d cache if at all.As i do agree with 'wait to see what AMD would bring', i'm not sure about theirs single core scores tho.
AMD still haven't show ANY single core perfomance graphs for incoming x3d chips.
And last gen x3d were actually worse in that matter than 'base' [non 3d cache] versions.
Sure they're were better with multi-thread and newer games in general, thanks for that bigger cache, but even low-end Intel [for example i3 12300T beats up 5800x3D] crushed them up in single core.
PassMark CPU Benchmarks - Single Thread Performance
Benchmarks of the single thread performance of CPUs. This chart comparing CPUs single thread performance is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily.www.cpubenchmark.net
Like i said, in overall gaming x3D chips are better than theirs base versions, but we're on VaM benchmark thread. As U can see in most of the results in here, the main bottleneck for most of the people are models physics, and this happens on single core.You have to look up gaming benchmarks. 13-50% faster than non 3d cache chip. You can even see the difference on posted vam benchmarks on here. Synthetic benchmarks do not utilize the 3d cache if at all.
Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs. Ryzen 7 5800X: Zen 3 Gaming Shootout
On the menu today is another 40 game benchmark -- actually 41. This time it's the 5800X3D against its spiritual predecessor, the 5800X, to see where that...www.techspot.com
The gpu doesnt send the render frames to the cpu. The cpu sends the frame to the gpu. So if the CPU is running worse as the bottleneck, then it slows the gpu down. Not the other way around. So if you have a faster cpu render time with this chip, and are cpu bottlenecked, you are still running higher fps than the non vcached version. True your cpu does wait to send the frames to your gpu though, if your gpu is slower. on your 3090, you were gpu bottlenecked on baseline 3. But on you 4090, you were cpu bottlenecked. with a faster 3d vcache cpu, you timings would have been lower, and fps higher. VAM is a game, even if its a single threaded render. So as you said, 3d vcache runs games better. Therefore gettin the 3d vcache cpu is better for VAM. Especially since it is cpu physics heavy. Its very apparent o the vam benchmark table. Its already a well know fact. Its the main reason why those who know, are waiting for 7000x3d. Like me. If AMD Fs it up somehow on this itteration somehow, then thats on them.Like i said, in overall gaming x3D chips are better than theirs base versions, but we're on VaM benchmark thread. As U can see in most of the results in here, the main bottleneck for most of the people are models physics, and this happens on single core.
In terms of VaM 1.x it doesn't matter how good CPU is in multicore [if it has at least 8 cores for other, non physics related stuff], if it sucks in single core = it will be bottlenecking overall experience.
You must also note that to be able to really compare CPU alone in VaM, both systems must run the same GPU. Physics are calculated by frame, so if GPU render them slower, CPU will go worse too.
Example:
same cpu, using 3090, then 4090. No other changes in the system. Got almost half physics time reduce - which suppoused to be 'only cpu bound'.Benchmark Result Discussion
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. There is...hub.virtamate.com
So if U're comparing x3d chips, with 4080\90 systems, with non x3d with like 2080, then ofc they will go better.
PS, this is not a synthetic test. It runs actual scenes U would play in the game by yourself. Ofc, there are scenarios which pushes CPU, or GPU more, but as for my experience it provides really equal data to what I can see in reality
Cool. You gonna post the benchmark results for both to compare once you get it?I'm planning on getting a 7900x3D once they launch. I currently have the 7900x, but I've got a buddy who wants it, so, gives me the excuse
PS: If you recently bought the 13900k and are feeling a little fomo about the new x3d. Its ok, just enjoy it. Plus im glad that synthetic test is your go to, but doesnt mean its right for everyone elses cpu. Especially if you havnt used an x3d chip.
Will do!Cool. You gonna post the benchmark results for both to compare once you get it?
Doubled the FPS with my i7-13700k, RTX4080I can't run official benchmark or set physic cap to 20 even I clicked apply user preferences, I only tried to run it on physic cap 3
Here is my result (1080p,R5 5600x, RTX 3070)
Benchmark works fine on 1.20I just created a clean 1.20.77.9 (I was under the impression that 1.20.77.13 wasn't going to work) but still couldn't do official. I did end up doing the custom though.
Benchmark works fine on 1.20
If this was on clean install, maybe you "rushed" it? I can get same popup error if i try runing benchmark for the first time (after downloading it).
Usually after downloading everything I load intro screne,
always allow all plugins and restart vam (or hard reset).
Than apply settings and run official benchmark, no errors (on 1.20).
EDIT: I just noticed first post on this page (with official results) confirming it works fine on 1.20.77.13
i7 13700k and a fitting for your case noctua cooler or equivalent, vam will after smile to you.I'm considering to upgrade my CPU and therefore did some benchmarking to see what I can expect from it.
Currently rocking an i7 9700K (with all core boost limit set to 4,9GHz), 3080TI (FE, stock), and 32GB DDR4 at 3300MHz 15-17-35.
Official benchmark, Desktop @ 1080p:
View attachment 207850
Official benchmark, Desktop @ 4k:
View attachment 207851
My main use case is VR. I'll have to compare my benchmark results more in depth with others, but I feel like I could gain a couple of dozen percents increase in FPS by upgraing my CPU to e.g. an i5-13600K, 7700X, or maybe the upcoming 7800X3D. Opinions welcome