Benchmark Result Discussion

[keycode]

Yeah, just a tad impatient since it looks like 2.x is still way further than I thought, (take their time ofc). I'm just really bad at delaying gratification. But it seems like I'm running into more physics issues as of late, like colliders triggers not worker after a while for no apparent reason.

maybe some people will consider this a bestiality talk: but my first impression with VAM VR was really great when I was upgrading from an "old" i7-7700 to a banal "modest" i7-10700 (that was my skeptic opinion before the change, just what I was thinking before buyng it after reading "expert" opinions on line about upgrading a cpu) ... In that period I was still using a gtx 1070 with a rift-s. The feeling was incredibly positive considering all those arguments about vam physics "bottlenecked" to single core and that it was a relatively "short" intel generations step improvement. When they will sell ddr5 modules at honest price (and with better latency) My first thought will be about a new Intel. For sure.

 

[Jiraiya]

Yeah, just a tad impatient since it looks like 2.x is still way further than I thought, (take their time ofc). I'm just really bad at delaying gratification. But it seems like I'm running into more physics issues as of late, like colliders triggers not worker after a while for no apparent reason.

I am not referring to VaM2, but new hardware comes out all the time. Yours is fairly decent so waiting a bit more means when you spend your money you get a bigger jump. Feel free to spend money on what you want though, I'm not your mom.

 

[HolySchmidt]

(...) when I was upgrading from an "old" i7-7700 to a banal "modest" i7-10700 (...)

This of course is a big jump: 4C/8T to 8C/16T, and 4,2GHz boost to 4,8GHz, AND probably much better RAM + doubled L-Caches.
So what would you say was your FPS improvement with the same graphics card? Any numbers?
I was having a similar experience with games in general coming from an i5-7600K to an i7-9700K. 4 cores to 8 cores is a big difference these times.

I'm still very interested what the 12xxx series is capable of regarding VaM, still no one? I don't have the money right now but to be honest: a no-go for me. Slightly better single-core + Windows 11 as a must have and problems with a variety of games plus you can't copy some movies (don't know what that was in detail, something about copyright protection) to your own hard-drive even if you own them. No thanks. Get the fuck outta here. Mainboard prices are hilarious as well.

Next AMD processors will be technically more interesting I think.
I also do like the politics of AMD to build one socket which is used by a lot of upcoming CPU generations. This always made me mad about Intel to buy a new mainboard everytime you make a little step forward with their generations.
I was never disappointed with Intel and their performance, but right now I'd stick to AMD. If the price is right.

@Jiraiya
You wanna be my mom?

 

[LFd8456F]

This is mine, no overclocking at all, obtained from a clean install. Question....any idea why the result of 'Simpler Physics' is poorer than Baseline 3? Especially the max1%....

And I too appear to get poorer Baseline 3 from a Bloated install:

 

[MacGruber]

Question....any idea why the result of 'Simpler Physics' is poorer than Baseline 3? Especially the max1%....

Because your framerate is more stable. In Baseline 3 you are sometimes a bit behind, so there are some frames where you got to do 2 physics frames within one graphics frame. The next frame you then don't have to do any physics. That's how you get to 179fps for the max1%, but very low 63fps for min1%. The pull up the average a lot. With "SimplerPhysics" you see that your min1% is MUCH higher. Just to underline, a stable framerate is better.

 

[LFd8456F]

Because your framerate is more stable. In Baseline 3 you are sometimes a bit behind, so there are some frames where you got to do 2 physics frames within one graphics frame. The next frame you then don't have to do any physics. That's how you get to 179fps for the max1%, but very low 63fps for min1%. The pull up the average a lot. With "SimplerPhysics" you see that your min1% is MUCH higher. Just to underline, a stable framerate is better.

Thank you for explaining that makes sense!

 

[djsoapyknuckles]

I was a little surprised, i thought I would at least see in the 120's, but then again, single core speeds are not TR's strong-suite, so maybe that's par for the course. Hoping 2.x can spread the love out to a few more cores, but we'll see. Anyway - great tool, good job!

 

[bk1993]

Okay this is doing my head in I have a Vive Cosmos and made sure Motion Smoothing is turned off in SteamVR yet it looks like my FPS is still capped, anyone have a clue why this is happening?

I've reset my Nvidia 3D settings, reinstalled SteamVR and Vive, I'm out of ideas

 

[MacGruber]

yet it looks like my FPS is still capped, anyone have a clue why this is happening?

You are running at insane resolution. It's kind of the result I would expect for a machine like yours. I got the same CPU, but with a RTX3070. At 4032x2400 I got an average result of 65.11fps. You run at 6912x4092, which means about 3x the number of pixels. On my machine I would expect something around 22-23fps, but with the slightly faster RTX3080 getting 28.68fps seems right?

Note that the "Save Results" button actually makes a screenshot for you and puts it into Saves/PluginData/Benchmark.

 

[mediamac1]

Gave Benchmark v3 a try. Here my results for desktop under Win11 on an i9-10900K with RTX3090.
1st screenshot with default GPU settings, 2nd one with overclocking (almost no benefits)

1920x1080

2560x1440

3840x2160


and the last one is more of a joke... undervolting to not burn the GDDR6X VRAM and have the benchmark run when still mining some coins (at a shitty hashrate). The only use for a 24GB GPU... if you cannot decide between mining and porn.

 

[mediamac1]

I have a specific question about setup with a Quest 2 via Virtual Desktop. With reasonably strong hardware, do you have SSW turned on (in VD) and what renderscale are you using in VAM and in SteamVR? I get around 50 FPS in Benchmark at a refresh rate of 90Hz.

 

[bk1993]

You are running at insane resolution. It's kind of the result I would expect for a machine like yours. I got the same CPU, but with a RTX3070. At 4032x2400 I got an average result of 65.11fps. You run at 6912x4092, which means about 3x the number of pixels. On my machine I would expect something around 22-23fps, but with the slightly faster RTX3080 getting 28.68fps seems right?

Note that the "Save Results" button actually makes a screenshot for you and puts it into Saves/PluginData/Benchmark.

Okay so I should limit the resolution through SteamVR? What resolution should it be limited to?

Thanks for the response

 

[MacGruber]

Okay so I should limit the resolution through SteamVR? What resolution should it be limited to?

You got a resolution scale enabled somewhere, either Steam or VaM, you got to disable that.

 

[DinaVam]

Hey, so looking at my benchmark, what do you guys think should be my first upgrade ? I'm willing to upgrade my CPU right now, but it has to be AMD and compatible with an AM4 socket (too lazy to change my motherboard right now). I've been looking at the Ryzen 7 3800X (3.9 GHz) and Ryzen 5 5600X (3.7 GHz). Would these CPU have a significant impact on my performances ? If not, I'm willing to upgrade my whole setup, later tho, prices are too crazy on GPUs these days. I'm aiming for 70-90 fps on most scenes with 2 persons and a couple of lights and assets (think vamx or some of Universens's scenes basically). Which CPU and GPU would you buy ? Is a 3080ti overkill ? Would I need a top of the line CPU ? Any feedback would be appreciated !

Also, the VaM settings shown on the benchmark are not my VaM settings, I'm not crazy enough to play any games with MSAAx8 and the resolution is waaay higher than my index's resolution. Is that normal ?

 

[Jiraiya]

I have the 5600X so you can look at my stats.
Your 2060 is quite a capable GPU so I wouldn't say to upgrade that at the moment. The difference won't be huge in VaM which is CPU heavy.
Just compare the rendertime and physics time to see this.
Your biggest rendertime was 4.41 while the biggest physicstime was 35.87 and in fact your smallest physicstime was 12.13.

So if the smallest physicstime which is cpu based was ten times your largest rendertime which is gpu based, you can easily see where the money should go. The 5-5600X is a good CPU and it's current but I get "ok" performance with mine.
You can see a comparison of the CPUs here

UserBenchmark: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs 7 3800X

But the more cores doesn't really help VaM. I personally would say 5600X if those are your choices.

 

[DinaVam]

Thanks, exactly the kind of info I was looking for ! I had a look at your benchmark and others with NASA computers (lots of these in this thread !) and while the 5600X looks like a nice upgrade, it doesn't meet my expectations for VaM. Looks like I have to aim higher than 5600X then, 5900X maybe. Problem is, the state of VaM's performances is the real problem here. Kinda hard to justify a hardware upgrade when the software is not capable of using it properly. I think the wise move is to wait for prices to drop, or for VaM 2.0, or for my CPU to burn after a long session of VaM followed by an evening of TWW2. Ty for the help, and nice work on Benchmark3 MacGruber (and pretty much all your other stuff) !

 

[MacGruber]

Looks like I have to aim higher than 5600X then, 5900X

5800X was the sweet spot for me.

 

[bk1993]

You got a resolution scale enabled somewhere, either Steam or VaM, you got to disable that.

Oh I didn't realise VAM has a resolution scale, do you know which setting it is?

 

[MacGruber]

Oh I didn't realise VAM has a resolution scale, do you know which setting it is?

There is a slider in VaM's UserPreferences. However, your stat results show a scale of "1", so it may be in Steam or even in your Driver settings. VR headsets running with a little more than their native resolutiuon is normal, but for some reason you run with like 2x....which means 4x work for your GPU.

 

[bk1993]

There is a slider in VaM's UserPreferences. However, your stat results show a scale of "1", so it may be in Steam or even in your Driver settings. VR headsets running with a little more than their native resolutiuon is normal, but for some reason you run with like 2x....which means 4x work for your GPU.

Hmm... I've tried to look for a driver setting that would cause this but couldn't find it, do you have any idea what setting I should be changing? I've tried googling to fix this and keep drawing blanks. I'm seriously considering reinstalling windows at this point

 

[HolySchmidt]

I'm seriously considering reinstalling windows at this point

Relax ... not a problem which can't be fixed. I'll try to help. Until then, DON'T MOVE!

When ingame, go to the SteamVR Menu (whatever button this is on your controller).
There are visual settings for ...
1. steamVR in general and
2. every apllication running via SteamVR
Make sure both settings are set to wether default or change the resolution scale to "1".

In VaM there's a scale settings as well under "settings". Make sure this is set to "1" as well.

If you combine both settings (in SteamVR and in VaM) you could technically get absurd high pixel density via upscaling.
For example (mathematically): 1500x1000 (1.500.000 pixels) at scaling "1" in Steam VR but scaling "2" in VaM is already 3000x2000 (6.000.000 pixels). So that's 4 times more pixels!
Example 2: Scaling "2" in Steam VR would be 3000x2000 (6.000.000 pixels) plus scaling 2 in VaM would be 6000x3000 (18.000.000 pixels), that's 12 times more pixels from your original resolution. Insanity!

 

[keycode]

Relax ... not a problem which can't be fixed. I'll try to help. Until then, DON'T MOVE!

When ingame, go to the SteamVR Menu (whatever button this is on your controller).
There are visual settings for ...
1. steamVR in general and
2. every apllication running via SteamVR
Make sure both settings are set to wether default or change the resolution scale to "1".

In VaM there's a scale settings as well under "settings". Make sure this is set to "1" as well.

If you combine both settings (in SteamVR and in VaM) you could technically get absurd high pixel density via upscaling.
For example (mathematically): 1500x1000 (1.500.000 pixels) at scaling "1" in Steam VR but scaling "2" in VaM is already 3000x2000 (6.000.000 pixels). So that's 4 times more pixels!
Example 2: Scaling "2" in Steam VR would be 3000x2000 (6.000.000 pixels) plus scaling 2 in VaM would be 6000x3000 (18.000.000 pixels), that's 12 times more pixels from your original resolution. Insanity!

using a WMR headset (reverb g2) needs almost some damned fucking three settings for resolution scale ... If I am not wrong, crapware steam VR parameter is expressed in % while Windows (so called) mixed reality settings "simply" boasts essential primary good two (overfucking) settings that give no valuable consequence for my vam session performance (in Windows "settings" we can choose "quality" or a fucking "performance" option). The most nerfy setting IMHO being for sure that steam VR absurd (whole) resolution per eye slider option ... this last having no reverb g2 native automatic resolution detection. My res. scale in-vam preference setting doesn't also give practically any VR performance relevant consequence unless I move the slider to a max value, but that would be insane action with no effective quality change.
ps: forgot the Nvidia con-rolllliing panel ... forcefully left the more "neutral" they could about VR setting options (speaking of those wise nvidia dev guys), probably for not giving us system crashes or minor compatibility issues with so many ugly headsets growing in the blessed VR bazar. One day there will be a better sinergy about VR situation, but with all this incredible standardized situation about graphic cards costing two kidneys, this is really the last among the last of problems. There must be something else behind this ... beyond bitcoins assholes (existing since a lot of time now) or (during) pandemy electronics components production issues ... quite just and only theorical considering the parossistic asian (chinese!) working exploitation standards.

 

[keiseyku]

Used Version 2 benchmark

Laptop: Ryzen 5900HS / 3060 with Oculus Quest 2

About what I expected from a 3060 laptop gpu. I would not dare do more than one or two people per scene. It's really nice to have something to use while away from home.

 

[bk1993]

Relax ... not a problem which can't be fixed. I'll try to help. Until then, DON'T MOVE!

When ingame, go to the SteamVR Menu (whatever button this is on your controller).
There are visual settings for ...
1. steamVR in general and
2. every apllication running via SteamVR
Make sure both settings are set to wether default or change the resolution scale to "1".

In VaM there's a scale settings as well under "settings". Make sure this is set to "1" as well.

If you combine both settings (in SteamVR and in VaM) you could technically get absurd high pixel density via upscaling.
For example (mathematically): 1500x1000 (1.500.000 pixels) at scaling "1" in Steam VR but scaling "2" in VaM is already 3000x2000 (6.000.000 pixels). So that's 4 times more pixels!
Example 2: Scaling "2" in Steam VR would be 3000x2000 (6.000.000 pixels) plus scaling 2 in VaM would be 6000x3000 (18.000.000 pixels), that's 12 times more pixels from your original resolution. Insanity!

Alrighty! In VAM the scale is set to 1. I couldn't figure out what button to press on my controller (Vive Cosmos) to open SteamVR settings - I'm assuming you mean the settings that can be opened via the little Steamvr window? In that the render resolution is usually set to Auto, I tried changing it to a custom resolution of 100% resolution per eye (2808x3224) yet I still have the same issue.

 

[HolySchmidt]

The 100% resolution per eye for the Vive Cosmos should be 1440 x 1700 pixels (2880 x 1700 pixels combined). Is that what your setting is?