Last edited:
-
Hi Guest!
Please be aware that we have released another critical security patch for VaM. We strongly recommend updating to version 1.22.0.12 using the VaM_Updater found in your installation folder.
Details about the security patch can be found here.
Benchmark Result Discussion
- Thread starter MacGruber
- Start date
- Messages
- 4
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
Looks like the 3080 is tapped out.
- Messages
- 1
- Reactions
- Points
- 1
Can confirm, 3080 is tapped out with the 9800X3D
Okay thanks for that. Confirms my setup is likely mostly correct at least.
- Messages
- 7
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
The 5090 upgrade from 4090 looks impressive but what about for example in an actual VR scene, with all the plugins, 2 person atoms or more, sim clothing, etc.
I was at max graphic settings except MSAA was off because my resolution was so high it wasnt noticable when on but was really bad for performance. Overclocked 4090, overclocked CPU (7800x3D), 64gb RAM 6000MT/s, cpu patch, bios settings changes, trimmed 4500 plugins down to 1500. Max settings everything but auto physics cap rate and msaa off including meta quest 2 120hz refresh rate, 1.7x res (max), i was getting about 50FPS from an inch away from an atom person's face in embody.
I feel like the upgrade in this actual use case scenario vs the benchmark results would be more like a 10%-15% increase as opposed to the results insinuating much more. Can you confirm its that much better outside of the benchmark results?
I was at max graphic settings except MSAA was off because my resolution was so high it wasnt noticable when on but was really bad for performance. Overclocked 4090, overclocked CPU (7800x3D), 64gb RAM 6000MT/s, cpu patch, bios settings changes, trimmed 4500 plugins down to 1500. Max settings everything but auto physics cap rate and msaa off including meta quest 2 120hz refresh rate, 1.7x res (max), i was getting about 50FPS from an inch away from an atom person's face in embody.
I feel like the upgrade in this actual use case scenario vs the benchmark results would be more like a 10%-15% increase as opposed to the results insinuating much more. Can you confirm its that much better outside of the benchmark results?
Higher resolution in VR nets even More gains on the 5090, not less. It scales much better on higher res than 4090. This is seen in flat and VR
- Messages
- 148
- Reactions
- Points
- 93
Even with so much info, it doesn't really say anything.
I mean, i have 285k with 4090, and i can easily get a sex scene at 80ish fps in VR with passenger with the female hairs sticking to my face. With MSAA x8.
And yet, i can get 20ish in the same scenario, but with fancy env, many clothing and hairs items, randomizers plugins etc.
Not even counting full vs vanilla install here, since we want to test\compare hardware here, not how good someone manage theirs VaM folder.
That's the purpose of this benchmark.
Please don't ask for 'real life' VR results, since there is a way too many factors, than 'MAXxx' settings.
VaM 1.0 settings, except render scale in VaM itself, doesn't scale almost at all with 4090.
Seraphin posted 4K results. These should give you a good idea how 5090 would scale comparing to 4090 in VR since most of HMDs are still close to it.
Also. Damn. Seems like it's similiar in VaM as it was with 3090-4090. ~ 15% better on paper, almost double performance in VaM oO
- Messages
- 7
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
So you're really getting double performance from 5090 vs 4090 in VR with everything set up? What will be the difference then when we have VaM 2 and DLSS is possible, in terms of 4090 vs 5090 i wonder.
- Messages
- 709
- Reactions
- Points
- 63
@Seraphim
Thanks, these are some massive gains! Yeah this must have something to do with VRam bandwidth which is ~80% higher.
Would be nice to have a VR comparison in a real scene: 4090 vs. 5090. But like trety said and like I said multiple times in the past: too many variables. VaM is difficult to benchmark.
But I think this will give you some really nice uplift with environment-scenes which tend to slow down your averages pretty fast. 32GB should help as well.
Thanks, these are some massive gains! Yeah this must have something to do with VRam bandwidth which is ~80% higher.
Would be nice to have a VR comparison in a real scene: 4090 vs. 5090. But like trety said and like I said multiple times in the past: too many variables. VaM is difficult to benchmark.
But I think this will give you some really nice uplift with environment-scenes which tend to slow down your averages pretty fast. 32GB should help as well.
Last edited:
I am on laptop 12700H and 3070Ti mobile and want to invest. Results of benchmark are bad and CPU patch make no difference.
Games and production use I think 9950X in 3D version when it is released and RTX5080 because the 5090 is too expensive. In VAM is there a big difference between 4080/4090 or 5080/5090 in order to know if it is worth waiting 1 year and aiming for the 5090. I only play in VR and an empty addonpackage using VarBrowser
Games and production use I think 9950X in 3D version when it is released and RTX5080 because the 5090 is too expensive. In VAM is there a big difference between 4080/4090 or 5080/5090 in order to know if it is worth waiting 1 year and aiming for the 5090. I only play in VR and an empty addonpackage using VarBrowser
I managed to snag a 5090 also and without any overclock the numbers match up. Somehow my game gets stuck after benchmark is done saying paused loading atoms or something. But avg FPS is pretty impressive for sure.
- Messages
- 148
- Reactions
- Points
- 93
Yeah, 3090 was already holding down my 12-, later 13900k, builds.
And both of them are actually weaker for VaM comparing with properly configured 7800x3D.
So yeah, yours 9800x3D can go to watch some tv show meanwhile it waits for a frame from GPU.
- Messages
- 66
- Reactions
- Points
- 8
Uhh, did not see this coming based in reviews. I am wondering now if the 5080 and below will have also some arch advantage. Or it is just the 5090 that finally could show somewhere its claws.
On the other hand I am wondering how did the 5090 score higher min1% fps while having also higher max1% totaltime?! Should not thoose 2 correlate?
A longer max1% totaltime should mean lower min1% fps, right?
Initially I checked only baseline3, but it seems to be the case with almost every other scene.
Last edited:
Guys, so is it safe to conclude that 9800x3D outperform 13900k/14900k substantially if GPU isn't tapped out？
- Messages
- 8
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
I currently have a Ryzen 5600x RTX3070 32gb RAM 3200mhz and plan to upgrade to 5700x3d RTX3090 (used) and 64gb RAM. Do you guys think I will get some decent FPS increase? I dont want to buy a whole new PC for now. Maybe in a few years. Or I might get a 4090 if their price drops or I find a good deal on a used one.
- Messages
- 24
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
Desktop and VR Benchmarks on a fresh install and no performance patch, no overclocking. 5080 GPU, 7 9800X3D CPU. Quest 3 with Virtual Desktop used for VR with SSW disabled. I also disabled Asynchronous Spacewarp in the oculas app.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Messages
- 66
- Reactions
- Points
- 8
May I ask for a 2k and 4k run?
FHD was already quite cpu limited with 4080. Would be nice to see the scaling upwards.
Thanks for the bench anyway and congrats for the card!
- Messages
- 17
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
your physics results seem way off for a 9800X3D
VR results (minimum 2x4K res.) would be very interesting
- Messages
- 17
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
Got my 5090 2 Days ago, but the numbers are far off compared to the Numbers in the picture from Seraphim.
I have to look into it and when I find the Problem I will post again.
Sys: 9800X3D, Palit 5090, 64GB DDR5 6000 CL30
At the moment:
1080P:
280,7 avg, 123,83 min, 309,31 max
1080P with CPU patch:
288,05 avg, 154,54 min, 413,58 max
4k:
184,75 avg, 90,86 min, 309,28 max
4k with CPU patch:
184,33 avg, 98,97 min, 309,28 max
I have to look into it and when I find the Problem I will post again.
Sys: 9800X3D, Palit 5090, 64GB DDR5 6000 CL30
At the moment:
1080P:
280,7 avg, 123,83 min, 309,31 max
1080P with CPU patch:
288,05 avg, 154,54 min, 413,58 max
4k:
184,75 avg, 90,86 min, 309,28 max
4k with CPU patch:
184,33 avg, 98,97 min, 309,28 max
- Messages
- 7
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
VR results please, anyone? Am very interested to know how the benchmark results compare to a VR scene with everything set up, especially 4090 vs 5090. Sorry if this comes off as rude, just seems like a good place to ask despite the obvious. Seems there are a few wondering.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
I'm trying to bench with VR, but it is nailed to 90fps. So I think motionsmoothing is still on. But I disabled it in Steam and OpenXR (Mixed Rality - HP Reverb G2).
edit: here the bench, if the Data is of any worth
edit: here the bench, if the Data is of any worth
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
Have you done VR benchmarks on your previous GPU?
Also, maybe the easiest way to 'simulate' VR would be to use some sort of superscaling to get super high internal resolution.
- Messages
- 7
- Reactions
- Points
- 3
Much appreciated, i am not sure why it would be capped at 90, i have seen ASW cap it at 45 and i was recently told by someone that NVIDIA control panel's "Max FPS" option doesn't affect VR but i havent tried that myself. Thank you for this.
